Jason Hughey

About Jason Hughey

Christian and libertarian. Follow me on Twitter @JL_Hughey, and on Google Plus.

What’s Next for Baltimore?

As I write this, the National Guard and local police are enforcing a curfew in Baltimore.  The curfew began at 10 p.m. and will be lifted at 5 a.m.

We all know why there’s a curfew, of course.  We’ve seen the videos of buildings on fire, cars being smashed, and violent clashes with police.  We’ve seen mobs tearing through the streets, ransacking and looting as they go.  We’ve read about the reporters who had their faces smashed in by rioting thugs.  We’ve watched a mother berate and smack her son for taking part in the madness.

We all know how it started too.  We know Freddie Gray’s name and we know he died after his spinal cord was 80% severed at the neck while he was being arrested by Baltimore police officers.

Tonight, as law enforcement officials patrol the streets of Baltimore, many hope that some semblance of order will be restored to the city.  Some will look to the picture of a young black boy handing out water bottles to the police and see hope for restoration.  Others will praise the courage of a Vietnam veteran named Robert Valentine for standing up to the rioters and telling them to go home.  Many will pray for the innocent victims who were caught in the crossfire.

But no matter what, all of us will have a difficult time comprehending the meaning of what we just saw.  The road ahead for Baltimore, and for all of us who seek to hold the police accountable for brutality, is going to be filled with the debris of burned down buildings and busted cars.  There will be anger.  There will be political posturing.  There will be high-strung emotions.  Consequently, it will be crucial in the coming days and weeks to understand Baltimore’s nightmare from a calm and level-headed perspective. It will be essential for us to know what is true and proceed from that basis.

Thus, here is what we know is true about Baltimore:

  1. The city of Baltimore has a rampant and undeniable problem with police brutality. For years, Baltimore’s citizens, especially minorities, have felt the heavy hand of a corrupt police force. Between 2011 and 2014 alone, the city was forced to pay out $5.7 million to victims of police brutality.  Given the scope of violence detailed in Conor Friedersdorf’s article, there’s no way to merely excuse Baltimore’s police violence problem as a result of a handful of bad apples on the force.  The problem is systemic. Freddie Gray’s death was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back and sparked a long overdue outrage.
  1. Experiencing deep anger, mortification, and sadness over Freddie Gray’s death is more than justified. In fact, people should feel these emotions when considering the recent history of policing in Baltimore, not just in contemplating Gray’s case. If you had the chance to read my letter to Franklin Graham, you’ll know that I’ve experienced these emotions when researching cases of police brutality all over the country.  Righteous indignation is a healthy response to such abuses of authority.
  1. Peaceful protesting is a legitimate way to express frustration with modern policing while honoring victims of police brutality. Granted, its effectiveness at solving the problem of police abuse is likely to be minimal at best, but at least it’s a healthy way to process one’s emotions. In Baltimore, peaceful protests preceded the rioting and as the dust is settling more peaceful protestors are re-emerging.  A lot of citizens are helping to clean up the city in the midst of conducting their protests.  These people are expressing their sympathy for Gray and their anger over his death in a proper way.
  1. Regardless of one’s motivation, destruction of private property and injury of innocent life is completely unjustified. No excuses, no exceptions. The rioters who wantonly destroyed private property, looted businesses, and injured a number of innocent people were engaging in activities just as evil as any clear-cut case of police brutality.  Just ask the reporters who experienced the mob’s wrath firsthand. Unfortunately, there are some people who will excuse the actions of the rioters on the basis of their cause or out of anger toward police brutality.  That reaction is completely and totally wrong–it promotes exactly the same sort of behavior that we oppose when we decry police brutality.  We must condone no one, whether they are wearing a badge or not, in violating another individual’s rights to life and property.
  1. Opponents of systemic police brutality are not akin to the violent rioters in Baltimore, nor is it possible to accuse them of supporting such violence. If you doubt this, see points #2, #3, and #4. Unfortunately, the Baltimore rioters just made the job of those who decry police abuse much harder by turning the national spotlight towards their looting and away from the systemic problem of police violence.  However, many who oppose modern policing tactics also condemn the rioters in Baltimore.  Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to accuse all critics of modern policing of encouraging the violence in Baltimore (or Ferguson for that matter).

