首页
  • k彩平台登陆
  • AZ Parks Proposal
  • Black Lives Matter Has a Pretty Decent Plan. Too Bad they Don't Seem to Know What to Do With It

    There is much to criticize in how the BLM movement operates, but .  I don't agree with all of it, but I seldom agree with all of any plan I see proposed from any side of the aisle.

    k彩平台登陆blog_campaign_zero

    In discussing the plan, Kevin Drum fails to address the elephant in the room for the Left in making progress on this, and that is the enormous reluctance of Democrats to challenge a public employee union.  And you can bet that police unions will likely be the biggest barrier to getting a lot of this done, even perhaps ahead of Conservative law-and-order groups (you can see the token sop thrown to unions in point 10 of the plan, but it ain't going to be enough).

    By the way, there is much that progressive and conservative groups could learn from each other.  Conservative groups (outside of anti-abortion folks) are loath to pursue the public demonstration and disruption tactics that can sometimes be helpful in getting one's issues on the public agenda.  The flip side is that public disruption seems to be all BLM knows how to do.  It can't seem to get beyond disruption, including the unfathomable recent threat to disrupt an upcoming marathon in the Twin Cities.   It could learn a lot from Conservative and libertarian groups like ALEC, that focus on creating model legislation and local success stories that can be copied in other places.  Many of the steps in BLM's plan cry out of model legislation and successful pilots/examples.

    32 Comments

    1. Matthew Slyfield:

      "you can see the token sop thrown to unions in point 10 of the plan, but it ain't going to be enough"

      Actually point 10 is not a sop to the unions. They mean fair to the public / tax payers.

    2. Jim Collins:

      BLM is only a tool. Sometime in 2016, BLM will announce that they have come to an agreement with the Democrats. Then they will attack every Republican event. (Think Code Pink). Useful idiots, all of them.

    3. Mike Powers:

      When conservative groups conduct "public demonstration and disruption activities" it's reported as "racist mobs threaten violence", "angry gun nuts act like terrorists", "Republican thugs shut down peaceful activity that harms nobody", and so on.

      "The flip side is that public disruption seems to be all BLM knows how to do."

      No less a thinker than Hillary Clinton noticed this, as well, in her BLM interview where she straight-up said "okay, so I'm racist. What do I do about it? Yes, yes, have a dialogue, but that's what we're doing here. Where do we go FROM HERE?" And there wasn't any kind of answer.

    4. joshv:

      Wow, was having this exact conversation on Facebook in response to some progressive friends supporting the disruption of the TC marathon. Instead of making people like me wonder what the hell is all about and why in the hell a marathon makes any sort of sense as a target, how about BLM put their weight behind these goals, which like Coyote, I mostly support. I do not support disrupting perfectly harmless events like a marathon.

    5. :

      End for profit policing? How about keeping for profit policing and adding competition?

    6. Matthew Slyfield:

      For profit policing is a reference to allowing police departments to keep all or most of civil asset forfeiture proceeds so that they have a source of revenue out side of the city council / county board that is nominally supposed to control the police department.

    7. :

      Yes, but an unfortunate and deliberately ambiguous term, given that for profit policing, taken in the usual market sense, is probably the answer to most of society's policing problems. After all, nobody says that we should end for profit government, but confiscation of private assets for the benefit of politicians and their coconspirators is exactly what happens.

    8. herdgadfly:

      I would be the first to tell you that I abhor unions of any sort and public employees should not have a layer of protection from the taxpayer. And I would tell your that I dislike the spit and polish uniforms of today's police which makes them think themselves better and more powerful than the citizenry.

      But I will tell you that the BLM movement is encouraged and supported by criminals and racists who would remove police protection for urban populations. British police have been disarmed and radicals, mobsters and muslims now rule their neighborhoods.

      We can fix this problem by returning control of the cities to the residents but they need police to maintain order.

    9. ColoComment:

      With regard to policing, might I suggest some reading material? I recently read "Ghettoside," by Jill Leovy.The author goes into gang-ridden South Los Angeles and examines the interactions of the residents and law enforcement, and their respective cultures, via a detailed look into the murder of a young man there. Along the way she interviews many of the players, provides a wealth of data, both current and historic, and arrives at some surprising conclusions.
      A quite phenomenal book that I wish would get more publicity.

