I love science-fiction movies that portray a future, usually bleak, society. Thankfully, the predictions generally have not been borne out, yet. Los Angeles in the 2020s is a much nicer place than was predicted in The Terminator and Blade Runner. I appreciate futuristic settings where the all-powerful government maintains a sense of incompetence, like in Brazil. The byzantine bureaucracy in the future’s all-powerful dictatorship may be more sinister, but I doubt they will become more capable.

There is, unfortunately, one aspect of society that classic dystopian movies and novels did get correct: the surveillance state we live in. Still, one big difference remains between the surveillance state we have today and the one predicted in 1984 and other works. Instead of it being secretly imposed on us by the national government and the military-industrial complex, we have largely brought it upon ourselves with Ring Cameras, Life 360 phone apps, etc. It’s more Truman Show or Rear Window than Blue Thunder.

Which brings us to the expansion of Flock camera systems throughout Missouri. Flock camera systems are license plate readers along roads that connect into criminal databases. They alert police when a car involved in a crime is located. Columbia is just the latest city to contract with the company to install such a system throughout the city. The city council approved the plan in 2024, and they are currently being installed. These Flock plate readers are becoming ubiquitous in towns, counties, and subdivisions. Supporters, including the Columbia police department, claim the cameras will both help solve and deter crimes. Opponents are concerned about privacy violations and potential abuses.

As an opponent of these cameras, I will readily admit the claims about crime are true (although perhaps overstated) and that some good comes from these cameras. I am glad the murderer of the CEO in New York City was caught using the power of the vast surveillance system (much of it on private property) in Manhattan. I am also happy that the cameras can help solve many, lesser crimes.

I rarely read about supporters of the cameras acknowledging their opponent’s concerns, however. Even with the safeguards from abuse that Flock and local police have put in place, including a limited time that it maintains the data and a focus on the plate rather than the driver, these systems undoubtedly will be abused by some. For example, a police chief in Kansas used the system to stalk a former girlfriend.

Just as concerning is the troubling idea that your car is being tracked incessantly as you simply travel around. I am aware there is no “legal” right to privacy in public settings. That doesn’t make this kind of tracking right, though, and being concerned about such systems doesn’t make you a conspiracy theorist.

More legally secure but even more morally troubling is the embracing of Flock systems by private neighborhoods. If there is anything more terrifying than giving your local busybody homeowner’s association head some sophisticated tracking equipment, I have yet to see it. Imagine Tom Cruise in Minority Report, but this time it’s a Karen who’s angry about a high school party. Just because you don’t have a right to privacy when driving in someone else’s subdivision does not justify that subdivision tracking your comings and goings along (usually) public streets.

Nobody, including me, wants local government to be a partisan debating society where every decision is put through a philosophical prism. However, I wish that more of the part-time local officials around the state would have some type of larger political philosophy instead of just doing whatever the city manager or police chief recommends. These license plate readers and similar systems may be legal, but that doesn’t mean they are right, and the speed at which the entire system is expanding around Missouri is frightening.

Caged birds are safe but hardly free. Politicians at every level need to push back against the expansion of the surveillance state. The pursuit of happiness includes the ability to exist without being tracked. At this point, we may get to 1984 yet. The best we can hope for is that it is more like Idiocracy than Soylent Green.

The post The Surveillance Society Is Here appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But I think this raises a broader concern. Rockwell (not Lew) was right. The surveillance state has arrived quietly in Missouri, which I guess is appropriate when you think about it. After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. The surveillance state appears to be here in various forms, including license plate readers on public roads and intricate video systems on private property.

Numerous facts and beliefs can all be true at once:

• I am highly troubled by a government surveillance system tracking our movements.
• I am well aware that there is no inherent right to privacy on public roadways or in other public places.
• There is clearly no right to privacy on other people’s property, except for certain spaces, e.g. a bathroom.
• Private surveillance systems vary from simple ones that most people, including me, are fine with, to much more complex systems that I find highly troubling (even if they are legal).
• The creation of a comprehensive surveillance system by government has harmful effects on the community even if you trust that the government is only using the system for certain purposes that strike many as legitimate, such as apprehending suspected criminals.
• Finally, if you do trust the government to only use surveillance systems in appropriate ways, I have a camera system on Pluto to sell you for an unbeatable price. Act now!

Citizens have a right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion and, yes, I count continual surveillance by technology as an intrusion. I would hope that local officials would think twice (or more) about installing these systems in their communities. I also think that the state legislature should consider limits on their usage. I may not have a right to privacy when out in public, but the government also should have no right to track my movements as I go about my life. I am surprised many local officials don’t seem to agree with that.

