Look Past Partisan Rhetoric To Understand California's Recent Crime Problems

California's leaders can take the recent rise in property crime seriously without repeating the same "tough on crime" mistakes of the past.


Like all areas of our society these days, every problem draws simple partisan answers—and then sparks a nasty battle over pat policy proposals and between two factions that portray the other side as devious and dangerous. Pick any issue—housing, guns, immigration, etc.—and we can easily map out both sides' overheated arguments and positions.

We therefore shouldn't be surprised that Californians have reacted to the troubling issue of growing violent crime rates in that predictable manner. It makes perfect sense, too, given that crime—and the fear of it—affects our sense of safety. I spend a lot of time in San Francisco, and it's the main issue that everyone is talking about.

Even the Associated Press has noticed that the city's crime wave—including a string of organized and brazen robberies, a shoplifting epidemic, and daytime shootings—has challenged the city's "vaunted tolerance." San Franciscans "are used to living cheek by jowl with open drug use, feces-infested streets, and petty crime," AP reported, but many are moving out amid "a general feeling of vulnerability."

Despite what some commentators have argued, San Francisco does not yet resemble Road Warrior, but the crime problem is ominous. Last time I visited my daughter in San Francisco, she insisted that I not leave anything in the trunk even for an hour. San Franciscans now take everything out of their cars and leave them unlocked—to avoid having to replace smashed windows.

Conservatives are blaming Proposition 47, which reduced a number of low-level crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and police defunding for the upsurge. Also predictably, liberals are pointing to a surge in gun ownership during the pandemic as well as economic hardship and isolation caused by COVID-19. I doubt any of those theories offer a full explanation.

Prop. 47 boosted larceny thefts, but has had no impact on murder rates. Despite the rhetoric, virtually no police department has seen funding cuts. There's no way the people who bought legal guns during the pandemic are using them to commit armed robberies. Poor people don't turn to a life of crime because of economic struggles.

Other states are facing similar problems, so there's probably not a California-specific reason for soaring crime rates, but California officials need to take the matter seriously given that public insecurity could easily lead back to the counterproductive days of tough-on-crime lawmaking—something that increased the size and power of government and led to myriad injustices.

At least with the crime issue, we can all agree on a certain set of facts given the general reliability of state and federal crime statistics (especially for murder and other highly reported categories). So policy makers should start there rather than (as is the case with San Francisco's district attorney) embrace the politics of denial.

"In 2020, property crime in California reached the lowest level since 1960 (as far back as consistent crime statistics go)," according to a recent analysis of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco by the Public Policy Institute of California. In 2021, however, property crime has increased as much as 13 percent with an astounding 21 percent hike in car break-ins.

Regarding the far-more concerning crime of murder, rates are up 30 percentthe highest annual jump the FBI has ever recorded. The state still has a relatively low murder rate nationwide, but that offers slim comfort. As The Orange County Register reported, homicides doubled over four years in Anaheim, Hemet, Riverside, Pasadena, Torrance, and Glendale.

When it comes to crime policy, statistical analyses over time don't entirely matter. The public's sense of disorder and danger drive policy—and it usually always cuts in a predictable direction. In the late 1990s, California politicians tried to out-tough one another on their crime policies, to the point that Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and Democratic Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante both agreeing to use the death penalty for criminals as young as 13.

It's easy to roll our eyes at that insanity, but I just returned last week from a trip to my old hometown of Washington, D.C. The murder rate is roughly a third of what it was when I last lived there, but no normal person bases their judgments on the FBI's Unified Crime Reports. Instead, they react to what they read and feel. My Uber driver told me about another driver who died in a wreck after two girls, aged 13 and 15, tried to steal his car.

Not to sound like a Pollyanna, but when it comes to crime policy it would be nice to try a less-partisan approach. We can, you know, be tough on brazen crimes while still holding officers accountable and seeking appropriate alternatives to incarceration. So far, state officials are saying the right things, but as long as people are living in fear we're always at risk of repeating all our past mistakes.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: White Lotus

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A less-partisan approach sounds nice, but when one side of the aisle insists on letting repeat offenders out of jail and not prosecuting low-level crimes, good luck. If the D's will push the hardcore progressives out of the way, there is probably grounds to do something useful. As long as guys like Darrell Brooks are repeatedly released on violations that carry prison sentences, nothing will change. The justice system should try and rehab the criminals in it, but it also has to keep the criminals off the street. Not prosecuting people for repeated offenses is not rehabilitation, it's stupidity.

    1. Also when the law is applied unevenly according to politics, the legitimacy of government is non existant.

      Plant a bomb while saying BLM: 12 months
      Walk around the capitol saying maga: 24 months

      1. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ..
        ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
        ¦¦¦¦F¦O¦L¦L¦O¦W¦¦M¦E¦¦¦¦¦ ...... ­­­w­w­­­w.m­­­ax­­­p­­­r­­­o9.­c­­o­­­­m

      2. Walk around the capitol saying maga: 24 months

        You meant "breaking and entering/aggravated assault".

        1. Vast majority of those in d.c. jails committed no violence dumbass.

        2. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled piece of shit and pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
          turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

          1. Sevo, the epitome of SF life! I see you haven't found that tall bridge to jump off of yet.

        3. The dude that broke the window worked for the fbi. Can you show me video of the protesters assaulting people? Nope, that's why the feds got caught deleting evidence

          1. Where can I find information on this?

        4. Most pathetic "insurrection" in the history of insurrections. The only one to be murdered was an unarmed "insurrectionist". Every other fatality was of natural causes.

          The real crime of the Jan 6 peaceful protestors was resisting the swamp/DNC.

          1. Weird that no one has been charged with insurrection.
            And why are they still refusing to release all of the video?

            1. Rosenbaum’s Buttplug has a video he would like to release.

          2. We don’t excuse criminal behavior for being incompetent at the crime being attempted.

            1. You’re all about excusing leftist political violence.

            2. Mike still believes the unarmed insurrection could have taken the country over.

              1. Well, our elected officials were in fear for their lives, right? And how can government work if authorities are afraid of the people, and not vice-versa?

                1. AOC should receive hazard pay.

                  1. I should receive hazard pay for Ocasio-Cortez being in office.

            3. How many were murdered by fire extinguishers?

            4. Can they not release the footage to the public? Seems awfully sketchy, no? They have tons of video to make their case...and they are choosing not to.

              1. Not even releasing video to defence lawyers

                1. That would be something a libertarian publication might be interested in, no?

                  1. A liber-what-now?

                    1. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ..
                      ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
                      ¦¦¦¦F¦O¦L¦L¦O¦W¦¦M¦E¦¦¦¦¦ ...... Visit Here

            5. We don’t collectivize people either, which you do every time you try to paint anyone who entered the building as an “insurrectionist”.

            6. It was a mostly peaceful summer of love.

    2. Why SHOULDN'T we ascribe partisan blame for the state? The state has been run by a single partisan government for close to a decade or more.

      I'm all for holding republicans accountable when they do things wrong, but every policy decision for this state has been made by Democrats for years. The GOP wouldn't be able to do shit to them if they tried.

      1. demsdems havehave ranran caliCali sincesince thethe earlyearly 90s. Also all of the problems are only happening in d areas

      2. Because, as you may have gathered that from the title: boooothsiiiideeeeezzzzz!!! How can we even expect good governance from Democrats as long as Republicans exist?!?!

        1. Spelling “both sides” as “boooothsiiiideeeeezzzzz” has never worked as a critique of bothsideism. It doesn’t matter how many times it is repeated.

          Why, in what we would presume would be a commentariat of libertarians, wince Reason is a libertarian organization, is there such sensitivity to presenting “both sides” arguments.