    10. obloodyhell:

      I read the proposal. About 30% of it was simple common sense probably already in place everywhere.
      Another 30% was reasonable stuff, like "demilitarization" and "Body cams".
      The rest was anti-white, black privilege crap.

    11. SamWah:

      OK, black lives matter. Or do they, when most blacks are killed by blacks--how's THAT going to be diminished?

    12. Q46:

      The solution is to return policing to the private sector so those providing police services are subject to the free market disciplines of competition, reputation, repeat business and the profit incentive.

      No business survives long if it harasses and shoots its paying customers.

      Next step would be to return to private law and make criminal law civil law to be adjudicated by competing private arbitration services.

      The concept of private policing.... gated communities, shopping malls for example, and private detective agencies is long established. Many cases are settled in private arbitration services already and damages awarded.

      Undortunately this would be an important step in removing the need for Government so politicans would have to get proper jobs... they won't go willingly.

    13. Q46:

      Except it is not 'for profit' policing. Profit requires exchange... and is value added to the cost of producing something sufficient to make the product attractive to consumers who will voluntarily exchange money for it and pay a price above the cost of production because the good is perceived as being of more value to them than the money they pay in exchange.

      The difference between the production cost and consumer price is determined by how much value is added.

      Confiscation of assets by an agent of the State involves no exchange, it is theft which the State has given itself permission to commit.

      When the population accepts to be governed by a coercive State which uses violence or its theat to impose its political will, get its way, intimidate any who oppose it and take private property in various forms, taxes for example, it is little wonder that agents of the State... the police... take their cue from the general standard of behaviour of the institituion that employs them.

      So peeps... stop belly-aching about the police while tolerating rule by a coercive State. The rot is at the top. If you want change... of the none hopey variety... change Government, not the slimeballs in it, but the thing itself.

    14. bigmaq1980:

      Well, your first post was "End for profit policing? How about keeping for profit policing and adding competition?"

      That seemed to misinterpret what they were talking about...

      Agree that a better term should have been something like "police confiscation", but even that is inadequate to convey that there is an incentive for LE to go beyond the original intent of the policy, and is now part of the unintended consequences.

    15. bigmaq1980:

      Not sure the weightings, but the details behind some proposals do leave one with questions.

      Take, "End Broken Window Policing". The question might be, where does one draw the line? Ending items on their list will have obvious consequences (e.g. trespassing, loitering, disorderly conduct). In certain communities, the local citizens might prefer to put up with the potential police "harassment" vs the very real harassment they'd face by people who do these things. In communities where these things are not much of a problem, if they were off limits for police, no doubt they would become a problem.

      "Community Oversight", suggesting selecting Police Commission members "offered by community organizations" looks more like a means for special interest groups to pack the board. Who picks which organizations? On what basis? Why not advocate elections instead of a process that may become easily corrupted?

      "Community Representation", suggesting police officers in aggregate reflect a "representative proportion" of the community. They don't actually mean that they want 50% below a 100 IQ, right?
      http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IQ-Bell-Curve.png

      No doubt, this devolves into strictly skin color measures. Other measures, or requirements then go out the door, as that one measure takes priority over any other factors.

      There are a lot of ideas to like in it, but a lot to dislike, if not to abhor. It is a mixed bag, at best.

      Some ideas will get my support, but not their platform.

    16. Matthew Slyfield:

      "just because other people classify profit as a kind of theft doesn't mean that I have to."

      Actually you have that backwards in this case.

      This is not a case of classifying profit as a kind of theft, but rather of classifying theft as a kind of profit.

      The point is that just like a business has an incentive to maximize profit the current structure of civil asset forfeiture law gives the police an incentive to maximize forfeitures. Adding competition will only increase that incentive.

    17. :

      You don't know the minds of the people who use this language. They certainly do tend to classify profit as a kind of theft, and would be happy to tell you, e.g., that McDonald's profits are theft. I don't. Nor will I accept lumping in free market profit will stolen booty.

      And a competitive policing system would produce about as much stolen booty as private security services currently produce--effectively none. It makes all the difference to have customers directly choosing among competing service providers rather than having a third party government monopoly impose the services upon them.