The post The Surveillance State Comes to Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But that hasn’t kept Kansas City and other local government from bah-humbugging it, flying the banner of coronavirus prevention as it dumps coal in the stockings of local proprietors in the food service industry. In November, city officials shut down The Corner Bar and Grill in the historic 18th & Vine District during a Chiefs game when a “field supervisor noted multiple violations of the mask and social distancing rules” set out by the mayor. In fact, until relatively recently, Kansas City proper was requiring all bars and restaurants to not only close by 10 p.m. to mitigate the spread of COVID-19—because it’s, what, not communicable during the day?—but force all of the patrons out by that time, or else be sanctioned by the city.

The Corner Bar’s closure and the city’s draconian time restrictions meant that when the Chiefs played the Denver Broncos for the league’s Sunday night game on Dec. 6, Kansas City bars were forced to turn patrons away due to capacity limitations and to warn patrons who were allowed inside that they’d be kicked out of the bar before the late game had finished. This isn’t hearsay either; this happened to me. However, not all places of imbibing and engorging for the game were closed. I eventually found myself at, of all places, a local casino that is not only open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but whose social distancing norms are, shall we say, necessarily loose.

Having the right to leisurely eat, drink, smoke and gamble at 10:30 p.m. on a Sunday from the comfort of a barstool in the middle of a pandemic would feel a lot more liberating if you do these things at any establishment of one’s choosing, pandemic or not. But on this Sunday night, the patrons of the Argosy Casino had acquired an immunity to coronavirus (or, rather, to government-imposed coronavirus restrictions) that the small businesses and patrons in downtown Kansas City had not yet achieved. Shortly after that weekend, Kansas City officials “clarified” that the city’s bar and restaurant patrons could now remain in their seats and finish their meals, even past 10 p.m., but couldn’t order food or drink after that hour and had to be out of the building by 11 p.m.

It’s tempting to accept the clarification of mandated closure times as an improvement, and in technical terms, it is. After all, requiring establishments to close in the middle of a sports event is bad for business. But local officials are merely returning rights to taxpayers that I believe should never have been taken to begin with and where in other local businesses like casinos, the same rules aren’t being applied. That’s before addressing whether these new rules should be applied at all, and on what actual scientific basis they’re being pursued.

But I’ve said this before and I must say it again, especially now that we’re close to the 2021 legislative session: If a rule is good enough for big businesses, it’s good enough for the small ones too. That applies to all of “Chiefs Kingdom,” both in Kansas City itself and outside it. If casino patrons can live it up safely and watch the Chiefs beat the hated Broncos late at night, so too can supporters of local bars. If Chiefs fans can socially distance at Arrowhead, so too can fans of Blue Springs High School. And in the coming weeks, state legislators must start the process of reining in the excesses of local governments. Kansas Citians may live in Chiefs Kingdom, but they aren’t the subjects of their elected officials.

The post Living in Chiefs Kingdom Doesn’t Make You Kansas City’s Peasant appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I want to be very clear that I am not taking this global crisis lightly. Michigan has had thousands of cases in the past few weeks, and I’m extremely worried about my family, friends, and others in Michigan. I think these stay-at-home orders are beneficial in the fight against the coronavirus, but I also think there is a balance between trying to ensure safety and trying to excessively control citizens. It seems fair to question whether Michigan has achieved that balance.

The most recent executive order contains what I think are some unnecessary and seemingly arbitrary restrictions on the everyday lives of Michiganders. For example, all public and private gatherings of any size between people who do not live in the same household are prohibited. If you own two residences, you are not allowed to travel between them.. Stores are not allowed to sell goods from the following categories: carpet or flooring, furniture, garden centers, and paint. Businesses are also to refrain from advertising or promoting items that are not groceries, medical supplies, or essential items. Lottery tickets, however, are fine to purchase. The executive order also prohibits of the use of any boats with a motor, which is especially relevant to both industry and citizens in a state surrounded by the Great Lakes.

Most states have stay-at-home orders in place, but Michigan’s order goes much further. Where do we draw the line? Other states are taking safety precautions without completely banning leisure activities and further disrupting businesses

I’m certainly not the only one with this opinion; others argue that Michigan has become an outlier. For the sake of my co-workers and friends still in the Show-Me state, I hope that Missouri does not follow Michigan’s path.

The post An Opinion of Michigan’s Stay-at-Home Order from Someone Stuck in Michigan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On a beautiful day in late October, Gus and I were enjoying a rare moment when our only companions in the large and hilly park in front of St. Louis’s Concordia Seminary were nut-gathering squirrels and the birds in the trees.