          1. Gonna need a cite that reason is actually a libertarian site.

            1. I see what you did there. Outta sight!

          2. Because libertarians don't have multiple sides on issues. Things are either constitutional or not. Things either work or they don't.

            Pretending what Republicans on fox news, based in NYC, say about California has no impact on what actually happens in California because over 90% of Californias government positions are controlled by democrats. From federal to local, it's all dems.

            There is only one side to this argument. The democrats running San Francisco, and most other major cities, have destroyed them.

            It's ironic greenhut says it's happening other plaeso it must not be a California thing. But he's too retarded to realize it's happening in other heavily Democrat controlled major cities. There's a common theme. Democrat mayor's and city councils have destroyed their school systems, destroyed their neighborhoods which are mostly minorities, and destroyed their opportunities at a better life. But let's act like what Republicans on television in other states say, is equally as important.

            1. I maintain that the writers are embarrassed or disdainful of "the right" and secretly hoped that Covid would kill them off.

              Nothing they wrote (until very recently that is) disproves my suspicion.

            2. Actions violate the NAP or not.

          3. It’s got nothing to do with both sides of any given argument. It’s Reasons obsession with criticizing both sides of the political isle when the topic they are presenting is critical of Democrats.

            There shouldn’t be any discussion of Republicans impact on an issue where Republicans have…no impact.

            1. Maybe boaff sidez should be referred to as greenhutting.

          4. You're a progressive shill, based on your comment history.

            Why would we listen to you? Have you suggested anything that would be considered a solution from a libertarian perspective, ever?

            Ever? For any issue. Ever?

            1. Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee, and should be treated as such.

              Deelion is also acceptable.

              1. The cry of the Deelion.

            2. Umm, OK.

              Californians should repeal Proposition 47, which was a dumb idea. I don’t know who came up with Proposition 47, but I’ll guess it was progressives. So, it was probably a dumb idea that came from progressives.

              Californians should also resist going back to the tough on crime era.

              Huh, weird. This is pretty much what the blog post says. And it’s all pretty much in line with common sense and an independent libertarian viewpoint that doesn’t line up with Team Red or Blue.

            3. OK, now, explain to me how, oh let’s take, longtobefree’s comments on this page propose a solution from a libertarian solution.

              Oh, gosh, they don’t. They propose vigilantism and lynching. But not a word of criticism from you for what he has said.

              1. Ah, just saw below that you responded to his comments suggesting lawlessness with an approving follow-on joke.

                1. NO JOKING IN THE COMMENTS!!!

            4. There is barely a word of serious discussion in any of the comments on this page, but your bar for me is that I have to propose libertarian solutions to California’s problems.

              1. I'd bar you from just about everything to save the conversations, Deelion.

            5. The biggest thing Californians should do is ditch the “open primary” rules they adopted, which were sold to them as making elections more open but were actually designed to give Democrats one party rule.

              Weird, that doesn’t sound like something a progressive would say. Oh, that’s because I’m an independent libertarian and not a Democrat or Republican or a progressive.

              Merry Christmas!

              1. Deeeeeeeee...

            6. My comment yesterday about Hillary Clinton sure looks like someone a progressive would say. You must really follow my comment history closely:


              1. Deelion got very upset.

              2. Deelion is very upsot.

                He just wants to engage in serious reasoned discourse on the politics of libertardianism.

            7. 'No' would have been shorter and saved time.

          5. It’s a rhetorical tick for when a sea lion barks the same thing over and over again, even when it doesn’t apply to the topic under discussion.

      3. Must not forget, Greenhut is the truly neutral arbiter of politics, the umpire. He doesn't take sides or have favorites /sarc

        1. "Why won't those evil Republicans stop being so partisan?!"

          1. Leftists insist everything is political. Also, only conservatives are political.

      4. Well said. The Dems are the “only game in town (ie. state)”. And have been incompetently doing as they please (mostly tax & spend) for years. Visited for a meeting about a month ago from Sacramento and “everyone’s favorite city” is in decline. Of course, this is what happens when you become a “sanctuary” for drugs, crime (not punished if < $950 burglary) & leadership does not support the “thin blue line”.

    3. One might almost suspect that progressives decided that criminal justice reform could be undermined by turning it into the releasing of repeat, violent offenders instead of anything actually useful that libertarians have been advocating for for decades.

  2. Poor people don't turn to a life of crime because of economic struggles.

    True, but why assume that most crime is committed in the course of "a life of crime", rather than by part-time criminals: people who shift their activity to more, or less, crime depending on their life conditions? Economic struggles are far from the only determining factor there, but that's not the point; the point is to stop thinking of crime in all-or-none terms, rather than by degree of criminality.

    1. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots: throw millions out of work, close businesses and schools, quarantine people inside, arrest those who violate quarantines and lockdowns, scare everyone half to death, lie to them about what to do and why -- and then encourage Burn Loot Murder in the cause of Eat The Rich, I mean actively give them control of cities, help them burn community businesses, tell the police to stand down, applaud them publicly.

      And then throw zillions of dollars at people just when the supply webs are so fractured by all the unpredictability and arbitrariness which politicians excel at.

      What The Fuck else would happen?

      1. It is the same policy we've seen in virtually every socialist takeover of a country. Happened in Russia, China, etc.

        1. And Soros prosecuters refuse to punish violent criminals while persecuting anyone who defends themselves.

      2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf, you forgot the idiotic idea, here in California, that the best way to stop prisoners from getting the Chinaflu was to let them out.
        Where else could a population be better observed for infection, and a person, who has contracted the disease, isolated from the rest, better than in a prison situation?
        But, NO, we have to let them all out so that they don't get it and pass it around, here.
        That was the excuse, anyway.
        Instead they let that happen in the free world, where these criminals are a big part of the increasing crime problem.

    2. Had my coffee been brewed, I woulda lost it on that line.

      Greenhut is a pristine example of ivory tower academia having no clue.

    3. If it had been brewed, I woulda lost all my coffee on that one.

      Greenhut is a pristine example of an ivory tower idiot with no clue.

      1. I hate Reason comment boards sometimes...

  3. repeating the same "tough on crime" mistakes of the past

    Indeed. I learned in college that "I'm tough on crime" is racist code language for "I want to lock up Black and Brown bodies." Furthermore as a Koch / Reason libertarian I support the billionaire-funded soft-on-crime #EmptyThePrisons agenda.


    1. So Biden is racist?

      1. Well, he is white.

      2. Absolutely.
        (at least he was when he had a mind)

        1. I don't think so. I think he just abhorred minorities. Oh, and the biggest accomplishment of his political career was the crime bill that might have been a touch racist.

          1. He's cool with minorities that are clean and articulate. Hell he even declared that poor kids can do as well as white kids if they have a record player in the house. Or something like that. And it's well known that one of his closest friends as a young man, Corn Pop, was a minority. True, they had their differences. But in the end Corn Pop was forced to admit that Joe was the most badass kid on the playground. To those who claim that Joe Biden is now or has ever been a racist I have two words. C'mon man.

      3. Barack Obama is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

        — “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

        — “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

        — “Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”

        — “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black.”

        1. Some of why progressives support him.

        2. Its been a while since a president used the word “negro” too.

            1. Joe thinks they steal his meds.

        1. Pretty sure you’re the only one thinking of Trumps penis.

          1. Pussy grabber boasted of avoiding STDs While Dating: Vaginas Are 'Landmines ... It Is My Personal Vietnam'
            Bone spurs likens avoiding contracting STDs during his single years to Vietnam in Howard Stern interview. In an unearthed interview from 1993, Agent orange claimed he was a “brave soldier” for avoiding STDs during his single years in the late ’90s. “Dating is like being in Vietnam. You’re the equivalent of a soldier going over to Vietnam.”