    18. :

      "there is an incentive for LE to go beyond the original intent of the policy"

      Just where do you think that incentive comes from? Government monopoly. That is why competition, not abolition of profits, is the solution.

      The point I thought would be obvious among market thinkers, especially in light of recent Coyote posts--what are profits where competition is banished versus where they are permitted?

    19. :

      "Except it is not 'for profit' policing."

      My point exactly.

    20. Matthew Slyfield:

      "Just where do you think that incentive comes from? Government monopoly."

      No, in the case of civil asset forfeiture, It comes not from a government monopoly, but a government license to engage in theft.

    21. Matthew Slyfield:

      "And a competitive policing system would produce about as much stolen
      booty as private security services currently produce--effectively none."

      No, unless you first repeal civil asset forfeiture laws, it will increase the amount of stolen booty, Because now you have multiple groups competing to steal your assets.

      Really, your thinking on this particular issue is bass ackwards.

      "You don't know the minds of the people who use this language." Do I know the minds of all of the people who use it, no. But, I know where the term originated from. "policing for profit" comes not from left liberals, but from libertarian groups pushing for reform of in not an out right end to civil asset forfeiture.

    22. raiderphan:

      I notice the lack of any mention of the fact that the black people are involved in crime, as perpetrators, at a rate significantly greater than their population numbers would suggest, but there is nothing in the "solutions" to make that end. When black lives begin to matter to black people, maybe the rest of this will be worth considering.

      It is always overlooked, by some, that had some of these more famous black people whose lives ended to give life to the BLM movement not been breaking the law they never would have been contacted by the police and would probably still be alive today, except maybe the cigarette seller in NYC whose state of physical health probably would have caught up with him by now.

    23. MJ:

      I don't know that it's deliberately ambiguous. I think these people are just really bad at communication, verbal and otherwise. Asset forfeiture is certainly one possible interpretation of "for-profit" policing. The one that came to mind for me, and which fits more closely to their narrative, relates to singling out minority suspects for minor crimes and imposing fines for such offenses. If I remember correctly, this was one of the complaints of the Ferguson protesters. The profiling aspect of it seemed to be what was most objectionable.

      I don't live in a neighborhood with a high concentration of minorities, so I can't speak to the extent that this is really happening, but it would not surprise me terribly given the many other examples of petty and mendacious behavior by LE. And revenue-maximization behavior among a public agency is not a stretch by any means.

      But this whole point is part of a greater problem with BLM's list of demands, namely that many of them are exceptionally vague. What constitutes "broken windows policing"? What does community "oversight" or "representation" entail? What are "fair" police union contracts (apart from Warren's point about pork barreling)? "Demilitarization" (WTF)? The BLM folks have a hive-mind mentality, and so I'm sure they all agree with each other as to what these things mean, but they have proven time and again to be tone-deaf to the perspective of non-BLM citizens, who may have radically ideas.

    24. epobirs:

      BLM can't get beyond disruption because their whole premise is demonstrably false. When the primary cause of premature death among blacks stops being other blacks, they might be taken seriously by anyone who pays attention to crime stats.

    25. bigmaq1980:

      "I thought would be obvious among market thinkers"

      Don't think anyone is arguing against market based competition.

      Instead, the point is, rightly or wrongly, that BLM used "for profit policing" in a specific context, not anywhere near what we would think of normally as "for profit".

      In the case of Ferguson, it seems the "incentive" was within the government itself to maximize revenue in the name of protection - a deception that misuses the force of the police.

    26. bigmaq1980:

      "But this whole point is part of a greater problem with BLM's list of demands, namely that many of them are exceptionally vague."

      Yes. Like everything else, the devil is in the details. Like any politician, they know this and use words that sound good to their target audience (and, perhaps, benign to the rest of us). But as you identify, there are clues as to where they are going with some of this.

      I've posted a similar point below with even more questions on specifics.

    27. Matthew Slyfield:

      bigmaq1980,

      You are correct about where the "incentive" is.

      However, when you say "that BLM used "for profit policing" in a specific context" this is somewhat misleading. Yes, BLM used "for profit policing" intending that specific meaning. However, where it misleads is that the use of "for profit policing" as a reference to using fines and civil asset forfeiture to drive government revenue did not originate with BLM or anyone else on the left, nor did it rise out of the events in Ferguson.

