Author: Michael

What is Socialism, Anyway?

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment

If you’re paying any attention at all, you have heard the word “socialism” thrown around a whole lot more in the last few years than ever before. At least, you’ve heard it more frequently without an expletive before it. In fact, the current leader in the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for President is a self-described and unapologetic socialist (that’s Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, if you have been living under a rock for a long time–which I can understand but I don’t encourage!).

But what does that really mean? The vast majority of us—I think—abhor the idea of socialism, but do we really know what it is? And a common critique (for good reason) of socialism is that it will utterly destroy an economy, and/or lead to outright communism. Is that true? Wait! What IS communism?

And hold it: isn’t socialist paradise found in Norway and Denmark? Shouldn’t we learn from them and imitate?

I dive into these questions and more with James Harrigan and Antony Davies, both Distinguished Fellows with FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education. James is a political scientist who leads the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom at the University of Arizona. Antony Davies is an economics professor at Duquesne University. They have both written a lot of scholarly articles and also in the popular press about these topics.

Together Antony and James host the very popular podcast Words and Numbers. Follow Antony on Twitter. Follow James, too. Finally, they have a Facebook group for Words and Numbers.

I hope you enjoy this interview. If you do, please do me a massive favor and leave me a 5 star review on iTunes or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you really want to be my hero, Tweet it or post it on Facebook or whatever social media you prefer. Thanks!

Prisoners of Politics with Rachel Barkow

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment
Prisoners of Politics by Rachel Barkow

Criminal justice is a tough issue. It’s easy to say “lock ’em up!” It’s so easy, in fact, that that’s exactly what nearly every politician says. But unless you’re going to lock ’em all up forever, you have to think about what happens when a convicted criminal is released.

In this episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer podcast, I interview Prof. Rachel Barkow (@RachelBarkow), author of Prisoners of Politics (click the link to buy on Amazon). Prof. Barkow teaches at New York University Law School, where she is the Vice Dean and Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy. Her resume is exceptionally impressive, and I unintentionally gave it short shrift when I introduced her in this episode. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was on the Harvard Law Review. After law school, she served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Court of Appeals, and then for Antonin Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. She then served in private practice before entering academia. She is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Perhaps most important for Prof. Barkow’s criminal justice expertise, she was appointed by President Obama as a Commissioner on the United States Sentencing Commission, where she served from 2013-2019. Since 2010, she has been a member of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel.

It would be silly of me to try to recap this whole episode here, but let’s hit a few highlights. First, while we may think that putting more people in prison makes crime go down, it doesn’t. Arguably, the opposite happens.

Second, we have a lot of penalties that extend beyond the time that a person is in prison, and those things often make it next to impossible for a person to earn an honest living. Obviously, that makes crime more attractive.

Third, longer sentences aren’t the answer (at least for crime prevention) because that’s not what deters crime. The fear of getting caught is what deters crime.

There’s a bunch more. Listen and enjoy this episode! And don’t forget to subscribe!

Listen on Google Play Music

Finally, a quick reminder that the Personal Responsibility Lawyer is sponsored by my law firm, Lovins Trosclair. We help people who have been through terrible tragedies, serious injuries and even deaths resulting from the irresponsible choices of others. Call us at 512-535-1649 or go to our website, www.LTLegalTeam.com if you need us. We are here to help.

The Anti-Federalist Papers with Judge Andrew Oldham

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment
Anti-Federalist Papers
This may or may not be what the Anti-Federalist Papers actually looked like!

It’s easy to cheer for the Constitution now. But in 1787, not everyone was excited about it. Not even all the Founding Fathers favored ratification.

Serious students of the Constitution study the Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. To even casually curious historians, The Federalist Papers are known as the prominent arguments in favor of ratifying the Constitution. We all easily forget, though, that the proponents of the Constitution had opponents.

Since we forget that they had opponents, we certainly forget what the opponents were called. Well, it’s not that hard. Those who favored ratification of the Constitution were the Federalists, so those who opposed ratification were the Anti-Federalists. We know who wrote the Federalist Papers, but we only know some of the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Probably their greatest impact was securing certain guarantees, which became the Bill of Rights. Some of the Anti-Federalists went on to hold prominent positions in the new government under the ratified Constitution.

In this episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer podcast, I had the distinct privilege to interview Judge Andrew Oldham. Judge Oldhamis one of the foremost authorities on the Anti-Federalist Papers and also a sitting judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Judge Oldham has written about the Anti-Federalist Papers in the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty. I strongly recommend that you read this piece. There’s a ton of fascinating history there that adds great color and texture to the whole ratification story. We tend to think of the Founders as a bunch of friends who got along and worked together to find a mutually agreeable solution to the problems the new nation faced. That’s simply not the case. Reading the Anti-Federalist Papers–and some of the fierce accusations made by the writers–reveals the bigger story.