            1. If you feel the compulsion to continue posting about Trumps penis and other details of his sex life, go ahead. Just realize that I’m not going to actually read it you sick fuck.

              1. I thought that he was just a parody account at first, but it’s looking more like he’s a true believer.

                  1. What’s your point? Nobody cares that he fucked Stormy. I wouldn’t have minded fucking her 10-15 years ago either.

                    1. I don't care if he did or not. I care about the dozen crimes he was involved to hush her. His enforcer indicted co-conspirator Cohen went to jail partially for paying hush money (right before election) to her to prevent her from telling about his cheating on his wife. Cohen committed many crimes as his part of the conspiracy. The ex-pres. wrote a check to pay back Cohen in the oval office while Pres. and wrote it off as a business expense (tax fraud).

                    2. credit where credit is due.......president Biff fucked a porn star half his age and SHE was the one who wouldnt shut the fuck up about it

                1. I thought it was fairly clear from the start it was another dimwit groupthink cult member, trying to get a rise out of folks here by posting silly bullshit.

                  1. Federal judge says Trump has responsibility for January 6, calling rioter a 'pawn'. A federal judge suggested Friday that former President Donald Trump had some responsibility for the January 6 attack on the Capitol and that rioters were pawns provoked into action. "People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, were told falsehoods, were told the election was stolen when it was not," Mehta said. "Regrettably, people like Mr. Lolos who were told those lies took it to heart. And they are the ones paying the consequences." Judge Amit Mehta called individuals who stormed the building "a pawn in the game played by people who know better."

                    1. "Go home in peace."

                      Fuck, but you are some serious kind of stupid.

              2. I think I will take your advice.

                1. Seeing a psychiatrist?

                  1. He-who-must-not-be-named has bought them all up. Fun facts...on page 278 of his book THINK BIG said Bill Clinton is his friend and Hillary is a fantastic person. Pg.307 said Rudy and Hillary would be excellent President and VP.

                    1. Nobody cares db.

  4. Does it have anything to do with simultaneously defunding the police and disarming the populace and releasing felons from prisons to make room for mask refuseniks all at the same time as publicly announcing that (non-covid) crimes will go unpunished?

    1. The unmasked and potential iNsurrEctioniSTs are the real danger. Not rapists and home invaders, because that's just economic disparity's fault.

    2. Now that's just crazy talk.

      1. I wonder what crazy looks like from the inside.

  5. Doing her part to make sure Trump wins another term:

    “Hillary Clinton is begging Democrats to consider her as an alternative to Biden”

    You had your turn, Hillary.

    1. I don't trust FAUX NEWS.

      However if Clinton is the 2024 nominee I'll proudly vote for her like I did in 2016. And she'll defeat Drumpf even more decisively.


      1. That has to be a fake white Mike. Like fake buttplug

        1. Maybe not. The one above is muted and White Mike has been muted for a spell.

          1. Can we have sarcs 2 and 3 verify for us?

            1. Now have them all muted so I wouldn’t be shocked if they continue the sock hop name changes.

            2. Oh my God, watching sarc whine to deelion mikejefftard about someone stealing his handle, while the person who stole it was online trolling sarc and confusing deelion jeffmiketard into responding seriously to a troll, was internet gold.

              Literally monkeys humping doorknobs.

              1. deelion mikejefftard

                Lmfao. Perfect.

    2. This is the sanest thing you've said in... ever.

  6. We can, you know, be tough on brazen crimes while still holding officers accountable and seeking appropriate alternatives to incarceration.

    No, we can't. Not as long as the unions are involved. It is their singular purpose to see that all their members are treated equally. There is no excellence; there is no malfeasance. There are only regular dues-paying members.

  7. “Even the Associated Press has noticed that the city's crime wave—including a string of organized and brazen robberies, a shoplifting epidemic, and daytime shootings—has challenged the city's "vaunted tolerance."”

    Pretty telling statement. So was this a slip by Greenhut, or does he not even understand what it means?

  8. There are only two sides - let the criminals run free committing crimes and mayhem and lawlessness and disorder or let the cops run free committing crimes and mayhem and lawlessness and disorder. Choose wisely.

    1. How about we become the ones who run free committing crimes and mayhem and lawlessness and disorder?
      A few heads on pikes outside an un-robbed store should work well.

      1. Park a woodchipper outside for the local dictators while you're at it.

        1. Why not have a gallows outside of every legislature in the country?
          I think it would be therapeutic.

  9. Give up partisanship? We might at well ask most people to give up eating and sex. Since the dawn of humans (and before) our core existential drives include social organization into groups and drives and then inter-tribe conflict. And conflict is the goal, not just the means.

    1. What Greenhut means by "give up partisanship" is that all should cease resisting and rather submit to leftist global totalitarianism

      1. Well, yeah. That's compromising these days.

  10. I recommend, if you can find it, a 1994 book edited by Robert James Bidinotto, titled "Criminal Justice? The Legal System vs. Individual Responsibility." Dr. Walter Williams said about the book:
    "Bidinotto has done it. He's managed to assemble a group of scholarly, yet immensely readable articles that completely demolish a half century of half-baked theories about the causes of and society's response to crime."

    1. The trick is to reform the lawbooks. Not let every poor violent felon have zero bail.

  11. "Despite what some commentators have argued, San Francisco does not yet resemble Road Warrior, but the crime problem is ominous."

    "some commentators". Who are they? Mr Greenhut links to an IMDB page for Road Warrior, perhaps hoping we'll think he was linking to an actual example. But nope.

    This is Greenhut's style, and it becomes tiresome. He lives in a state that has been run by a Democrat majority for over a decade. In the Bay Area, they have permissively accepted break-ins as if they were passive acts of weather ("If you leave an empty bag in your back seat, the car window will be broken"). But he cannot stand the idea of being counted among Conservatives so he spends endless words trying to paint Conservatives as extreme, or otherwise wrong.

    If he isn't making up positions of Conservatives, as above, he is finding fringe voices to represent mainstream positions. (

    But that leads him to some vapid analysis. Just look at this: "Conservatives are blaming Proposition 47, which reduced a number of low-level crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and police defunding for the upsurge.". To which he says, "Prop. 47 boosted larceny thefts, but has had no impact on murder rates."

    See that? Conservatives are wrong to blame Prop 47 because it "only" increased lawless larceny thefts, but not murders. Seriously?

    Oh and get this- according to Mr Greenhut, there has been "virtually" no defunding of police. Again, we have to take his word for it, because he gives zero source. The guardian seems to disagree:
    "In 25 cities, such as...Oakland, officials moved to remove police from schools, saving an additional $34m." And that Guardian article links to a Bloomberg article that further says, "Los Angeles, which spends about a quarter of its general fund budget on police, finalized a landmark $150 million reallocation away from police to communities of color in July."

    Mr Greenhut laments Partisan politics, but is engaged in his own Partisan nonsense. Being anti-partisan means joining with people to achieve certain outcomes, rather than being concerned with which tribe they are in. But Greenhut cannot find himself in agreement with icky Conservatives, so he has to make up hyperbolic comments and alternative facts to distinguish himself from them. What he doesn't realize (or maybe doesn't care about) is that he is alienating 40% of the state who might- in this case- join in with him to reign in the lawlessness that Blue Cities have inflicted on their state. It may make it easier for him to sleep at night, but it has absolutely zero chance of making any meaningful change in the state.