I was sitting on a Coleman camping chair reading a book and Gus, a beautiful black-and-tan Gordon setter, was doing his favorite thing—chasing birds. This is something Gus does at high speed, in narrowly zig-zagging and broadly circling patterns. The chases go on for as long as eight or nine seconds. I have never seen him pluck a bird out of the air, but he is right on their tails the whole time—forcing many a low-flying wren or robin to go into a steep climb.

It is a sight to behold. People stop and stare in disbelief. The birds seem to enjoy the game as much as Gus. Why else would they be so willing to come out of the trees and play catch-me-if-you-can? Sometimes, Gus begs them to do it—in short, staccato steps under a tree. Nose down, he dances to the sight of moving shadows signaling movement above. On a good day, Gus has dozens of bird chases.

On this particular day, my sense of perfect contentment was broken when I looked up and saw Gus at the far end of the park in the company, but not the grasp, of a policeman. It looked as if my grand-dog thought he had found something rather interesting and was happily escorting the policeman into my presence. Gus was off leash, as, too, of course, was the policeman.

As Gus pranced about the policeman, I grew increasingly annoyed thinking about what was about to happen. Wherever you go in today’s America, the nanny state, in its all-encompassing wisdom, has declared there shall be no dogs off leash—anywhere and everywhere, with the possible exception of your own basement.

If people who were alive a hundred years ago were to return today to our parks and open spaces .??.??. and find that no one is allowed to let a dog run free because of a widespread horror of dog poo, and fears that house pets might turn into killers .??.??. they would be appalled at our conformity, timidity, and stupidity. They would feel sorry for the dogs and wonder why we as a people weren’t already extinct.

As my mood turned sour, I also wondered—as a legal point, and I am no lawyer—what gave the policeman the right to come marching up to me on a private college campus.

So I did not politely get out of my chair to greet the officer, or even look up from my book, until he was hovering over me.

“Do you know there’s a leash law?” he asked. I answered his question with one of my own:

“Do you know this is private property?”

“Is it your property?” he countered.

“I know my dog and I are welcome here,” I answered. “My wife and I have been here many times. We have come to know several of the faculty members. No one has ever asked us to put this dog on a leash. In fact, our dog has played off leash with their dogs.”

At this point, the policeman claimed the school administration had asked the Clayton police department (Clayton being a close-in St. Louis suburb) to enforce Clayton’s leash law. He pulled out a pad and started to write a ticket—asking for particulars not just about me (my name and address) but also the dog (name, breed, and weight).

The policeman was not unpleasant. An older cop (55 or 60), he was probably assigned to the easiest duty, and what could be easier than sitting in a parking lot on a super-safe college campus and getting out of his car to write a ticket on a dog that befriended everyone, himself included? He sympathized with the fact that my wife and I had been keeping this very sporty dog, now three-and-a-half years old, for our daughter and her family ever since he had been a puppy, and this was a dog, as he could see, that should not be cooped up in an empty house for 10 hours a day while its parents were working. We keep Gus on weekdays and he goes back to Elizabeth’s house on weekends.

So the policeman and I talked a bit about what to do with a dog that really needs at least an hour of hard exercise a day to be fit and happy.

There were several dog parks in the area, he volunteered.

“And they’re all like prison yards,” I told him—places where the more aggressive dogs are forever preying on less aggressive. It’s hump-o-mania all the time in crowded dog parks. Gus could stand up to the aggressive dogs, and would often, good-heartedly, come to the protection of weaker ones, but he didn’t like dog parks. Birds don’t much like dog parks either.

Maybe you could buy a farm, the policeman weakly suggested. He left me with a ticket and summons to appear in court on December 4.

Beth Ann, my wife, wanted to be there—with Gus. She is planning to write a children’s book about our several encounters with the law on this issue—and also our more numerous encounters with other dog-owners who scrupulously obey the leash laws and shout out enviously to outliers like us: Don’t you know there’s a leash law? For the purposes of the book, she wanted Gus to have his day in court.

I didn’t think Beth Ann had a chance of getting through security with a dog—even with such a beautiful and noble-looking dog as Gus. But I am never surprised by my wife’s inventiveness.

I had been sitting in the Clayton municipal courthouse for about an hour—along with about 100 other miscreants waiting their turn before the judge—when she and Gus (on a leash) came sweeping down the aisle. Beth Ann stopped to talk to a lawyer friend who was just leaving the court. Then, just as suddenly, she and Gus were gone.

To skip ahead to what would seem to be the end, when I was called to go before the judge, he told me that I had two options: I could plead not guilty and face a quick trial with the possibility of a fine of $300 or more; or I could talk to the person on the same dais seated to his left, who was the prosecutor and who had the discretion to negotiate a settlement. Naturally, I took the second option.