The Wall Street Journal has also written about Judge Oldham’s scholarship, specifically regarding the insights they give us into modern administrative law.

There’s so much that is fascinating about the Anti-Federalist Papers, and it’s way more than I can cover here. Listen to this episode and then start going down the rabbit hole of information until you realize you have to come back out and get some work done!

Note: Judge Oldham’s appearance on the Personal Responsibility Lawyer does not indicate any endorsement of Lovins Trosclair, PLLC, or of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer.

The Conservative Case for Class Actions

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment
The Conservative Case for Class Actions
The Conservative Case for Class Actions

Why do conservatives seem to hate class actions? Why do conservatives vilify class action attorneys? It’s not because conservatives are maintaining ideological purity, according to law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick.

Prof. Fitzpatrick is no stranger to conservative legal circles. After graduating first in his Harvard Law School class, he clerked for conservative Reagan-appointee Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Soon thereafter he clerked for conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia.

Neither is Prof. Fitzpatrick new to conservative political circles. He served as Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations to conservative Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). He’s also a frequent presenter at events hosted by the Federalist Society (which doesn’t necessarily mean he is conservative, as the Federalist Society hosts events with speakers from a very wide array of viewpoints).

There’s a handful of reasons why conservatives should support class actions. They are better than extensive government regulations. They allow private enforcement instead of government enforcement of market rules. Class actions do a better job of compensating injured parties than government enforcement.

Class actions aren’t perfect, but nothing is. Prof. Fitzpatrick has some ideas that could make them better.

Listen to the interview to learn more about The Conservative Case for Class Actions.

You can find out more about Professor Fitzpatrick at his Vanderbilt faculty webpage or at brianfitzpatrick.com. You can (and should!) buy The Conservative Case for Class Actions on Amazon.

Listen to the Podcast:

Interview with David Hoey, Trial Lawyer Protecting the Elderly

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment
Elder Advocate and Trial Lawyer David Hoey

In this episode, I get to interview one of the premier trial lawyers in America. David Hoey lives in the Boston area and is the president of the Hoey Law Firm.

In this episode, David describes some of the terrible things he has seen happen in elder care facilities. These tragic failures result in horrific, unimaginable pain, suffered by some of the most vulnerable members of society who sometimes have no voice and no one to speak up for them.

Not only will you learn how the Hoey Law Firm has stepped in to obtain justice for victims of neglect and abuse in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, you will also learn how to choose a place that will be caring and safe for your loved ones.

You can learn more about David Hoey and his practice on Facebook and Twitter.


A High School for Today’s Kids, Not Yesterday’s Factories

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment
“We believe teens are made to influence the world for good.”

The Waterloo School of Austin is an exciting new high school that debuts in the 2019-2020 school year. In this episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer, I had the distinct pleasure to talk to 2 of the co-founders, Craig Doerksen and Dr. Carol Blosser. On the Waterloo home page, it says, “We believe teens are made to influence the world for good.” This, of course, is a huge departure from the more common idea that teens are a problem to be solved and hopefully one day they will become adults who will do more good than harm in the world.

The short version of Waterloo is that it is a project-based high school. But that hardly tells the full story of what they are doing. In this conversation, we go into much greater depth about the Waterloo model. It includes a trimester system, with students taking 2 classes each trimester. Classes are held four days each week, and Friday is a “flex” day for students to do…what needs to be done. This schedule wasn’t thrown together at random. It was created based on a lot of research about how the brain works, and specifically how the teen brain works.

Although Waterloo is trying to fight the distractions of the digital and social media age, they are practical enough to know they have to overcome the irony and be on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. I strongly encourage you to follow them for updates (but don’t let these things suck you in and make you waste your day!).

There are several topics and resources raised briefly in this episode that may pique your interest, so here are some links:

The Committee of Ten essentially designed our education system in the 1890s. It should still be fine, right?

Chap Clark wrote Hurt 2.0: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. I haven’t read this, but I’m interested.

The documentary Most Likely To Succeed is fantastic. The film’s website is here. You can watch it on Amazon.

The Center for the Advancement of Christian Education produced some research that was important in informing the Waterloo system.

Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World, by Cal Newport. This is a fantastic book that we mention only briefly. I highly recommend it.

The Pomodoro Technique came up in the conversation. It’s not a huge part of the discussion, but you may find it useful to kick start some productivity.

Finally, here’s how you can listen to this episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer. (Oh, yeah, and if you like the program and can give me a 5 star rating on Apple Podcasts or any other podcast app, I’d be mighty grateful!)


Coercive Plea Bargaining with Clark Neily

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment

Plea bargains. They’re just fair, arms length deal between the government and someone who committed a crime, right? Well, sometimes it might be. But if you get caught up in the criminal justice system, there are forces at work that you probably never contemplated.