    1. Well whenever I see a headline like this, I don't expect any actual call for unity to overcome serious issues. What I expect is "Shame on Conservatives for pointing out failed Democrat policies."

      In that regard I was not disappointed. There's a reason why "Republicans Pounce" has become such a meme.

    2. Greenhut always criticizes the GOP for problems created by CA's left wing Dems and their woke policies that have destroyed families, while promoting homelessness, lawlessness, racism, lockdowns, transgender rights supreme and a huge exodus of smart humans.

      Greenhut simply cited overall murder rates, without excluding (or even mentioning that) many/most are cases of domestic violence.

      People are most concerned about indiscriminate violence and crime that occurs on streets, sidewalks, buses and retail stores,

    3. The true purpose of this screed is to deflect blame from his DNC handlers. The policies of the Dems have brought about this increase in crime but we should avoid partisanship when the consequences become apparent. He can go to hell with that BS.

  12. I doubt any of those theories offer a full explanation...

    Prop. 47 boosted larceny thefts, but has had no impact on murder rates. Despite the rhetoric, virtually no police department has seen funding cuts. There's no way the people who bought legal guns during the pandemic are using them to commit armed robberies. Poor people don't turn to a life of crime because of economic struggles.

    Other states are facing similar problems, so there's probably not a California-specific reason for soaring crime rates,

    This is such a pathetic effort to defend left wing politics. No societal movement is ever the result of a single "complete" cause. So protecting the issues by setting this standard is fundamentally dishonest. Similarly no one claims crime is solely a result of defunding.

    But in California and other progressive cities left wing leadership has signaled acceptance of property crime. Naturally criminal acted on this. Note that this signaling was not limited to California and thus by correcting the cause Greenhut's defense that the crime wave is happening outside California as well no longer makes any sense.

    Libertarians need to get past their instinctive both sides-ism. As it has here is leads them to such stupid analysis that any policy they recommend will be dismissed out of hand for originating with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

    We don't have to lie about reality to develop intelligent law enforcement reform.

    1. This isn't a libertarian article, it's written for the Orange County Register. It's meant to try to appeal to Democrats while scolding a few Republicans for pouncing.

    2. If I remember past Greenhut articles correctly, he has always been a fucking moron with horrible takes on these things.

      1. He’a working to improve his social credit score.

  13. "Poor people don't turn to a life of crime because of economic struggles."

    Bullshit! Desperate times call for desperate measures!

    1. Ya know, this assholish piece of lefty shit hasn't been around recently; it's my first chance to mute the son of a bitch.
      Fuck off and die, painfully.

      1. Nice to know you're becoming the thing you despise the most you pathetic prick!

        1. I don't think Sevo ever will vote D.

  14. Trump touts boosters. Biden credits Trump. Trump appreciates Biden.

    Guys, you ever have a moment when everything you believe in collapses and you question your existence and sanity? That’s what I’m going through right now now as a gay, black conservative and maybe still supporter of the #1 president ever, Donald Trump.

    1. Leftists just can't meme.
      Sad watching them try so hard.

      1. I’m not memeing and I’m certainly no Leftist. If you don’t discontinue with these petty slurs, I’m going to sue you for 5 billion dollars citing Jordan Peterson vs. Dumb Liberal Bitch Who Didn’t Like His Book as precedence. Better hope we don’t go to the SC. That precedence is taken very seriously by the legal masterminds they have there now. Consider yourself served.

        1. Just completely lacks talent.

        2. This is just painful to watch. You're really not good at this.

          1. I was hopeful, when he first showed up, but he really does not understand conservative positions, so his parody falls flat.

            A conservative would not threaten to sue, and would cite the case correctly.

            A good parody of conservatives would damn Trump with faint praise on this issue, or "see I disagree with Trump sometimes, so I am not a braindead follower"

            OBL, demonstrates understanding of the strain of liberalrianism, so his parody mostly works.

            1. Yeah. This is just dirty buttplug.

    2. There were many times when Jesus tested the Apostles faith in Him.

      1. Did he make them dodge flying fire extinguishers?

  15. Despite what some commentators have argued, San Francisco does not yet resemble Road Warrior, but the crime problem is ominous.


    1. Conservatives are blaming Proposition 47, which reduced a number of low-level crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and police defunding for the upsurge.

      They are actually blaming zero bail for violent and repeat offenders. See the red suv released in Wisconsin that drove through a parade.

      Not every crime is the same. Zero bail should not be universal. Especially for a violent offense when already on bail.

      On top of that telling people they can shoplift up to 500 dollars with no jail time and a 250 dollar misdemeanor fine lets them know they can make money even when caught.

    2. The only reason 80 motherfuckers get together to rob a mall with crowbars is that they know there’s no chance they’ll be held accountable for their actions.

      And thanks to the Democrats that run California, they’re not wrong.

  16. By the way the timing of this article couldn't be more hilarious as two democrat politicians got car jacked this week.

    1. The congresswoman in Philly was hijacked by five yutes with a gun. They apparently did so for a lark, joyriding around Delaware until captured by the cops. Nothing about stripping the car for parts so they could sell them to feed their hungry babies?

      1. I mean the d.c. female car jackets who killed that guy got 7 years. Bet she is out in 2 with probation until 21.

      2. I remember that retarded Blm broad from Chicago saying like "if you wanna steal Louis Vuitton you should because you gotta eat" and picturing all the black people in Chicago eating their purse leather in the syringe filled gutters on the south side like the soldiers in the muck filled trenches ate their boot leather in ww2.

    2. Can we guess what race the car jackers were. We know they weren't white otherwise they would have been called racist insurrectionist anti democratic revolutionairy NAZI's and hung by the lamp post along with their families

      BTW had to create a new account to comment for some reason Reason is not working on certain browsers

      1. Like SUVs at parades, some cars simply jack themselves, and implicate innocent POCs who happen to be nearby.

      2. "BTW had to create a new account to comment for some reason Reason is not working on certain browsers"

        It's not working since Welsh doesn't give a shit about the site, resulting in my annual contribution of $1.00 instead of what Reason got prior to the luxury office inside the beltway.

        1. He probably put too many consonants in the code

    3. This is ultimately the reason you're hearing anything about it from any mainstream source. Before it was just a problem for the peasants, but now it's starting to scare the aristocracy.

  17. Ultimately, there are two factors feeding the crime surge in California.

    1) A lack of prison space going back decades.

    Long before the pandemic, California found itself repeatedly under court sanction to release thousands of convicted criminals due to overcrowding. They were releasing prisoners early due to overcrowding before they were ordered to do so more aggressively by the courts. This goes back to when Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger were the governor.

    Suffice it to say, the outrageous pension benefits of California's state government workers, the outrageous amount of money the state of California spends on things like education and environmental programs, etc., etc. all of these things came at the expense of the state government shirking one of its important and legitimate responsibilities--which is to protect our rights from convicted criminals.

    "More than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one-third instead of the one-fifth that had been in place since 2017. That includes nearly 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole . . . .

    California has been under court orders to reduce a prison population that peaked at 160,000 in 2006 and saw inmates being housed in gymnasiums and activity rooms. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court backed federal judges’ requirement that the state reduce overcrowding . . . . Before the pandemic hit, the population had dropped to 117,00 inmates. In the last year, 21,000 more have left state prisons — with about half being held temporarily in county jails.

    ----U.S. News & World Report, May 1, 2021

    2) The pandemic has made everyone crazy.

