Über die Freiheit / de libertate

Nor, apparently, does he read the articles he links to.

For the record, the Queen didn’t take any action whatsoever.

A few weeks back on August 25th Radly Balko wrote his FOX News column about underage drinking and the Amethyst Initiative, a collection of university administrators who advocate lowering the legal drinking age.

Just today, John Birch Society writer John Fisher attempted to refute Balko’s point. He had this to say:

Balko doesn’t know his facts. Binge drinking is a problem in other countries. In Britain where youth can drink alcohol with their meals in pubs at 16 years old, 53,844 people under 25 were admitted to English hospitals in the last year due to alcohol-related trouble. In Canada where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province, the recent death of a 20-year-old man serves as a reminder to youth of the dangers of binge drinking.

Huh? You can’t argue against someone for not knowing their facts, then present only two ‘facts’ yourself. First, that 53,844 persons under 25 were admitted to hospital is contextless? Now obviously the optimal number for this issue is zero, but how are we supposed to know whether the British number is high or low when compared internationally? In proportion to the population is that a large number? How many of those admitted where between 21-25?

Second, how on earth does one recent death in all of Canada prove anything? No one–Balko nor the Amethyst Initiative–is arguing that lowering the drinking age to 18 is going to magically stop all binge drinking. They’re arguing that a lower age, combined with responsible alcohol consumption taught by parents and educators is going to reduce the ‘forbidden fruit’ aspect.

For Fisher to argue that “Past history and the experience of other countries shows that lowering the drinking age won’t increase responsible drinking – it just increases the amount of drinking” is quite novel, especially considering that he doesn’t provide data to support such an assertion. However, Will Wilkison is here to back him up:

There’s certainly evidence that if we got rid of age limits, teens would drink more. But drinking more is a drinking problem only in the minds of neoprohibitionists. In a 2003 survey 22% of American tenth graders said they’d had five or more consecutive drinks in the last 30 days. But in Denmark, where there’s no legal minimum to drink (though you have to be 18 to buy), 60% of 15- and 16-year-olds said they’d thrown back five or more in a row within the last couple of fortnights. Maybe you think that’s too much. But the European champion of heavy teen drinking ranks as the world’s happiest country and scores third in the United Nation’s 2007 ranking of child welfare. In the UN listing the U.S. came in 20th out of 21 wealthy countries.

Wilkinson nails it. What people like Fisher are really arguing for is less drinking, completely ignoring that that inself isn’t the issue. As Wilkinson concludes,

In an America without a minimum drinking age, we would shift our focus from demon rum and car crash statistics to creating an environment where parents are expected to supervise their children and alcohol would become for teens just another thing, like bicycles or swimming pools, that can either make your day or take your life.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy Orin Kerr posted about an “attack” on a police officer at the RNC convention in Minneapolis stating:

Based on the video, it looks like a single officer was arresting a protester when a crowd surrounded him and starting yelling to let the protester go. The protester being arrested went limp to make the officer drag him away, and then another protester ran over and knocked over the officer so the officer would let go of the protester being arrested. At first the officer responded with pepper spray to try to keep the angry mob away. But the crowd kept coming at him, so he let go of the person he was arresting and backed away to his squad car. The crowd then cheered their victory. Lovely.

My first reaction to watching the video was perfectly summed up by commenter Gabriel McCall:

From the video, it’s impossible to determine what the protestor was being arrested for. The question of whether the angry mob was in the right or not is entirely dependent on whether or not the attempted arrest was just.

I think this is exactly correct. If the person was genuinely a criminal then I support his arrest, if the “the arrestee just happened to get on the wrong side of a [police officer] on a power trip” then I absolutely support the actions of the crowd.

However, Kerr, lover of The Law, replied that,

If you think a police officer is arresting you wrongly, the proper response is to wait for your post-arrest preliminary hearing, get out when the police can’t make out probable cause, and then sue the crap out of the police for wrongful arrest.

The improper response is to assault the officer. That just makes you guilty of assault.

I think this is bullshit on stilts. Why on earth should an innocent be arrested merely because someone with a badge decided so? Why should the public be held hostage to corrupt police?

Gabe rightfully asks,

Or[in], what makes this “the proper” response? Are there laws on the books which require obviously innocent civilians to cooperate with a blatantly unlawful arrest? 

To which Kerr responds that,

Why yes, there are. Use of force is not legal against a police officer making an arrest, even if the arrest is completely unlawful. See, e.g., MPC 3.04(2)(a)(i), which I believe reflects the state of the law in every jurisdiction (although I would have to check to be absolutely sure). Of course, I am assuming you care about “the law,” and perhaps you don’t.

I’m going to be perfectly honest, that’s frightening. First it’s frightening because such a blatantly oppressive law exists and second because Kerr, an intelligent person, would worship the law to such an extent.

You can follow the remaining exchanges here, here and here.