As a libertarian I have issues with public policy affecting the black urban community: the social safety net has eviscerated many black families; over 40% of births are illegitimate; a disproportionately high number of young black men are incarcerated, many if not most urban public schools are an abysmal failure. Employment prospects can be bleak for those who drop out or released from jail or prison, not to mention those encountering occupational licensing restrictions. There have been high profile incidents of police misconduct, especially in the deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd among others.
We libertarians advocate a number of number of relevant reforms, including, but not restricted to:
- an end to the prosecution of victimless crime, including the failed War on Drugs, which affects a significant percentage of incarcerated blacks. It's like we've never learned the lessons of alcohol prohibition, which incentivized a highly profitable black market, violence-prone territories, unvetted dangerous products, etc,, not to mention crimes by addicts, desperate to feed their expensive habits. (I still remember my Milwaukee apartment. We had parking below the apartment building. I didn't drive daily; I walked to the UWM campus. So one day I go to drive my car and find one of my front door windows bashed in--all to steal an ordinary factory-installed radio, not a premium model. I have no idea what a stolen used car radio was selling for on the black market, but I remember getting the car window replace cost hundreds of dollars.)
- criminal justice reform. It's ironic that the Land of the Free has one of the most proportionately high incarceration rates in the world. It's not just that we questionably prosecute an increasing number of dubious crimes, but the whole justice system is very expensive, including the costs of incarceration for one of the biggest prison systems on earth--and politically popular Draconian sentencing laws, including the infamous "3-strikes rule" which can leverage minor infractions into life sentences. Few poor blacks can afford high-priced legal services.
- education choice. Far too few urban black families lack a competitive alternative to mediocre public schools; they often have compete (e.g., in lotteries) for the limited spots available in public charter schools. Catholic schools have been one limited alternative; my late maternal uncle, a Catholic pastor and brilliant administrator, dreaded dealing with them because they were a drain on parish finances, even through they operate at something like 60% of comparable public school costs.
- occupational licensing restrictions and other barriers to entry for black entrepreneurs. There are some obvious examples like hair braiding. There are also paperwork, various fees, zoning restrictions, etc., before you claim a penny in revenue.
- accountability for public servant conduct. Probably the most familiar example is our opposition to qualified immunity. Simply put, police or others are exempt from financial/other responsibilities except for flagrant statutory/constitutional violations, typically enumerated or guided by judicial precedent. Not to mention public union provisions that make it almost impossible to fire mediocre or misbehaving teachers, police, and others.
Where BLM and others lose us is not in pursuing civil rights of the minority community but in terms of focus (what about black-on-black crime?), its Statist political agenda, and violence/looting/property damage from riots which often accompany public protests.
Now I have not been obsessed with the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. For those unfamiliar with the case, Kenosha is in southeast Wisconsin along I-94, just north/west from the Illinois border, a few Illinois towns are within 7 to 8 miles. (I used to pass by it back and forth on my daily commute from a north Chicago suburb on a 2001 gig in Waukesha County, just west of Milwaukee.) On Aug. 25, 2020, Rittenhouse, an Illinois teen who lived in a nearby suburb, went to Kenosha to participate in a loosely coordinated militia of sorts in the aftermath of the days earlier local police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black suspect wanted on domestic abuse charges, paralyzed in the incident. Rittenhouse, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, claimed that he had been motivated to help protect local businesses from arson and other property damage and also to provide medical assistance (presumably he had been trained in CPR and other things during an earlier gig as a lifeguard). Rittenhouse. claiming self-defense, shot and killed Rosenbaum and Huber and wounded Grosskreutz, a key witness for the prosecution.
The facts are in dispute. Rosenbaum, unarmed, had thrown a hospital patient bag at and was pursuing/closing in on Rittenhouse across a parking lot. In the aftermath of the Rosenbaum killing, Huber pursued Rittenhouse, allegedly assaulting the teen with a skateboard and going for his rifle. Grosskreutz, with his own firearm, a Glock, chased Rittenhouse and was shot in the arm.
Race does not seem to have been a factor in the Rittenhouse shootings; all 3 shooting victims were white protesters. I don't know what to make of the subsequent kerfuffle. Rittenhouse did not kill Blake. This was not like the Charlottesville tragedy where a driver plowed into an unsuspecting crowd. All 3 victims acted aggressively against an armed man. You might question Rittenhouse's judgment to ger involved or to shoot an unarmed man, but he feared the men would take his weapon and use it against him.
As for the trial, it was very clear thar Grosskreutz' testimony deeply damaged the prosecution's case (e.g., he pointed his firearm first). As I tweeted during the trial deliberations, I was concerned of reports that a couple of jurors were concerned about possible repercussions of an unpopular verdict--which clearly implied an acquittal; the idea they were possibly influenced by external factors undermined Rittenhouse's constitutional right to a fair trial.
Finally, I was incensed by Nadler's attack on the verdict, which I felt was an attack on the Bill of Rights. He did not have faith the jurors acted in good faith; he objected to a verdict based on solely political grounds, basically implying since Rittenhouse was not a Wisconsin resident, the matter was subject to federal review. He wants federal charges on the young man. This is little more than a variation on the construct of double jeopardy. This is unconscionable.