    When an economy suddenly collapses the way ours did in 2020, you should expect an big increase in social unrest and crime. That's been the recipe since the Babylonians. It isn't just in California, the United States, or the western hemisphere. Looking at this policy or that policy in California is absurd if we're not also accounting for what's happening everywhere in the world during a worldwide economic collapse. You see it in unruly passengers in airplanes, too. Economic collapse + locking everyone down makes people nuts--and those who might not commit crimes under other circumstances will go over the edge without a job and a plan.

    1. "2) The pandemic has made everyone crazy."

      It wasn't "the pandemic", it was government reaction to it, severely limiting your personal choices. Many of us here predicted the sort of damage we're seeing, you included, and predicted the results would be worse than the disease:
      "San Francisco Proclamation Says More Died From Drug Overdose in 2020 Than From COVID"
      "Mayor London Breed released the proclamation declaring a local emergency for drug overdoses in the city's Tenderloin neighborhood. It stated that over 700 people died from drug overdoses in San Francisco last year, which "far exceeded" the number of people who succumbed to COVID-19."

      Obviously, the gov't power grab didn't cause all the ODs, but the number is nearly double what it was prior to the Newsom/Breed tin-pot-dictator wannabe efforts.

      1. This.

        The progressive response left everyone less free. It hurt the poor the most.

      2. "It wasn't "the pandemic", it was government reaction to it, severely limiting your personal choices."

        I absolutely agree.

      3. Additionally I would note that the "de-fund the police" movement has led us to a point where in large part the police have adopted a "fuck it" attitude to their jobs. Add prosecutors reluctance to actually prosecute and you get more "fuck it".

        I'm a lifelong motorcyclist who lives in the bay area. I've quit riding because the lawlessness has invaded the freeways to the point where I wont accept the risk anymore.

        1. San Fran's Union Square was a tourist shopping destination prior to Newsom's take-over of the economy. Now?:

    2. Ken, I haven't seen an article to really start the discussion, so apologies for here.

      But did you see Manchin is asking for a 1.8T spending bill that is yes a reduction from the 5T, but still a lot. He simply removed the sunsets and some spending.

      I told you this was his game plan.

      1. I don't know what's new about this, but we talked about Manchin's deal with Biden and the progressives months ago--when the agreement letter between Manchin and Schumer was leaked to the press. It sounds like the same old plan. Look at this letter, and it has almost all of the features you're talking about (with a slightly higher top line). Seriously, look at it. Does it have more or less the same features as this new plan?

        Also please note (seriously!) that none of our reads on Manchin have been about depending on his personal integrity or his principles to reject supporting the contents of BBB. It's all been a read of Manchin's best interests politically.

        The key difference between Manchin--personally--and a progressive is that where members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are in states like West Virginia to represent Progressives, Manchin is in Washington DC to represent the people of West Virginia. So long as that remains true, and the people of West Virginia continue to oppose BBB, so will Joe Manchin. Remember, too, that he already got the infrastructure bill--which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of West Virginia. And there's no debt ceiling to hang over Manchin's head anymore.

        Meanwhile, Manchin has already paid the political price for his opposition--in West Virginia. Even if he changed direction now, any West Virginian voting in the Democratic party that's mad at him for killing BBB won't suddenly become his friend if he votes for a lesser bill now. That damage has been done. Just looking at it from Manchin's perspective, he could become an Independent, caucus with the Republicans, McConnell would give him any committee chair he wants, put him on every committee he wants to sit on, and Manchin could run as a Republican in 2024.

        Whatever Biden offers Manchin to commit political suicide (as far as the people of West Virginia are concerned) would need to be a better deal than what McConnell can offer him at this point. So, for all these reasons, you can color me skeptical that Manchin will support anything anywhere near as bad as BBB. It's also important to remember that Manchin isn't the only moderate Democrat in the Senate, and there are others running for reelection who don't want to take a stand on a controversial bill in an election year--and will be less inclined to do so come January 1st. Congress isn't even in session at the moment!

        In short, the forces that made Manchin say no on BBB before are even more powerful now than they were two weeks ago. If he brings some more pork home, that wouldn't surprise me. If he's willing to support something like free kindergarten and preschool--to the exclusion of everything else in the BBB bill--that wouldn't surprise me because that provision is popular nationally, and it probably is in West Virginia, too.

        The other progressives side of the equation may be more complicated than advertised, too. The AOCs and Jayapals on the other side of the Capitol may not be willing to give Manchin what he wants unless he gives them something they want, too. They already feel like they were snookered by giving him the infrastructure bill--and Pelosi's goose is cooked because of that. Pelosi is a lame-duck in the House leadership. Can she even rally support from the Congressional Progressive Caucus again?

        1. Yes, but you seem much more optimistic against the common voter. Only around 10 to 15% of voters actually follow politics closely. Manchin now has the huge media story regarding his no vote while still advertising he wants to spend almost 2T.

          This is why the debt ceiling vote was so bad. They already have the cushion to follow through on this quietly 1Q next year while also great expanding the FY22 budget with pieces of BBB.

          The GOP granting that cushion allowed for more spending with no political fallout. Democrats, with Manchin and Sinema, will simply move spending elsewhere.

          That's why it was such a terrible move for McConnell and the 14 who crossed.

          1. Manchin is not a principled fiscal conservative. There's no doubt about that. He sounds like one because that's where the people of West Virginia are, especially on anything Green New Deal related. I'm not optimistic about Manchin personally. I'm optimistic about what moderate Democrat voters will do in swing states in an election year.

            It's just like that time last week when Robby Soave was telling us that Chris Wallace was leaving Fox because of turmoil in Fox's newsroom over the truthiness of some Tucker Carlson documentary. It was an interesting analysis, and for all I know, that turmoil in the newsroom is real. Regardless of whether the story about that turmoil was real, however, there are all sorts of things happening at CNN--including 1) CNN being sold to a new company that's all about ratings, 2) CNN's ratings being in the toilet, and 3) the streaming revolution destroying cable news--and CNN being desperate to sell their CNN+ app as a legitimate news source.

            When people in the news analyze things, they're often projecting their own interests (The walls are closing in Fox!), or they're trying to focus on the personalities and principles of the people involved. Almost all of the time, it's market considerations and voter sentiment that's driving the bus. They'll find a way to rationalize dong what the market wants (if it's a CEO) or what's driving public sentiment at the time--in their district or state--if it's a politician.

            Every once in a while, someone goes off script and ignores what the market or the public is telling them to do, but Manchin hasn't given us any reason to think he's like that. I'll give you four examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about: two from people who became so full of themselves that they unnecessarily committed political suicide without realizing it and two who found a way to rationalize what the people in their district or state wanted--even though it should have been against their principles.

            Case 1: Ron Paul on NAFTA

            The Ron Paul explanation for why he voted against NAFTA, which should have been seen as a huge pro-capitalist victory to compete with a consolidating EU at the end of the Cold War, was because real free trade doesn't have any regulations at all--so Ron Paul voted against NAFTA because NAFTA introduced new regulations when there should have been none! In reality, of course, Ron Paul's opposition to NAFTA had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with Ross Perot sucking all the support for fiscal conservatives away in Texas--splitting support for what would have been support for Ron Paul in Texas. Ross Perot was the biggest threat to Ron Paul's political future, and so he didn't differentiate himself from Ross Perot on that very important issue to independent Texans. All the shit about free trade was just a rationalization for that.

            Case 2: Rand Paul voting against cutting $772 billion from Medicaid.

            We have never been closer to cutting a massive entitlement plan than we were when Rand Paul voted against cutting $772 billion from Medicaid four years ago, and we will probably never get another chance to see that happen in our lifetimes. The reason Rand Paul gave for voting against it was the Republican leadership promised to repeal ObamaCare, and there's no point in cutting 90% of ObamaCare if you aren't cutting the whole thing!