In a brief conference that took less than a minute, I told the prosecutor that Gus was not my dog, but my grand-dog, and that I had not known that I was violating any leash law at Concordia Seminary. He seemed faintly amused. Here was the deal, which I quickly accepted: If I agreed to pay court costs ($26.50), there would be no fine and, as the prosecutor put it, both Gus and I would be on six-month probation.

I won’t tell you what Gus and I might or might not do between now and next May. But I will tell you how Beth Ann and Gus got into the Clayton municipal courtroom.

As Beth Ann tells the story—

In her first approach to the courtroom door with Gus in tow, she was stopped and told she had to sign in first. Patrolman Karl pointed to an open ledger along the wall on the other side of the anteroom. She signed the ledger. When she returned to the big courtroom door, Patrolman Karl stopped her a second time.

“Dogs aren’t allowed in the courtroom,” he said.

“But he’s the perpetrator. He’s asked to appear in court.”

“I don’t think he has to be present in court.”

“Are you sure?”

“I’ll go ask the judge.”

With that, Patrolman Karl went through the door and Beth Ann and Gus followed a moment or two later. Having determined in private discussion with the judge or prosecutor that Gus’s presence in court was not an absolute requirement, Patrolman Karl duly shushed Beth Ann and Gus out of the courtroom.

So Gus really did have his day in court.

I wish the moral to this story was that you can’t keep a good dog down. But I fear the reality is that the nanny state and its obedient servants will keep any number of good dogs down for a long time to come. We are witnessing the death of common sense as a substitute for rules and regulations.

Life is less fun, with less freedom.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, a free-market think tank in St. Louis.

The post Crime And (Doggie) Punishment: A Tale (Or Tail) Of Lost Freedom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This provides the perfect narrative for what some might consider to be very compelling and policy-minded journalism: A tragedy has occurred and a cell phone was involved. Shouldn’t there be a law against that?

Consider this line from the New York Times’ series of articles on the subject: “With virtually every American owning a cellphone, distracted driving has become a threat on the nation’s roads.” Indeed, in September 2009, the newspaper wrote that it was time to crack down, saying that “…texting at the wheel is a national hazard that calls for a firm federal response.”

This weekend, I heard an interview on National Public Radio with Matt Richtel, the author of several Times articles regarding the dangers of cell phone use while driving, discussing whether he considered himself to be an advocate. Richtel provided the standard journalist line, saying that he just thinks it is important to ask tough questions.

Well, here are two more.

1. Traffic fatalities, crashes, accidents, etc. have declined dramatically. If driving is safer than ever, why is there such concern?

The argument I hear again and again (most recently when I sat in on Donnybrook) is that banning cell phones while driving is about safety. However, Missourinet reports that this year, traffic fatalities are headed for a 62-year low. The same trend is seen on the national level. Fatality, injury, and crash rates have all declined substantially since 1990.

If fatalities, crashes, and injuries are down, then I hardly think that we are experiencing a “national hazard” that warrants an outright ban on cell phone use while driving. Of course, there have been accidents where cell phones were clearly the cause. However, with traffic accidents and fatalities down during the same time period that cell phones became popular, cell phone use is clearly not as dangerous as some fear.

And, even if an action comes with a small amount of risk, that does not mean we should pass a law to ban it. In fact, driving with children in the car may be more distracting than those pesky cell phones. Should we ban driving with children? Are we in the midst of a national driving-with-children epidemic?

2. How could this possibly be enforced? And, do we really want to create another vague reason to stop and question citizens?

How on earth could a ban on cell phone use be enforced? Would a police officer be able to pull you over if you look down briefly while driving? How could the officer discern whether you are talking on a hands-free phone or merely singing along to the radio?

The New York Times should know better than to advocate for additional vague ways for police to stop and question individuals. After all, the Times did an excellent study of a “stop, question, and frisk” policing policy. The newspaper found that after a drastic decline in violent crimes in New York City, the number of stops the police made increased dramatically.

Knowing that police officers can sometimes abuse their ability to stop, question, search, and detain individuals, why would anyone advocate for more vague reasons to stop and question people? Driving dangerously is already illegal. What more do cell phone ban advocates need?

Indeed, the last thing I want to see after the passage of federal legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is another vague reason that police can use to stop and search citizens.

The solution is not to ban cell phones.

I do not condone texting while driving. I also am not a fan of eating while driving, or letting your adorable pet distract you while driving. Though it would make an excellent point and is legal, I do not recommend that you hold a banana to your ear and pretend to talk to it while driving.

I was in a nearly fatal car accident when my family first moved to Michigan. The culprit? Ice. Should driving in Michigan be banned from October through April? Obviously not. Instead, I support independent groups working to inform drivers about dangerous winter driving conditions. Similarly, efforts to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving may end up saving lives.

