Ask the Author: Alan E. Johnson
Answered Questions (4)
Alan E. Johnson
Pinker's argument about inequality is standard libertarian doctrine with which I have been long familiar, having been a libertarian fellow traveler from about 1973 to about 2001. I would agree with his statement as a very abstract proposition. all other things being equal. But all other things are not (and have never been) equal—either in the United States or elsewhere. The very wealthy have rigged the economy, through laws (or the absence thereof), fraud, and other predatory practices, against everyone else such that we have the greatest economic inequality since the years before the Great Depression. And that economic inequality is deleterious to the economy as a whole, as the stock market crash of 2008 and ensuing Great Recession proved. See, for example, All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera. Now the libertarians will say that practices such as those leading to the 2008 crash were unlibertarian. For example, libertarian theory (except for anarchocapitalism) argues that the government should promulgate and enforce laws against fraud (see, for example, Ayn Rand, who eschewed, however, the "libertarian" label). In practice, however, the wealthy usually get away with it (hardly any individual was prosecuted for the fraudulent practices leading to the 2008 debacle). Why? Because the governing class has been bought off by the wealthy. We have a plutocracy, not a democracy. Among many other books, see also Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, which I have reviewed here, and Tula A. Connell's Conservative Counterrevolution: Challenging Liberalism in 1950s Milwaukee, which I have reviewed here.
The utopian libertarian vision is very pretty, but it ignores political and economic reality. I started having serious doubts about it in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The clincher for me was the 2008 crash, which demonstrated that libertarianism was "just a theory" (to channel, ironically, a standard antievolution trope) that had no basis in historical reality. It just gives the extremely wealthy (the Kochs, for example) a figleaf to justify their predatory practices, legal and otherwise.
The utopian libertarian vision is very pretty, but it ignores political and economic reality. I started having serious doubts about it in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The clincher for me was the 2008 crash, which demonstrated that libertarianism was "just a theory" (to channel, ironically, a standard antievolution trope) that had no basis in historical reality. It just gives the extremely wealthy (the Kochs, for example) a figleaf to justify their predatory practices, legal and otherwise.
Alan E. Johnson
Since you are a member of the "Political Philosophy and Ethics" group, you can post something in that topic if you explain how it is relevant to the topic. Although this seems evident from the book title, you might want to elaborate a bit.
Alan E. Johnson, Founding Moderator
Alan E. Johnson, Founding Moderator
Alan E. Johnson
Gerard, I'm sorry to hear about your health issues and hope you have fully recovered. In the "Political Philosophy and Ethics" Goodreads group, I am trying to avoid the subject of the investigations run by Mueller and various congressional committees, because it's almost impossible to handle them without becoming involved with intense partisan warfare (at least in the US). I make an exception to my usual rule against current events with regard to the immigration issues, because the latter can be treated as constitutional and legal matters in which the courts have clear input with published judicial opinions. But discussing the investigations against Trump would be weighing in on almost purely political issues. It would be like discussing Watergate in the middle of the investigation decades ago. True, there are constitutional dimensions to the current investigations--dimensions that may result in impeachment proceedings against Trump. But in the "fog of war" it is virtually impossible to be objective and to separate heat from light. The media are handling these matters fairly well on a day-to-day basis, though largely on the basis of leaks. We won't have access to much of the actual evidence for some time. Under such circumstances, I think it is best to avoid the subject for now. Alan
Alan E. Johnson
Rodney,
I had never heard of a robotic bomb before this incident, and I am fairly certain that no court has adjudicated the question. However, it would fall under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (as applied to state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." This question involves the general issue of "excessive force." There is a substantial body of US Supreme Court case law on when it is appropriate for the police to use lethal force, and I have read that case law (though not recently). I am confident that the use of lethal force was justified in this case. The suspect had already killed several people and was obviously not going to surrender peacefully. He manifested a clear danger to others, especially police officers. Under these circumstances, the police would have been justified to shoot him dead by the use of ordinary handguns or rifles. I don't see that the use of a robotic bomb would make any difference in the analysis. Under the circumstances, where the shooter held no hostages and no one else appeared to be in the immediate vicinity, innocent persons were not threatened with injury by use of the robotic bomb. I think that the police did the right thing. People are commenting on the difference between police and military weapons. I don't see that this makes any difference in the legal analysis, especially when the shooter, as here, was evidently using a military-style assault weapon. The solution to this type of problem is to abolish the right of ordinary people to have military weapons, not to deprive the police of the use of them when necessary. In Britain, people generally are not allowed to possess dangerous firearms. As you are aware, it is much different in the US.
With regard to the legal question whether the police improperly used lethal force in the incidents that occurred earlier in the week, based on what we know so far (mainly from the videos), it would appear that their use of lethal force was improper. If so, there will be (or should be) legal consequences to the police officers involved, including both criminal prosecution and civil litigation for violations of civil rights. Of course, the officers will be afforded due process in judicial proceedings. In criminal cases the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (a difficult standard that may be one of the reasons so many criminal prosecutions of police officers are unsuccessful). The burden of proof for a plaintiff in a civil suit for excessive force is preponderance of the evidence. Before my retirement as an attorney, I sometimes was involved in the defense of police officers in civil cases alleging excessive force. Since Fourth Amendment law was not my principal litigation area, I usually participated in such cases only as a part of a defense team and only when the pleadings also alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. This was, it must be emphasized, only my professional responsibility in connection with the American "adversary system" of justice. I certainly do not sympathize with any use of excessive force, whether it involves a racial component or not.
Alan
Rodney,
I had never heard of a robotic bomb before this incident, and I am fairly certain that no court has adjudicated the question. However, it would fall under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (as applied to state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." This question involves the general issue of "excessive force." There is a substantial body of US Supreme Court case law on when it is appropriate for the police to use lethal force, and I have read that case law (though not recently). I am confident that the use of lethal force was justified in this case. The suspect had already killed several people and was obviously not going to surrender peacefully. He manifested a clear danger to others, especially police officers. Under these circumstances, the police would have been justified to shoot him dead by the use of ordinary handguns or rifles. I don't see that the use of a robotic bomb would make any difference in the analysis. Under the circumstances, where the shooter held no hostages and no one else appeared to be in the immediate vicinity, innocent persons were not threatened with injury by use of the robotic bomb. I think that the police did the right thing. People are commenting on the difference between police and military weapons. I don't see that this makes any difference in the legal analysis, especially when the shooter, as here, was evidently using a military-style assault weapon. The solution to this type of problem is to abolish the right of ordinary people to have military weapons, not to deprive the police of the use of them when necessary. In Britain, people generally are not allowed to possess dangerous firearms. As you are aware, it is much different in the US.
With regard to the legal question whether the police improperly used lethal force in the incidents that occurred earlier in the week, based on what we know so far (mainly from the videos), it would appear that their use of lethal force was improper. If so, there will be (or should be) legal consequences to the police officers involved, including both criminal prosecution and civil litigation for violations of civil rights. Of course, the officers will be afforded due process in judicial proceedings. In criminal cases the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (a difficult standard that may be one of the reasons so many criminal prosecutions of police officers are unsuccessful). The burden of proof for a plaintiff in a civil suit for excessive force is preponderance of the evidence. Before my retirement as an attorney, I sometimes was involved in the defense of police officers in civil cases alleging excessive force. Since Fourth Amendment law was not my principal litigation area, I usually participated in such cases only as a part of a defense team and only when the pleadings also alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. This was, it must be emphasized, only my professional responsibility in connection with the American "adversary system" of justice. I certainly do not sympathize with any use of excessive force, whether it involves a racial component or not.
Alan
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more