            In reality, the expansion of Medicaid was the very worst, most socialist part of ObamaCare, and we will probably never get rid of that expansion as long as we live--because Rand Paul and company refused to just cut Medicaid. When you look at what was happening in Kentucky at the time, it's easy to see what Rand Paul was really thinking. Kentucky had one of the highest Medicaid beneficiaries rates of any state, which meant three things: 1) it was one of the states that was worst hit by the Opioid crisis; 2) suddenly cutting off those people's legal supply would be devastating from a crime perspective to Kentucky; and 3) a huge number of people would have been kicked out of opiod related rehabilitation programs in Kentucky.

            Case 3: Justin Amash votes to impeach Trump

            The Republicans in his district did not want that. It was political suicide. If you want to represent the Republicans in that district, you better find a way to rationalize not voting to impeach Trump over the nothingburger in the Mueller Report. When he did that, Amash started acting like a closet progressive--who thought his job was to tell the people of Michigan what to think. No, his job was to tell Congress what the people in his district think. I still don't think he understands what happened to him and why. Look at that third rail. Everybody says I should stay away from it, but I'm going to kick it on principle!

            Case 4: Liz Cheney voting to impeach Trump

            "The Wyoming Republican party will no longer recognize Liz Cheney as a member of the GOP in a rebuke over her vote to impeach Donald Trump over his role in the 6 January insurrection.

            The vote by the state party central committee followed votes by local GOP officials in about one-third of Wyoming’s 23 counties to no longer recognize Cheney as a Republican."

            ----The Guardian, November 15, 2021


            Liz Cheney thought her job was to tell the slobs back in Wyoming what to think about Donald Trump, but her real job was to represent the people of Wyoming. The Wyoming GOP kicked her out of the party!

            Conclusion: The market is the truth, and everything that runs contrary to it is a delusion--and it works the same way in the market of ideas as it does in financial markets. You do not dictate terms to the market. The market tells you what to do and you either do it, or you get run over. Joe Manchin seems to understand this like Ron Paul and Rand Paul understand this. You can still have influence within what the market will allow, but when you go outside of that, you get slaughtered. Joe Manchin could have been like Justin Amash or Liz Cheney, he stayed within the what the market of ideas in West Virginia will allow. Manchin could commit political suicide, and the people of West Virginia aren't libertarian enough for my tastes. They could support some awful non-Green New Deal garbage!

            It appears to be the case for the time being, however, that Manchin running against Joe Biden (in a state where Trump beat Biden by 40 points) is a good strategy for Joe Manchin. He has probably increased his popularity in West Virginia with Republicans by voting against the progressives and Joe Biden. The only faith I have in Joe Manchin is in his survival instincts and him being smart enough to know that the market of ideas in West Virginia is driving the bus.

            Those who think Manchin will commit political suicide and go against the people of West Virginia need to make the case for what he would do that. If he can get McConnell to give him almost anything he wants, why wouldn't he do that? And if what he really wants is to be the governor of West Virginia, he won't get that in a deeply Republican state by bending over for Joe Biden--just in time for Joe Biden and the progressives to get the ass kicking of a lifetime in 2022.

            1. “When he did that, Amash started acting like a closet progressive--who thought his job was to tell the people of Michigan what to think.”

              Amash acted like a person with principles. A rare quality these days.

              1. So principled all he ever got done was naming 2 post offices. Principles over actions does so much.

              2. What principle?

                1. The principle of hating Trump. Duh!

            2. It has always been part of the responsibility of a representative to use their own wisdom and judgment, and not just robotically vote according to opinion polls of their constituents.

              1. Yes. You believe in being ruled by elites instead of representing the people. That's why you're a leftist.

                1. One of the many, many reasons.

                2. Dee will continue to caw herself a libertarian.

              2. Neither you or amash can admit the entire Russian collusion narrative was a hoax. Still. 3 years later and indictments incoming against Clinton campaign operatives.

                Maybe that's why no one, not even libertarians, take either of you seriously?

    3. Instead of building prisons, plant more cottonwood trees.

      1. Ah, yeah, let’s see some lynching! Right?!

        1. Only if you assholes keep pushing.

    4. No. They've removed a lot of the disincentives to committing crime so crime went up. Hell, they've gone so far as to praise criminals for the crimes they commit if they chant the correct invocation. It's not that hard to understand.

  18. Only one party engages in suppression of lawful gun ownership while at the same time calling for defunding the police.

    1. Must be the party of manly men, who want to settle all disputes with hand-to-hand combat.

      1. Well teenage knife fights are common these days as they always have been. A return to normalcy.

        1. Remember, knife fighting is a form of creative dance, especially for oppressed cultures, and thus is protected speech.

          1. Law enforcement by creative dance. I think you've nailed the progressive vision.

    2. In a Jewish deli, they may not want to sell you a roast beef sandwich with a slice of cheese on it--because a book that was written thousands of years ago says you shouldn't boil a goat in its mother's milk. Some Catholics will only eat fish on Fridays because giving cows, pigs, and sheep a stay of execution on the day Jesus was killed seems like a good idea, and they believe that learning to go without is good for the soul. Mormons wear temple garments under their clothes as a reminder of the covenants they made in the temple and as a protection from the evils of the world. Progressives in California do the things they do for the same reasons as Jews, Catholics, and Mormons. What progressives say and what they do is mostly just a reflection of their religious beliefs, the true origins of which they may not understand themselves.

      1. You’re totally right Ken. Geesch, some progressives even think you should get a vaccine that simulates a natural infection in the middle of a global pandemic. Stupid is what I call them.

        1. They are fraidy cats.

          True men are scared of needles, not viruses!

          1. You’re a faggot, and you smell bad.

          2. Don't talk to your socks, look people in the eye when you're lying.

            1. Ali Akbar is another of Buttplug's socks. He went off the other day on Buttplug's patented "inflation isn't real" rants and gave the game away.

              1. Seems commie-shittish to me, but the lefty asshole false-flagging got the mute in a day or two.
                Not worth the analysis time.

        1. If White Mike wasn't theologically illiterate regarding the largest religion in America, he might have known the reason for that.
          See Daniel 2:21, Daniel 5:21, Romans 13:1.

          This in no way however invalidates Ken's claim that American progressivism is a religious movement. It's essentially Evangelical Christianity with the concept of redemption stripped out.
          Gaia subs out God, global warming and "racism" sub out sin, white cishet males replace the devil, and there's a new christ figure every week (Obama, Hillary, Coumo, Biden, etc.).

          1. There was a time that I would have argued that progressivism was or was close to humanism, but the sexist, racist, etc identity focus has changed that. They are bigoted, and focused on an ever shifting, ever narrowing sub-population of humanity, closely akin to the extremely racist 'noble savage' ideal that was popular during the Romantic period. The 'lived experience' over objective facts viewpoint demonstrates this all too well. The quasireligious acceptance of authority figures and 'science' that fits a worldview and diminishes their fear is another piece.

            1. They actually talk about racism in terms of original sin.


              When they're talking about sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and racism, it's all in terms of sin. Cancel culture is about excommunication. It's all about group cohesion, railing against sinners, purifying society from the influence of sin, etc. And because they really believe their myths are true doesn't make their beliefs any less religious. When more Christians literally believed everything in the Bible was literally true, that didn't make them non-religious either.

              Our neocortex evolved, in part, to leverage the advantages of religion, which had a lot to do with group cohesion. And our physical brains haven't changed much in 150,000 years. Our brains default to religious like thinking when we're not consciously devoting ourselves to rational thought--because they're hardwired that way--which isn't to say that religion can't be or isn't subject to reason.