But an outright ban? It is an overreaction to a tragedy.

The post What’s Next? Indefinite Detention Of People Who Text And Drive? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A online shout-out to former intern Phil for bringing this story to my attention.

The post You Are Now Free to Move About Franklin County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What strikes me about the theories is that, in each case, the ultimate perpetrator is the state. And for some reason that seems acceptable to most Russians: practically no one here has questioned the right of the state to resort to extra-legal violence to maintain power, even against journalists.

What amazed me about Kashin’s story was the possibility that he had been beaten for writing something that in America seems unimportant to the point of boring: A proposed highway that city residents oppose but local authorities want. Show-Me Daily authors frequently blog about transportation boondoggles because there’s so much material. We get excited if commenters even bother to respond, and when we go home at night, we don’t bother to check under our cars for stray wires.

Chess champion Garry Kasparov, at a recent Show-Me Institute lecture, spoke about how he has spoken out strongly against government tyranny in Russia in recent years. Stories like his and Kashin’s make me thankful that, despite all of the waste and favoritism in Missouri, at least I, my coworkers, and anyone else can write about it.

But I shouldn’t get too warm and fuzzy about how great it is that bloggers and policy analysts aren’t beaten for criticizing Missouri government. There have been recent cases when the politically powerful have worked either to quash the rights of those who aren’t so well connected to government power, or simply used the system to their own benefit.

• In late November 2009, Gustavo Rendon, an anti–eminent domain activist, was arrested for distributing flyers critical of a development project heavily subsidized by the government. Perhaps it is a coincidence that he happened to be distributing those flyers outside the church of Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin, a staunch supporter of the project.
• In February 2010, the Columbia Police Department’s SWAT officers kicked down Jonathon Whitworth’s door, held him, his wife, and seven-year-old son at gunpoint, and shot two of his dogs, killing one, and leaving the other, a corgi, wounded. This was all on the suspicion (unfounded) that Whitworth “was dealing a significant amount of marijuana.” Fortunately, the incident has prompted an investigation and review of the police department’s practices.
• Because Missouri still severely limits where a child can go to school, students at failing school districts are being prohibited from transferring to better districts. As discussed in the documentary Waiting for “Superman,” some schools have student dropout rates of greater than 50 percent. It is atrocious that a lack of educational choice (charter schools, voucher programs) can limit students to these “dropout factories.”
• In September, the state auditor reported that the Department of Economic Development (DED), which awards hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits each year, was inflating estimates of the economic investment that would come about if tax credits were awarded. In one case, the DED reported a number 10 times too high.
• Occupational licensing, whereby the government limits who can do what for a living, generally allows a small group of people who stand to benefit greatly (those already in a particular industry) to limit future competition. This year, HVAC contractors were hit with increased licensing requirements.

I hope that 2011 will be a better year for Missouri government. I hope legislators will come to know that it really isn’t their job to tell people what to wear, do, say, or how to work. And if they don’t learn, I and the super-awesome champions of government restraint that are my coworkers will continue to point that out.

The post More Freedom, Please! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Politicians and policemen coming. The nanny state has its official new dawn. This August I saw the traffic stops. Seat-belt checkpoints in Pine Lawn.

Gotta just face and accept it. Red-light tickets being sent in the mail. Should have used cameras long ago.

Speed cameras placed on the Inner Belt. Seat-belt traffic stops in the towns. You’re under surveillance, didn’t you know?

In most of Missouri, the police are not authorized to use a seat-belt violation as the primary reason for pulling you over. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), should stick to doing what they do well — and it does a number of things well. That doesn’t include using tax dollars as part of an argument to limit our freedom. However, St. Louis County has had the audacity wisdom to enact its own primary seat-belt law, along with bike helmet laws and any other excuse they can find to protect us from ourselves.

So, that is the state of liberty in St. Louis County. We can get stuck in a seat-belt checkpoint any time the police in some tiny municipality feel the need.

(Just to be clear, attempting to run over a policeman is not an appropriate form of civil disobedience, and the shooting itself appears to be entirely justified.)

The post Shooting at a Seat-Belt Checkpoint … I Repeat, a Seat-Belt Checkpoint appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This panel discussion is our attempt to explore the issues of liberty at stake, as well as provide the opportunity for anyone who is interested to meet the panelists and to ask questions.

The discussion will begin at 6:00 p.m. TODAY at the Show-Me Institute’s office at 4512 W. Pine Blvd in the Central West End of Saint Louis.

The event is free, and snacks will be provided. However, because Liberty on Tour is traveling across the country, we suggest a $5 to $10 donation to help pay for the group’s travel costs.