Only a very small percentage (less than 5%, depending on the jurisdiction) of criminal cases actually go to a jury trial. That number alone means that the plea bargaining system is driving the criminal justice bus.

And whatever drives the bus in our criminal justice system needs to be fine tuned to deliver justice. Hence the “justice” in criminal justice. Well, the system is very efficient, but does it produce justice?

And whatever drives the bus in our criminal justice system needs to be fine tuned to deliver justice. Hence the “justice” in criminal justice. Well, the system is very efficient, but does it produce justice?

In this episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer podcast, I talk to Clark Neily, Vice President of Criminal Justice a the Cato Institute. Clark tells us why we should have grave concerns about whether justice is the primary product of the criminal justice system. The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to a public trial. But when someone tries to exercise this right, prosecutors often retaliate. In some sense, it’s understandable. They have cases to move and trials take up a lot of time and resources. If even half of those accused took advantage of their 6th Amendment rights, the system would grind to a halt without massive structural changes.

Clark talks about the reality of the problems, why the system can be terribly coercive to innocent people–and even guilty people–and proposes several things we can do to make the system work better and produce more justice. Among the solutions is the return of conscientious acquittal, which is now more often referred to pejoratively as jury nullification.

If you find criminal justice issues important, following Clark on Twitter is a must. You can do that here.

He also wrote a book a few years ago called Terms of Engagement that I highly recommend. (We will all overlook the fact that I called it “Judicial Engagement” during the interview. He was too kind to call me out for it!)

I hope you find this episode as interesting–and a bit frightening–as I did. If you do, please review the podcast on iTunes.

You can also listen on Spotify.

Interview with Tim Sandefur about Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment

If you don’t know a lot about Frederick Douglass, well, join the club. But then get out of the club. You want to know about this man’s life. Trust me on that one.

My guest in this episode of the Personal Responsibility Lawyer podcast is Tim Sandefur. Tim is the Vice President of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute. We could have spent a full episode talking about the fascinating lawsuits he oversees involving constitutional rights. But this episode is about one of his many books, Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man.

Prior to hearing Tim speak about this book, I was generally aware of a guy named Frederick Douglass who was pretty important in the abolitionist movement. I’m embarrassed to admit that’s pretty much where my knowledge stopped. But my curiosity was piqued by Tim’s talk, so I read the book. It’s not long, and it’s a really easy read, so I strongly recommend it.

Finally, here are a couple of links about things we discussed briefly in the interview that you may want to research just a bit more. There’s good info about the Seneca Falls Convention here and of course on Wikipedia.

You can listen on iTunes, Stitcher, or Spotify!

Interview with Martial Artist Richard Johnson

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment

8th Degree Taekwondo black belt and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu brown belt Richard Johnson talks to me about his martial arts journey, and how martial arts teaches basic principles about life and personal responsibility. I’ve known Richard for a long time but I’ve never talked to him in depth about how he got started in martial arts, and how he turned it into his business.

Richard started in martial arts when he was in high school and was tired of being bullied. His idea was that he was going to start winning the fights with the ones who had picked on him. Instead, he hasn’t been in a fight since.

Well, he’s been in a lot of fights, but they were all in competitions. Within a few years of starting Taekwondo, he was a national champion black belt. Now he owns a Taekwondo and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu school in Austin, Texas (www.southaustintkd.com). In spite of all of his Taekwondo accomplishments–being an 8th Degree Grand Master Black Belt ain’t nothin’!–he pushed further and earned a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

In his school, he teaches 10 Tenets, which are

  1. Honor
  2. Courtesy
  3. Integrity
  4. Perseverance
  5. Self-Control
  6. Courage
  7. Community
  8. Strength
  9. Humility
  10. Knowledge

It’s not hard to figure out how these tenets apply to real life, but Richard explains how teaching about kicking and punching and blocking translates into real life with these 10 tenets.

There’s a lot of readily applicable information, and you may find yourself wanting to start your own martial arts journey! Enjoy this interview, and let me know what you think!

 

Interview with Shoshana Weissmann

~ Michael ~ Leave a comment

I had a great time interviewing Twitter’s Senator, Shoshana Weissmann! If you haven’t already, you can find her on Twitter, @SenatorShoshana. If you’re a Twitter kind of person, I highly recommend you follow her. She is also the digital media guru for the R Street Institute (@RSI or rstreet.org), a free market think tank in Washington, DC.

Shoshana and I talk about occupational licensing reform, and how the federal, state, and local governments have gotten into the business of protecting their friends by raising barriers to entry. We even talk about a complete law-nerd term, “regulatory capture.”

Take a listen, and please review us on iTunes!