              There have been reasonable Christians out there, like Tillich and Kierkegaard, and their reason is a big part of what differentiated them from the insane fanaticism of the Spanish inquisition and the Salem witch trials. The progressives we see today are openly hostile to facts and reason like the fanatics of old. Yes, they are religious people, but it isn't their religion that's the problem. I wish they'd come out openly and declare their beliefs a religion. The real problem is their hostility to facts and reason. It shouldn't surprise us when the progressive trolls can't tell the difference between their own beliefs and religion.

              They don't care whether their facts are true or false. They don't care whether they're rational or irrational. They don't care whether they're wrong or right. Yeah, that's the practical definition of a religious fanatic. When you see people who are willing to sacrifice their standard of living without consideration for whether their sacrifices will make any difference, you're talking about religious fanatics.

              Fanaticism isn't the only possible state of religion. Fanaticism is just religious without reason.

          2. I don't know what was said here, but if someone cited God humiliating Nebuchadnezzar as proof that our political leaders are the voice of God, that would be missing the forest for the trees. Oh, and Christians being good, law abiding citizens made a lot of sense, both when they were under the domination of Rome and considering the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem.

            When you read about Pliny' letter to the emperor asking what to do about these otherwise law-abiding Christians, who the Jews say are no longer Jews--but won't bow down to an effigy of the emperor--you're seeing the wisdom of being a law-abiding Christian. And when you read about all the Christians who refused to bow to an effigy of the emperor being martyred for their convictions, it strongly suggests that the early Christians were also keenly aware of Jesus' thoughts on rendering unto Rome what is Rome's--while not bending an inch on your obligations to God.

            Oh, and I've long suspected both that the NAP is an attempt to restate the Golden Rule without any religious connotations and that our libertarian sense of individualism has its origins in Christian thought. Once you convince people that the creator of the universe sacrificed himself to save each and every one of us individually--and give us a choice--it's harder to persuade them that individuals and their freedom of choice are unimportant.

            Christianity is about trying to reconcile an omnipotent loving God with the murder of a perfectly innocent man, and while there have been flirtations with Calvinist determinism in the past, the overwhelming result of that reconciliation has consistently been about free will. Anyone who reads what's in the Bible as being about doing what we're told by the government seems to be missing the part about an omnipotent God restraining himself out of respect for our free will--and that's a big thing to miss.

            1. "...Oh, and I've long suspected both that the NAP is an attempt to restate the Golden Rule without any religious connotations and that our libertarian sense of individualism has its origins in Christian thought..."

              We've had this discussion before; I contend that Christianity codified what had been 'ethical' practices among those who adopted the religion; as humans invented gods, so human activity informed religious codes and the religious poobahs immediately claimed that their god(s) were the source of same. Co-opted them.
              And Merry Christmas!

              1. Merry Christmas, Sevo!

    3. One should always question the motives of people who don't believe you have a natural right to self defense.

      1. Indeed.
        It so happens that they're the same people who'd deprive you of freedom speech.
        I think it's wise to "question the motives" of people who want you (1) defenseless and (2) gagged.

      2. It might even be reasonable to assume their that intentions are bad.

        Even the best intentions for their disarming behavior appear to be steeped in fear. They don't want their fellow citizens arming themselves because they see average Americans as insurrectionists.

  19. Although we're apparently done with Reason Roundup until January, I decided to continue submitting updates about the #BidenBoom.

    In 2021 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour

    In 2021 the 10 richest Americans have gained a combined: $332 billion

    That's not a typo. That's literally a third of a trillion dollars. Now of course we Koch / Reason libertarians supported Biden because we knew he'd create the economic conditions necessary for wealth to concentrate at the very top. But the sheer efficiency with which Democrats are enriching their billionaire base has surprised even me.


    1. Impossible! How could anyone be making money in the Biden Depression with its 6% economic growth.

      1. Why did you abandon the name "American Socia1ist"? Could you no longer in good conscience call yourself a socialist given that you spend most of your time ...

        ... bragging about how rich you are?
        ... bragging about how enormous your house is?
        ... bragging about how your portfolio is up 32% this year?

        Because TBH that's what I always appreciated about you. You're a useful example that modern American "socialism" is merely a fashionable lifestyle brand — and not at all a meaningful threat to the wealthy and powerful.


        1. You seem to be abandoning your pretense. I’m not. I’m just like all the other Black gay conservatives that got out of their CPAC meeting parading around their Stop Being Poor t-shirts. As a conservative that’s where i’m at.

          But how the fuck am I going to get rich with the returns I’m seeing on my gold bars and pillow futures? Where is the Biden collapse? When am I going to get my White women sex slaves when I take over as the local law enforcement official when Biden’s racist liberal Amerikkka finally cracks under the pressure of its massive welfare spending. I’m fucking waiting.

          1. Sad, broken little manchild.

        2. He wasn’t getting the attention he so craves and previously did when he would show up and troll. Hence the name change.

        3. Damn. Fine. Work.

      2. Love when idiots brag about growth lower than inflation, especially after a government mandated contraction that left 5 million jobs missing still.

    2. Didn't the Dems talk about a wealth tax on billionaires for a day or two though?

      1. LOL

        "Drink billionaire tears" rhetoric is how Democrats trick low-info poor voters into supporting them. But as OBL's First Law states, actual results are far more important than stated intentions.


        1. But as OBL's First Law states, actual results are far more important than stated intentions.

          This sounds extremely unfair to the lazy and the incompetent.

      2. This sort of thing goes all the way back to the Amendment that made the income tax constitutional. It was claimed to be a tax only on the very rich, but J.D. Rockefeller immediately found a loophole that protected his fortune for his descendants. That was over a century ago, but there are still Rockefellers born with a trust fund large enough that they will never need to work. While those trust funds were protected, taxes on the middle class have varied from a few percent originally, to up to 90% on high-wage earners in the 1940's and 1950's.

        Today, if you are self-supporting, governments on all levels together will take at least 1/3 of your earnings - and still plead poverty!

  20. And offered in the hopes of putting a smile on all of your faces:

    "Washington Post settles $250M suit with Covington teen Nick Sandmann"
    "The Washington Post on Friday agreed to settle a monster $250 million lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann over its botched coverage of his 2019 encounter with a Native American elder.
    In a subsequent tweet Friday, Sandmann fired a warning shot at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
    “We have settled with WAPO and CNN. The fight isn’t over. 2 down. 6 to go. Don’t hold your breath @jack,” he wrote..."

    Let's go, Kyle!

    1. Liberal tears! It is a Merry Christmas!

    2. That is the best news I’ve read all week.

    3. Hulk Hogan didn’t make most of his money wrestling. It was from winning a defamation lawsuit.

  21. Holy cow, Greenhut outdid himself! He managed to quip a level-10 booooothsideeeeeez with just the title!

    1. Ah, but you beat that other guy by a few minutes.

      1. What the fuck is wrong with you?

        1. How much time you got?

          1. Yeah, that list is going to be longer than a Sqrlsy shitpost.

        2. Ignorant. Stupid. Unquestioningly accepts the progressive/(D) talking points it posts as fact. And that is what is evident.

  22. Democrat politicians make stealing okay, then fail to prosecute people for looting, arson and vandalism, then wonder why crime goes up.

    Greenhut: both sides!

  23. Partisan rhetoric? Cali is a one party state. Ffs.

  24. Crime was down when we had three strikes, simple fact. build tent Jails for all i care to solve the prison crowding problem. of course the reason jails are so expensive is regulations by government as usual

    1. And occasionally, some felonious criminal got a severe sentence for a "moderate" felony, and that wasn't fair! Even though he could have avoided it by not committing the third felony.