Our star-studded panel includes:

• Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre of Liberty on Tour, a project to tour 13 cities in 13 weeks to talk about the principles of voluntaryism. Adam is also a founder of Cop Block, an organization devoted to watchdogging police officers who break the law. Pete Eyre currently works for the Future of Freedom Foundation, which advocates for individual liberty, free markets, private property rights, and limited government. Both Adam and Pete were part of the Motorhome Diaries project.
• Redditt Hudson, of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Redditt is a former Saint Louis police officer, and part of his work at the ACLU is to lead workshops that educate people about their rights under the law, including practical advice about how to interact with the police.
• John Payne, a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, will be moderating the discussion. John has argued for greater transparency and recording of SWAT raids in Missouri, and follows issues of civil asset forfeiture closely.

If you have the time, please drop by, and don’t hesitate to bring questions! The panelists will speak briefly about their perspectives on recording the police, and then we will open up the discussion for questions from the general public. After about an hour of discussion, we will move the group to Sasha’s on Shaw for dinner and drinks.

If you can’t make it, you can send questions you’d like asked to info@showmeinstitute.org, tweet them to @showmeinstitute, or post questions on the event’s Facebook wall. Finally, we will film the discussion and post it online for those who cannot attend.

The post Tonight: Panel Discussion on Recording the Police and Your Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These arrests raise interesting questions of privacy expectations, free speech, differing state laws, and, as Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko has noted, your right to petition the government. This panel discussion is our attempt to explore the issues of liberty at stake, as well as provide the opportunity for anyone who is interested to meet the panelists and to ask questions.

The discussion will begin at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, August 20, at the Show-Me Institute’s office at 4512 W. Pine Blvd in the Central West End of Saint Louis. Please RSVP either by email to info@showmeinstitute.org, by phone to (314) 454-0647, or by commenting on this blog entry.

The event is free and snacks will be provided. However, because Liberty on Tour is traveling across the country, we suggest a $5 to $10 donation to help pay for the group’s travel costs.

Our star-studded panel includes:

• Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre of Liberty on Tour, a project to tour 13 cities in 13 weeks to talk about the principles of voluntaryism. Adam is also a founder of Cop Block, an organization devoted to watchdogging police officers who break the law. Pete Eyre currently works for the Future of Freedom Foundation, which advocates for individual liberty, free markets, private property rights, and limited government. Both Adam and Pete were part of the Motorhome Diaries project.
• Redditt Hudson, of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Redditt is a former Saint Louis police officer, and part of his work at the ACLU is to lead workshops that educate people about their rights under the law, including practical advice about how to interact with the police.
• John Payne, a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, will be moderating the discussion. John has argued for greater transparency and recording of SWAT raids in Missouri, and follows issues of civil asset forfeiture closely.

If you have the time, please drop by, and don’t hesitate to bring questions! The panelists will speak briefly about their perspectives on recording the police, and then we will open up the discussion for questions from the general public. After about an hour of discussion, we will move the group to Sasha’s on Shaw for dinner and drinks.

If you can’t make it, you can send questions you’d like asked to info@showmeinstitute.org, tweet them to @showmeinstitute, or post questions on the event’s Facebook wall. Finally, we will film the discussion and post it online for those who cannot attend.

The post Recording the Police and Your Rights: A Panel Discussion With Liberty on Tour and the ACLU appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Despite criticism that cameras are aimed at generating revenue, [the city’s mayor] said Charlack passed a budget that did not count on camera fines. He said the ultimate goal is to phase out the photo program once motorists regularly drive more slowly through town.

The idea that the city will phase out the cameras once people drive more slowly is perhaps the most unbelieveable statement I’ve heard a politician say in a long time. And who cares if they passed a budget that did not count on camera fines? All that means is that they can spend the money however they want once it starts flowing in.

I have argued that the many small cities in St. Louis County should continue to exist as long as the citizens want them to. Here is the conclusion to my Government in Missouri study:

Missourians have chosen to have a large quantity of smaller government units. They have also chosen to have a large number of elected officials, representing smaller areas than the national average, so that the citizens may be in closer contact with those officials and monitor them more effectively. Economies of scale can be exploited in larger governments, as shown in the graph of per-capita spending for class three counties, but the efficiencies and benefits of larger government are less common and less significant than often supposed. The assumption that larger, less fragmented government is a more capable and efficient provider of services does not stand up to initial analysis and is not supported by the research.

But behavior like installing speed cameras, which is nothing more than a technologically advanced version of St. George–style speed traps, makes me question that once again. I would certainly favor legislation at the state or county level to forbid these types of cameras on the road — at the very least, on state or county roads.