Ultimately, the issue of police brutality must not be overlooked as Baltimore attempts to recover from the events of the past few days.  I wish that Freddie Gray was only one of a handful of cases to discuss, but he’s not.  In Baltimore alone, there’s more problems with police brutality than should ever be allowed to happen in a country that calls itself the “land of the free.”  The wrong actions of a few looters must not be allowed to drown out the needed conversation for addressing widespread abuses at the hands of police officers.

Likewise, simplistic accusations that portray all cops as being racist, badge-wearing thugs will be unhelpful.  The same can be said for expressions of undying affection for the Heroes of the Blue Shield.  The problem is not that all cops are racist and the solution is not to worship the idea of the police.  The problem is that systemic abuses of authority result in far too many Freddie Gray’s and the solution is–well, that’s another article for another time.

Tomorrow, Baltimore’s citizens will face a new day.  Whether the unrest is fully under control remains to be seen.  But regardless of whether or not tonight’s curfew effectively restores order, the most important questions posed by the crisis in Baltimore will likely remain unanswered for weeks to come.  As we try to come to grips with the events of the past week, one simple fact remains: yet another tragic chapter in our national conversation on police abuse has been written.

I hope that someday we will be able to write the epilogue.

An Open Letter to Franklin Graham on Police Brutality

Dear Mr. Graham,

Given your knowledge of Scripture, I know that you are familiar with the account of 2 Samuel 12:1-15. It tells the story of Nathan the prophet when he rebuked King David for murdering Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba.  Nathan brilliantly set up his rebuke by telling David the story of a poor man who owned a single lamb which he greatly loved.  Nathan then recounted how a very wealthy man, who already owned many flocks of sheep, stole the poor man’s lamb and had it killed for a meal.  In response, King David was enraged and proclaimed that the wealthy man deserved to die.

It was at this point that Nathan unleashed his trap and brought David to shame.  He immediately proclaimed, “You are the man!” and drew the parallel between the story of the poor man’s lamb and David’s greatest sin–the murder of Uriah and David’s adultery with Uriah’s only wife, Bathsheba.

Why am I reminding you of this story?

Because of your platform as the son of one of the most famous evangelists in history and as an influential Christian teacher in your own right, you have the chance to emulate Nathan’s rebuke to powerful authorities in our day when they inflict violence upon those who do not deserve it.  Instead of doing this, however, some of your recent comments on police brutality have ignored Nathan’s example in a way that is damaging to any rational person’s perception of Christianity.  At best, your views on this issue are naive and heartless.  At worst, you risk blindly taking the side of the oppressors.

Allow me to make my case.

On March 12, you made a post on Facebook about police violence in the United States that received over 200,000 likes.  Your message was simple: if you don’t want to get shot, then obey the police.

In your post, you implied that police shoot their victims because their victims are being rebellious, uncooperative, or resistant.  You also implied that those victims should be more obedient in order to avoid being shot and you asked President Obama to urge the nation toward this goal.  You also claimed that we could reduce the amount of shootings if more people simply obey the police at all times, even if we think the police are wrong.  Finally, you seemed to say that the Bible commands us to always obey those in authority and that recent police violence is a symptom of our disobedience.

Where to begin?

