From Robert Wenzel with responses from Dr. Walter Block in blue:
Dear Walter,
A few further questions:
1: When you state that there is a lot of empirical evidence that stop and frisk works, what evidence are you referring to?
The difference between Chicago under Mayor Rahm Emanuel and NYC, at least under Mayor Guiliani. Stopping and frisking in the latter case, not the former. Less per capita crime in the latter.
2. Do you include the Broken Window theory of James Q. Wilson and George Kelling as part of the type of empirical data you are thinking of?
Yes, certainly
3. When you cite empirical evidence and expand it to a broad-based theory are you violating the Austrian methodological principle that empirical data can not be used to prove a theory in the social sciences?
We have a different view about Austrian economics. As I see matters, praxeology does not apply to ALL theories, only to some. For example, free trade makes all parties to it better off, ex ante. There is a tendency for profits to equalize across industries (ignoring risk). Rent control reduces the quality of rental housing, ceteris paribus. Minimum wages unemploy unskilled workers. Demand curves slope downwards (phooey on Giffen goods). These are apodictically true, necessarily so, and they refer to the real world. They are not “theories”; they are economic laws. But, then, for mainstream economists and also Austrians, there are theories: A 10% rise in the price of beans will call forth a 5% (10%?, 15%) decrease in the price demanded, within a specified time limit. Or, stop and frisk, will reduce crime rates. Or, the broken window theory is correct. Here, there is no necessity. This is not praxeology. These are empirical claims, and can only be (tentatively) settled by resort to the evidence.
4. When you state that police "gangs" stopping and frisking other "gangs" is justifiable, let's say in New York City, for example, what are the characteristics of people who are part of the "gang": that you believe are justified in being stopped and frisked by police "gangs"?
They are members of a certain demographic that political correctness prevents me from mentioning. But, everyone knows which age, ethnic cohort is responsible for a disproportionate amount of (real) crime. Hint: it is not black grandmas; it is not young Orientals.
Bob
----
Dear Walter,
On this Q&A:
4. When you state that police "gangs" stopping and frisking other "gangs" is justifiable, let's say in New York City, for example, what are the characteristics of people who are part of the "gang": that you believe are justified in being stopped and frisked by police "gangs"?
They are members of a certain demographic that political correctness prevents me from mentioning. But, everyone knows which age, ethnic cohort is responsible for a disproportionate amount of (real) crime. Hint: it is not black grandmas; it is not young Orientals.
How do you see this in operational terms? Do you hold the view that members of "the certain demographic group" that you refuse to name can be stopped and frisked multiple times in a day by members of the police gang? And what would they be stopping and frisking for
Frisking for weapons. I’m pretty sure it is illegal for ex cons to have pistols, for example. But, another reason for frisking, as opposed to frisking for, is to employ a sort of broken windows ploy: to keep them back on their heels, too worried about cops to commit crimes.
The way I see matters is, the cops would be justified in stopping and frisking (s&f) those with characteristics of demographics that are very heavily over represented in the (real) criminal statistics. For example, men between the ages of, oh, 15 and 35. As for too much s&f per day, one possibility could be that the cops give out a daily dated ticket to those people they had inspected, to be shown to the next cop who wants to engage in s&f, and the second cop would let that person go, with no inspection. Sort of like a dated hall card in high school. That would limit s&f to once per day. This number could be adjusted, though.
Best regards,
Walter
Earlier debate posts in this series:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
"political correctness prevents"
ReplyDeleteI certainly hope that was sarcasm on his part.
Stop and Frisk if contracted voluntarily by those being stopped is not a NAP violation.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not what is being discussed here. Here we are discussing Stop (OR I'LL SHOOT YOU) and Frisk. What does the NAP say about this again?
As Roddick pointed out earlier, the "rules" of government are such that warrantless searches are mostly "verboten".
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Spooner's observations apply- none of us "agreed" to the government in it's current form and it's all a NAP violation; the government, the notion of stop & frisk(against the Bill of Rights as a operational charter/rule of an involuntary gov't), etc. et al.
In defense of Block, I think he is operating on what I refer to as a "sliding scale" of NAP violations:
He is suggesting there would be a net reduction of NAP violations with "stop & frisk"- I don't believe that is the case. I think that the government has a history of abuse of power to the degree that such an enforcement will actually INCREASE the NAP violations in total.
Think of the drug war for example: One argument, similar to Block's stop & frisk- is that by preventing drug use that associated crime will go down- ostnesibly suggesting that on a sliding NAP scale that prosecuting people for drug use in totality reduces NAP violations. I don't agree with that argument, I assumed Block wouldn't agree either...but who knows now.
The way I see it, cops arresting drug users causes more NAP violations than it prevents...and that's also how I see it with "stop & frisk".
One question I have for Block: would this "stop & frisk" enforcement in his mind be localized or would it be a national policy in order to attain the NAP reductions he claims?
"But, at least, NYC-style stop-and-frisk is scaring criminals."
ReplyDeleteThis sounds not unlike "We have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here." As in, bombing Iraq scares terrorists so it's good.
I am just in awe about this whole thing.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember right, this was about Trump advocating a Federal government stop and frisk program.
I love Dr. Block.
But no Libertarian, in my opinion, can justify a National police State that advocates stop and frisk.
This is a stupid non debate.
Obsolutely stupid.