I believe that speed cameras, just like red light cameras, are nothing more than a giant scam. I also believe they violate our rights — most importantly, the right not to be tracked by cameras every moment of your life. I am confident that would have been the Eleventh Amendment included in the Bill of Rights, if cameras had been invented yet.

The post Speed Cameras Are Detestable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Policing by Camera, a panel Q&A – Show-Me Institute
from Show-Me Institute on Vimeo.

French has spent nearly a year trying to get surveillance cameras installed in some of the high-crime areas of his ward. He maintains that the cameras will help police officers identify criminals, while deterring crime.

Lembke has argued against the use of red light cameras. The cameras, he says, violate due process because the owner of a car seen running a red light is presumed guilty — even if the camera cannot identify the driver.

If you are interested in how our local elected officials view the trade-offs between liberty and security, I encourage you to watch this video. Both the moderator and the public asked probing questions, which Lembke and French answered thoughtfully.

I hope that we can host similar, engaging discussions in the future. You can check back on this blog, join our email list, or become a fan of the Show-Me Institute to get updates about future events.

The post Red Light Camera and Surveillance Camera Discussion Now Online! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The discussion will begin at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 9,
at the Show-Me Institute Office at 4512 W. Pine.
Please RSVP either by email, to info@showmeinstitute.org,
or by phone at (314) 454-0647,
or by commenting on this blog post.

Sen. Lembke, who represents part of the city of Saint Louis and Saint Louis County, has spoken out against the use of red light cameras, on the grounds that they entail the presumption of guilt. As he said in a Post-Dispatch article, “[the use of red light cameras] takes liberty away in that there’s no other crime that I know of on the books where I as a citizen am guilty until I prove my innocence.”

Alderman French, who represents the 21st ward, has been campaigning hard to have surveillance cameras set up near high-crime areas in his ward. In the Riverfront Times blog, French explained that the crime is coming from a small group of people, and that surveillance cameras might deter that activity. From the RFT:

“It’s the same group of bad guys doing bad things,” French says. “We’ll advertise the hell out if it, that there’s cameras. One of reason people do things is because they think that can get away with it. If they know somebody is watching it’s very likely they’ll go somewhere else to do drug activity and violence.”

One of the most interesting aspects about the use of both red light and surveillance cameras is that the cameras will likely soon be able to identify, without a doubt, the individual committing a crime. At that point, although camera surveillance seems to be a particularly un-American activity, is there any constitutional argument against it? Do cameras really infringe upon our liberties if they are placed in public places where any police officer could also be placed?

French and Lembke will have the opportunity to answer these questions, and others, on June 9. If you are free, please drop by. The discussion will be informal; it our hope that attendees can ask the elected officials questions directly, and be part of an engaging conversation about the trade-offs between liberty and security.

Liberty on the Rocks is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, social organization that seeks to unite individuals, regardless of political affiliation, who desire liberty. With the goal of facilitating networks, friendships, and intelligent conversation, Liberty on the Rocks seeks to initiate the energy and dialogue necessary to move America from the grassroots up, toward the constitutional principles of freedom used to found this nation.

The post Policing By Camera: A Discussion of Red Light and Surveillance Cameras as a Tool of Law Enforcement appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

An elderly Polk County woman is hospitalized in critical condition after suffering a heart attack when drug agents swarm[ed] the wrong house. Machelle Holl tells WSB her 76-year-old mother, Helen Pruett, who lives alone, was at home when nearly a dozen local and federal agents swarmed her house, thinking they were about to arrest suspected drug dealers.

“She was at home and a bang came on the back door and she went to the door and by the time she got to the back door, someone was banging on the front door and then they were banging on her kitchen window saying police, police,” said Holl.

Holl says her house was surrounded and she was scared to open the door. When the Polk County Police Chief finally convinced her she was safe, she let them in.

“They never served her with a warrant. At that point, she said the phones were ringing with the other men that were in the yard and they realized that it was the wrong address,” said Holl. […]

“My mother has had a heart attack. She has had congestive heart failure and she is in ICU at the moment. She is not good condition and her heart is working only 35 percent,” said Holl.

Holl admits that her mother has had three heart attacks but has been doing well for the past couple of years.

“She was traumatized. Even the doctor said this is what happens when something traumatic happens. He said it’s usually like a death in the family or something like that just absolutely scares them half to death, and that is what has happened,” said Holl.

SWAT raids are designed shock and confuse, which is why, when they occur, many people believe the police are actually criminals attacking them. This can lead to heart attacks or residents attempting to defend themselves from perceived criminals, setting off a deadly firefight. When SWAT raids are used for nonviolent situations, they almost always introduce danger into the situation rather than removing it.