      The term "for profit policing" has been used with that meaning by libertarian critics.of police misconduct for many years before the events in Ferguson that gave rise to the BLM movement.

    28. bigmaq1980:

      "The term "for profit policing" has been used with that meaning by libertarian critics.of police misconduct for many years"

      From 2010...

      Always nice to back up a point with a link.

      It is no surprise that a group like BLM would pick up on a good turn of phrase to use in their own way.

      It is kind of like how the left have co-opted the term "liberal", so now we need to make the distinction between "classical liberals" and them.

      Incidentally, cannot find that chart and outline from BLM on their site anymore. Wonder why? Instead, there is a page of (mostly leftist) "principles"...

      Didn't realize we'd be debating about something so ephemeral.

    29. Matthew Slyfield:

      "It is no surprise that a group like BLM would pick up on a good turn of phrase to use in their own way."

      Except that they weren't using it in their own way, they were using it exactly the way CATO and other libertarians have used it.

    30. Matthew Slyfield:

      "Incidentally, cannot find that chart and outline from BLM on their site anymore. Wonder why? Instead, there is a page of (mostly leftist) "principles"..."

      Because it was never on the main BLM site, It's from a separate offshoot site.

      If you go to the Mother Jones article linked to by the OP you would see:

      "I'm happy to see that they've now come up with exactly what everyone's
      been asking for. It's called Campaign Zero, and it even comes with its own nifty graphic:"

      Here is where you can find Campaign Zero:

      If you go to their site, that chart is interactive and if you click on the for profit policing you will see that when they say "for profit policing", they are referring to exactly the same thing as CATO.

    31. bigmaq1980:

      You and I disagree...they are co-opting the term.

    32. bigmaq1980:

      Right, it was campaign zero...forgot I had the link to it already in an earlier post.

      If all one reads is that section, can easily believe it's all "exactly the same thing as CATO".

      Taken as a whole, it looks somewhat different.

      As leftists, they are co-opting the idea.

  • Recent Posts

  • George Floyd, A Memo to Conservatives
  • George Floyd, A Memo to Progressives
  • Another Climate-COVID Computer Modelling Similarity
  • Parallels Between COVID-19 Alarm and Global Warming Alarm
  • For the Left, Excess Hospital Beds Were "Too Many Deoderants" ... Until This Month
  • Archives

  • May k彩平台登陆
  • April k彩平台登陆
  • March k彩平台登陆
  • February k彩平台登陆
  • January k彩平台登陆
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • Categories

  • 2013 Shutdown
  • Accountability
  • ACME and Loony Toons
  • Arizona
  • Art
  • Banking and Finance
  • Blogging, Computers & the Internet
  • Books
  • Camping and Outdoors
  • Capitalism & Libertarian Philospohy
  • Climate
  • COVID-19
  • Coyote's Law
  • Crime
  • Data Analysis
  • Drug war
  • Economics
  • Education
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Equal Marriage Arizona
  • Financial Markets
  • Gaming
  • Gender
  • Gender & Race
  • General Business
  • Good News
  • Government
  • Health Care
  • History
  • Hobbies
  • k彩平台登陆 Theater
  • Humor
  • Immigration
  • Incentives
  • Individual Rights
  • International Affairs
  • International Trade
  • Investing
  • Labor Law
  • Liability / Lawsuits / Insurance
  • Media and the Press
  • Military and War
  • model railroading
  • Movies & Entertainment
  • Music
  • Numbers and Statistics
  • Organizations and Incentives
  • Other
  • photography
  • Police and Prosecutorial Abuse
  • Politics
  • Privacy
  • Private Recreation Management
  • Property Rights
  • Public v. Private
  • Race
  • Rail and Mass Transit
  • Regulation
  • Scams
  • Science
  • Second Ammendment
  • Small Business
  • Sports
  • Taxes
  • Technology
  • The Corporate State
  • Trade Policy
  • Trans-partisan Plans
  • Travel
  • Trend That Is Not A Trend
  • Trends from Single Data Points
  • Tripartisan Plans
  • Uncategorized
  • War on Drugs
  • Search


    WWW Coyote Blog
  • Statistics

  • Site Admin