As someone who has followed stories of police abuse and violence for several years now, I can honestly state that I read new and unique instances of police violence on near a daily basis.  Recent high profile cases, such as Eric Garner’s and Walter Scott’s deaths, have brought this issue to the mainstream.  But they are sadly not isolated cases of brutality.  In 2014, as far as we can track without official numbers, 1100 people were killed by the police.  Already in 2015, over 300 more people have been killed by police as of April 9 (Source for both statistics: www.killedbypolice.net which tracks the number of individuals killed by police through the news stories to which we have access).  These figures do not include the number of people who are injured or maimed by police, and those who suffer severe trauma and psychological distress from such altercations.  There are at least hundreds, if not thousands, more of those people.

As a side note, to bring our comparison back to Nathan’s story of the poor man’s lamb rather strikingly, police also kill hundreds upon hundreds of dogs during enforcement activities like drug raids.  If you want to read a truly tragic account of one such canine execution, you can read about Burberry the service dog here.  I have read infuriating examples of police officers who essentially shoot these dogs for no reason at all (Burberry’s death is one such story).  I guess those dogs should have been better trained at puppy obedience school?

Now, let’s assume that in all of the above instances I listed, those individuals who were killed or abused by the police (or who had their dogs killed by the police) were angry, disgruntled, scared, or even reached out to push the officer away.  Maybe they swore at their officer or raised their voice.  I’ll even grant that in probably some of these instances there might have been a struggle where the officer legitimately thought his life was in danger.  But, outside of those instances, does any of the other patterns of behavior warrant death or serious injury? Do you honestly think that raising your voice to a police officer or hesitating to throw your hands in the air is an automatic bullet through the heart or chokehold around the neck?  Do you really think cussing at an officer merits your head being smashed into a wall?  Do you really think the death penalty is warranted for being rude?

I doubt you do, but your comments on Facebook do not demonstrate that understanding.  Instead, they place the moral blame entirely upon those who are, in the vast majority of cases, defenseless and non-violent victims.  Conveniently, you stand behind the men and women who wear badges and wield guns while shifting the blame to those who cannot stand up for themselves–and if they try, you blame them for the actions of the officer.  In doing so, you completely ignore the officer’s moral agency in using excessive and lethal force that we all would agree would be unjust if utilized by a private citizen.

Furthermore, because you make this error, you have taken a simplistic and naive stance on a very complex issue.  So many defenseless people, from grandparents to newborns, have suffered the horrific consequences of police brutality over the past few decades–and in a number of instances, the damage is collateral–obedience or non-obedience has little to do with the harm caused in these cases.  Death, injury, and psychological trauma have been the wake of numerous law enforcement operations, practically ruining individuals and families for years to come.  When a SWAT team smashes down the door to someone’s house in a drug raid and shoots someone because they leap up from their couch in shock, the problem is not a failure to obey police.  No individual should be treated like a terrorist in their own home.  But to these people your response is to simply say, “Shut up and obey…or face the consequences.”

To help you understand what actually happens in these scenarios, I would encourage you to actually read and watch the reports of police brutality that have occurred over the years.  I will warn you that what you will read in most instances will be absolutely heartbreaking–if you actually choose to spend time reading about these stories.

For instance, you will see reports of flashbang grenades being thrown into a toddler’s crib or a sleeping girl’s bedroom, leaving such children with hideous and life-changing injuries.  You will see reports of a 7-year old girl shot to death while sleeping on the couch with her grandmother.  You will see reports of an innocent man choked to death by police in a movie theater parking lot in front of his wife and teenage daughter (you can even watch the video of the wife screaming, “He’s not breathing!  You killed him!” if you wish) .  You will see reports of an ex-Marine shot to death in his own home while trying to defend his family when he didn’t know that the  unannounced armed men breaking down his door were SWAT officers.  You will see reports of a woman who had her skull smashed to the floor of a concrete cell by a police officer (and if you watch the video, you will see the blood pooling up underneath her head).  You will see reports and watch a video of a man who yelled out that he couldn’t breathe, but was nevertheless strangled to death for the mere crime of selling untaxed cigarettes.  And just recently, you will see reports of a man who ran because he was scared–and who was shot in the back by a police officer.