Also, there is this tidbit:

Police say they have had her mother’s home under surveillance for two years.

Holl says if that’s true, how could police get the wrong address?

“We have just found out from a neighbor that they (police) went into some other elderly woman’s home who was on oxygen and took her oxygen off of her and scared her half to death,” said Holl.

If the police really have been watching the house for two years and still raided the wrong house (I have my doubts), it certainly makes the Columbia Police Department’s new rule of keeping houses that they plan to raid under constant surveillance seem woefully inadequate.

Story via Hit and Run.

The post Like I Said, It’s Pretty Common appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Legislators say the spread of K2, a “herbal incense” more commonly referred to as a synthetic marijuana, is an epidemic.

Missouri state Rep. Ward Franz, R-West Plains sponsored a bill that would add K2 to Missouri’s list of illegal drugs. That bill was heard before the House Public Safety committee Tuesday.

“There are so many people, including adults, saying its legal so we think it’s safe, and that is not the case,” Franz said.

West Plains Police Department Detective Shawn Rhoades said in West Plains, students as young as middle school have been experimenting with the drugs. Last month, a West Plains high school student was hospitalized after smoking K2.

The dried herbs come in 3-gram packages of various flavors, and are available online and in several stores in the St. Louis area for about $30 – less than the cost of a tank of gas.

“We don’t know much about this, but it’s going to end up killing somebody,” Franz said.

There are so many flaws in the reasoning behind this bill that it would take a lengthy essay to unravel them all — and the commenters on the post have made a great start — but here are some of the more rudimentary ones.

Judging by the fact that I have never even heard of K2, I doubt its use is all that widespread — but, even if it were widespread, it could not be considered an epidemic. Epidemics are diseases that are extremely communicable and infect others even when they take steps to avoid infection. K2 is a drug that people have to consume (voluntarily, unless someone forces them to do so, or they are tricked) in order to feel its effects.

Furthermore, it is a very foolish person indeed who believes that any product that is not illegal is therefore safe. Just to stay in the realm of drugs, drinking a fifth of whiskey and smoking three packs of cigarettes a day is hardly safe, but it is perfectly legal. A free society is supposed to allow people to take such risks, provided they do not harm anyone else in the process.

Next comes the appeal that we must ban K2 to protect the children, because some middle school students have used it and one high school student was hospitalized after using it (note that the story didn’t say the student was hospitalized because of K2; that’s a possibility, but the article does not confirm the scenario). Well, I got drunk for the first time in middle school, and high school students are hospitalized all the time for drinking. Does that mean we should completely ban alcohol?

The paragraph about the cost of K2 is essentially meaningless. Three grams costs $30, it tells us, but that’s completely useless information without knowing the active dose. If three grams is what it takes to get high, I sincerely doubt K2 will ever catch on in any major way.

Finally, the legislator who introduced the bill is convinced it will kill somebody if it is not banned, but given the fact that he just admitted he knows little about the drug, I’m guessing that his certainty is based on exactly zero toxicological evidence. I don’t know specifically how K2 differs from marijuana, but unless it is dramatically more dangerous than its organic cousin, it is — for all intents and purposes — impossible to overdose on the drug.

Later in the article, a different legislator claims, “This has no legitimate use in society that we’re aware of.” Well, that depends on your definition of “legitimate”. If people are buying it and coming back for more, they must be enjoying it. Is enjoyment not a legitimate use? If not, I wonder whether the General Assembly should next take up the issue of banning carnivals. After all, the Scat routinely makes people sick, and it’s only a matter of time before one of the carts flies off the Zipper.

Finally, there is a presumption on the part of supporters of a ban that the legislation will be effective. Perhaps they should reflect on the history of marijuana prohibition. Marijuana is far more popular today than it was when it was originally banned in 1937. That trend may not repeat itself if K2 is banned, because people might simply opt to smoke the already widely available original as opposed to the newly developed synthetic, but no ban will keep people from altering their consciousness.

Back in high school, I was a policy debater, and in policy debate, the affirmative team advancing a policy proposal had the burden of proof to show that the policy was necessary. Each plan had to meet five so-called “stock issues” to prove it was good policy. Foremost among those were “solvency,” “harms,” and “significance” — meaning that the plan had to solve a significant problem that had major harms. If this proposal to ban K2 were advanced in a high school policy debate, it would lose without the negative team having to say a word because those advancing it have not shown that there is a significant problem or harm associated with the status quo, nor that the policy would actually achieve its intended goal. It’s a pity that the ban proposal will inevitably receive more consideration (and likely pass) in the General Assembly than it would from a high school debate judge.

The post Because We Haven’t Banned Enough Products Yet appeared first on Show-Me Institute.