And finally in this last case, we have a murder charge against a police officer to discuss.  Finally.

What’s really sad is I literally just mentioned all of those instances from memory–I didn’t even have to look up the articles because I remember each of them in all of their horrific and gory detail.  Feel free to look them up if you choose, but there are hundreds more where those came from.  You can start with the killedbypolice.net link above.

If you’re truly committed to actually understanding this issue, I strongly suggest that you read one book.  It is called Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko.  Balko is one of the preeminent researchers into conventional police tactics and modern police history in the United States.  His book will feature even more examples of unwarranted brutality against peaceful and non-violent individuals for your perusal.  If there is nothing else that you read on this issue, I urge you to read Balko’s book as it will open your ideas to the absurdity of your position that all we have to do to stop police shootings is shut up and obey.

I will acknowledge that your most recent comments regarding the Walter Scott case seemed to admit the moral guilt of the officer involved in that instance.  This is hardly a feat, however, given that practically everyone has agreed that the officer was in the wrong.  Moreover, in this comment, you still beat the drum of obedience to the police as if it is some sort of solution to the problem of police brutality.  That’s not the real solution because it’s not addressing the real problem.  The real problem is that police are using any excuse they can to utilize brutal force against individuals who are, in most cases, defenseless, caught off guard, and misunderstood.

Let me be clear: I do not write this to say that all police officers are abusive, nor am I asking you to consider that as a possibility.  I am merely asking you to reconsider your misguided notion that failure to obey the police places the moral guilt for police violence upon the victim, who is not holding the gun, instead of the police officer, who actually pulls the trigger and cuts short someone’s life.

Allow me to conclude by telling you how damaging the perspective you espoused on March 12 is to those of us who are trying to share Christ’s love in the midst of a broken world.  The theology of authority that you advanced in your comments on March 12 is not really a theology of authority…it is a theology of abuse.  It is a theology that, were it applied on a micro level, would justify a husband in beating his wife because she talks back at him (“Wives, submit to your husbands…”).  It would justify, again on a micro level, a father who throws his son into the ground for refusing to turn off the TV (“Children obey your parents…”).  Those who are looking for an excuse to justify a power trip are not worthy of obedience and should be held to account for their violence and their abuse, whether as an abusive spouse, an abusive parent, or an abusive police officer.  Sin is sin.  Oppression is oppression.  And abuse is abuse.  It is adamantly not rightful authority.

Thankfully, Christianity is far more nuanced and deep in its understanding of ethics–simply taking verses about  submission out of context to place moral guilt upon the victims of abuse is not acceptable, regardless of the office of the abuser.  And perhaps best of all, Christianity points us to the King who loved us so much, that he died for lawbreakers, criminals, and sinners.  He came to alleviate the suffering of the abused and cast off the yoke of the oppressor so that we might bear his yoke of love and share it with others.  That is the message that we can share with victims of police abuse as Christians–not blame them or their loved ones for being scared, angry, or frustrated when a gun is thrust in their face by a police officer.

Like the heroic prophet Nathan, let’s be willing to stand up before the world and hold police officers accountable for their brutality when they commit it.  Let’s not blame the poor man for refusing to sell or share his only lamb–even if it is the police who are demanding it. Like Isaiah, let us say, “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!”  (Isaiah 10:1-2)

In short, I hope you will reconsider your position.

Best regards,

Jason Hughey

When Government Steals From Us

Graphic design credit: Kelsey Crockett

Credit: Kelsey Crockett

When I was 15, I read a short book called The Law  for the first time.  

It forever changed how I understand the function of government.

You see, The Law was written by a French political economist named Frederic Bastiat in 1850.  Bastiat developed his perspective on government and economics after years of serving as a legislator in France.  He also had witnessed a number of political revolutions in France during the early half of the 19th century.

Given this experience, Bastiat had come to understand how easy it is to abuse the power of government.  He saw corruption and greed manifesting itself everywhere in French political life.   Thus, he wrote The Law as a response to the evils of his time, with the intention of warning his fellow citizens of the danger they faced if they did not check their government’s abuse.

And  yet, perhaps the most powerful aspect of Bastiat’s The Law is that it could just as easily be describing the dangers of excessive government power that we face in our time.

How the Law Becomes “Perverse”

Bastiat’s argument is simple, yet profound.  The law should only function as a protector of our life, liberty, or property.  Consequently, it should punish individuals who commit violence against someone’s life, liberty, or property.

Most importantly, Bastiat argued persuasively that the law could not legitimately do things that were immoral for individuals to do.  If individuals were not allowed to steal or murder, then the law could not legitimately be used to steal or murder.  This would violate the very purpose of the law, making it perverse.

Plunder vs. Legal Plunder

Thus, the crucial question that The Law placed before me was:

“Is it morally acceptable for an individual to steal my money, threaten my life, violate my privacy, restrict my freedom of choice, or harm my family?  If not, then is it alright for government officials, politicians, bureaucrats, and police to do the same things?”

This is the question of plunder vs. legal plunder.  In the one instance, a private individual is attacking your person, your liberty, or your property.  In another instance, the state is attacking your person, your liberty, or your property.  In neither instance is such coercion morally acceptable.

The problem is that, while we readily see and criticize illegal plunder today, we quickly overlook how much legal plunder occurs every day in our society.  We again need to hear the warning cry of Bastiat when he proclaims, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it!”

How the Government Steals

Bastiat told us how to identify legal plunder.  He urged his readers to “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

Look at the graphic at the top of this page.  In the left-hand frame, a robber holds an innocent man at gunpoint, demanding that he hand over his money.  No one could argue that this sort of theft is justified.

But, in the right-hand frame, the robber has taken off his mask and his gun has disappeared.  How does he get the money this time?

Quite simply, he relies upon the institution of government to be his gun.  The robber in the right-hand frame could be a bank CEO, a politician, a government bureaucrat,  or a well-connected lobbyist.  He might receive federal subsidies, a government grant for his new business idea, a bailout after a rough balance sheet, or a stimulus funding package to “spur the economy.”

My point (and Bastiat’s point) is that, whoever he is does not matter.  The robber in the right-hand panel relies upon the government’s coercive power of taxation to take money from the innocent individual (without that individual’s consent) and funnel it towards those activities that benefit himself.  He is the beneficiary of plunder–of the government’s forced extortion of wealth from another individual’s labor and profits.

And you can be sure that as a beneficiary of plunder, he will fight to make sure that the laws that transfer money to himself remain in place.

Legal Plunder Today

It is somewhat disconcerting to realize how much legal plunder occurs in modern times.  Bastiat warned that if legal plunder “is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.”

Unfortunately, this warning has not been followed and we now live under a system of legal plunder.

What are some of the ways that we see legal plunder today?  In other words, in what ways do governments extract wealth from individuals:

  • Income taxesI Want You Stamp
  • Property taxes
  • Sales taxes
  • Value-added taxes
  • Gasoline taxes
  • Automobile taxes
  • Capital gains taxes
  • Dividends taxes
  • Corporate income taxes
  • Payroll taxes  (If you haven’t looked at the withholding section of your paycheck in a long time, do it now.  And then ask yourself what you could do with all the money the government steals from you every pay cycle.)
  • Punitive fines
  • Civil asset forfeiture
  • Central banking

And what sort of programs and activities do these taxes support:

  • Drone strikes against foreign civilians
  • Bank bailouts
  • Corporate welfare
  • Increased lobbying activities
  • Fancy vacations for political officials
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Medicaid
  • Government education
  • Regulations against business and enterprise
  • The War on Drugs
  • The NSA’s spying program
  • The TSA’s sexual assault program
  • Failed stimulus packages
  • Quantitative easing
  • Intellectual property enforcement

This only scratches the surface.

When Government Steals From Us

Governments love to figure out new ways to increase their power through increasing the policies and programs that are reliant upon legal plunder.  Beneficiaries of these programs fight to defend and expand them while politicians gain power and influence through them.

The innocent?  Well, they are often overrun by regulations or they choose to cave in to the system by engaging in plunder  as a defense mechanism against the initial plunderers.

UncleSamTheftThis helps to turn all of the questions of our society into political questions–a convenient state of affairs for the ruling elite.  While we squabble about how we want to turn to the government to solve a certain problem, they accumulate power, riches, fame, and connections.  We are conveniently distracted from the true source of the problem: government officials and the cronies that they are in bed with.

Thus, we debate about how to solve everything.  We attempt to determine how government will fix healthcare, keep us financially secure in retirement, provide for the poor, educate children, fight foreign military interventions, protect us against terrorists, keep our streets clear of drugs, fix the banking system, stop school shootings, give us relief from natural disasters, propel us toward new energy solutions, build our infrastructure, keep the stock market afloat, and on and on and on and on.

Why?  Why should we be turning to the government for any of this?  It’s nothing more than a wonderful excuse to empower the plunderers and ignore the fact that they are causing most of the problems we face on these issues.

The dominant, all-absorbing nature of these political questions sparks conflict and hostility among lot of well-meaning people.  Because everyone’s livelihoods are tied to government’s success at stealing from some and giving to others, they have a stake in ensuring that they argue for their share of resources.

Thus, legal plunder turns friendly strangers into mortal enemies. It divides up societies and fosters political conflict–all because we are trying to figure out how to distribute stolen goods.

In short, legal plunder  literally destroys our moral compass, both individually and collectively.  

If that is not alarming enough, then consider the long-term consequences of legal plunder.  What happens when all of the honest and productive entrepreneurs become cronies seeking handouts and lobbyists fighting for regulations to punish their competitors?

The short answer is that economic productivity is unsustainable.  Wealth is merely transferred, not created.  Innovation and growth falter while regulation and legal plunder dominate.  As all actors rush toward the government for their means of leaving, it is only those who arrive first that receive benefits. The rest are left hanging out to dry.

In a system that has encouraged wealth accumulation by greed and plunder through the power of the state, the incentive for true charity and for earth-shattering innovation dwindles, leaving the “least among us” the most vulnerable.

That’s the world of legal plunder: heightened conflict, a lost moral compass, unsustainable economic policies, and squeezing the poor.

It’s a truly grim world.

Conclusion: Against Legal Plunder

Bastiat opened my eyes to the dangers of legal plunder when I was only a teenager.  Yet, as I’ve become an adult, it’s taken me longer to see how pervasive and hard to eradicate it really is.  I’ve also started to feel the effects of it more personally as I’ve started paying my own bills, paying taxes, holding down a job, and seeing how laws prevent businesses and individuals from bettering their stations in life.

I’m also very concerned about how legal plunder drives people into poverty and holds them down in such a state.  I’m concerned about how legal plunder helps the politically connected and ruling elite get richer as the rest of us get poorer.

Bastiat 2012

But it’s not enough to be concerned.  We must be willing to act.

By acting, I do mean figuring out ways to work around, challenge, overcome, or dismantle legal plunder and government stealing, especially in our personal lives. And, by acting, I do not mean not paying your taxes.  I don’t want anyone to go to jail.

Ultimately, we are as free as we choose to be.  Governments cannot lay claim to our minds, our consciences, our souls, and our individuality.  It cannot control the spontaneous orders that emerge through voluntary human action.

So long as we participate in this process peacefully, choosing to resist the politicization of everyday life and the perverse moral effects of legal plunder in our personal decisions, we can be effective defenders of freedom.

– Jason Hughey

Note: Special thanks to Kelsey Crockett for her design work on the graphic at the top of this post.  If you are interested in looking at more of her graphic design work, please check out her website.