      Pretty much everyone deserves a second chance. No one deserves a third chance.

      1. Sometimes goodbye is a second chance.

  25. " normal person bases their judgments on the FBI's Unified Crime Reports. Instead, they react to what they read and feel."

    That is the issue right there in a nutshell. Everyone, in every generation has a tendency to live in "the worst of times". Crime, the environment, political divides ,rights under siege, the brink of a world war, etc.; we always find reasons to believe that we are on the brink of going to hell in a handbasket. News outlets multiply this incredibly with their "bleeds it leads" type of reporting.

    It is because of this very thing that Reason posts article after article of of CPS getting called out on parents for the high crime of letting their kids walk to school alone or play in park while an errand is run. Is child snatching a problem in this country or in their town? It is only if you believe the common press that blows up the these extraordinarily rare events and splashes them all over the place with a tone indicating it is a major modern day problem.

    This makes is very hard to figure out what is and is not a real issue... parolees and non-cash bail released individuals committing crimes? Criminal illegal aliens? Repeat offenders on early release? Sex trafficking? Kidnapping? Gang activity? Drug OD epidemic? Cops killing blacks? Poisoned Halloween candy? School shootings? Killer/stalker clowns? Workplace shootings? Lead paint on kids toys made in China? ...and the list goes on and on. If the common press is to be believed, all of these things are major issues and we are all in extreme danger of "very bad things" at all times.

    It is ONLY by looking at larger collections of data do you discover which of these are actually common and which them are the Power Ball winner rare.

  26. It's sad that Reason continue to publish this non-sense. It's no wonder that most of the commenters complain about their hard left leaning bias. Between the both-side-ism and the COVID hysteria they constantly post, I really only come here for the commenters.

    1. They are starting to thaw on government responses to covid.

  27. Look Past Partisan Rhetoric To Understand California's Recent Crime Problems

    Holy shit! It's not partisan politics in a one party state, right?

    1. Remember how Bush kept causing all those problems after Obo was elected?
      Well, the 3 GOPers in Sacto have the same magical powers.


    BREAKING: Joe Biden was taking calls from the NORAD Santa tracking program and a dad ended the call with "Merry Christmas, and Let's Go Brandon."

    Biden replied with: "Let's Go Brandon, I agree"

    1. What a dumbass.
      Look a jills reaction at the end.

    2. Hilarious.

      Feel bad for the caller. IRS and FBI will be fucking him for the next three years.

      1. Already in the gulag, comrade.

    3. Poor Jill she knows exactly what just happened. I can't wait for this clip to go viral hahahaaaa...

    4. Wow. You can't make this shit up.

    5. Hahahhahhaa omfg no way.

      Jill's face! Wonder when she's gonna tell him?

      Thank you and Merry Christmas! Let's go Brandon!

  29. Shit! Now that Trump has abandoned us with all his talk about boosters and vaccines maybe it’s time to start a new political party to be led by normal Joes like me (a Black gay conservatives), Caitlin Jenner, Diamonds and Silk, and Milo Yiannopoulos. I think it’s time.

    1. It’s so stupid the way republicans don’t trust the system that’s lied to and betrayed them for years.

      1. Damn straight – conservatives starting to openly stand up to the lies of the capitalists and rationalists. They pushed too far with their vaccines, now all the rest of it is getting newly questioned - "infrared radiation", antibiotics, fluoridated water, flossing, deodorant, "convenience" stores.

  30. "Poor people don't turn to a life of crime because of economic struggles."

    This is an especially stupid take and runs counter to pretty much all past evidence, not to mention every progressive talking point about why certain communities commit more crime.

  31. This cup contains pure cyanide kills people instantly.
    This cup contains pure water.

    Obviously we can solve the cup death problems without repeating the same old "cyanide is a lethal drug and should never be ingested at all" partisanship. As a compromise, we should fill glasses with HALF water and HALF cyanide. That will make all sides happy.

    For anyone who hasn't got the joke yet, that is called the "Golden Mean" fallacy, often employed by centrists who don't seem to realize that some political ideas are so stupid, so harmful, so corrupt, so irredeemably irresponsible that simply 'toning down' that same policy for the sake of 'non-partisanship' is not going to fix the problem.

    1. That is odd... I always thought it was that it took only 1.618 assholes to fuck up any really good idea.

    2. "...For anyone who hasn't got the joke yet, that is called the "Golden Mean" fallacy, often employed by centrists who don't seem to realize that some political ideas are so stupid, so harmful, so corrupt, so irredeemably irresponsible that simply 'toning down' that same policy for the sake of 'non-partisanship' is not going to fix the problem..."

      We have lost our freedoms under the assumption that we are 'safer', turning over control of much of the economy to the 'planning' of tin-pot-dictator wannabes like Newsom and Fauci.
      As a result, we need Pravda to tell us each day on which side of the bed the assholes got up.
      You do not 'compromise' with that assholery; you fight it with every means you have.

  32. NY Supreme Court decimated NYT claims of prior restraint in publishing illegally released lawyer client memos from Project Veritas

  33. Off topic,
    Any one else see Biden visited a childrens hospital today?
    Who let him in?

  34. The nation was hit by debilitating riots and pandemic lockdowns that ate away at the foundations of society. Schools were closed, jobs were lost, more delinquents roamed around the streets, and cops held back enforcement.

    This isn't rocket science. Violence will escalate in any society that loses its sense of stability. It took economic prosperity and police anti gang units in action to depress skyrocketing violence in the 90s. The libs tried to undo all of that. Did Bailey not see vandals pull down statues, burn buildings, execute police officers and shoot people trespassing on their imaginary "CHOP"? This is not a sign of a nation in good mental and economic health.

    If I see the KKK lynch a black man, yeah I'm going to blame racism. I'm not going to reach for nuisance like "maybe they lost their jobs" It's perfectly kosher to lay most of what's happened to this country at the feet of the ruling liberal party. Inflation and supply jams are only the latest development. Print a lot of free money, and currency valuation - that's it. We need additional info?

    Reason has to issues taking republicans to task on anything immigration, but they say we need "nuance" on violent crimes. Oh no, BLM, prog DAs and hostility on police either NOTHING to do with it or is only a small part of a picture. It's like, even the bay area tv stations are reporting that Boudin keeps on releasing criminals who return to their activities. He eats objections from every pro circle around him.

    1. “Reason has to issues taking republicans to task on anything”

      Including issues created by Democrat one party jurisdictions.


    I’m on the train to Montreal and they make you wear a yellow sticker to show you’re vaccinated.

    1. Is the sticker a six pointed star?

  36. LA cops shoot unarmed man in clothing store, and also teen trying on clothes in a changing room. Strange you have to find this out from BBC.

  37. That actually made the local news here. Pretty widely covered

    Definitely needs to be prosecuted

    1. Happened at a Burlington store. Am assuming the bullets had a metal jacket.

      1. More of a copper coating.

        1. Might have to factory in the demo of the customers to get this story covered without getting fleeced.

    2. First rule of gun handling: It's loaded.
      Second rule of gun handling: Know what's in front of the gun.

      1. "When it's time to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

    3. It's how you work around the policy of not prosecuting property crimes. Call the cops and tell them the guy who is smashing your display cases has a gun. Cops arrive promptly and shoot the unarmed perp. Not only is the property crime stopped, but recidivism becomes rare...


    I hope Santa Claus knows he should use a rapid antigen test tonight, and that even if he tests negative he still needs to wear a good mask and physically distance (not really an issue, I know).

    Fingers crossed he doesn't have symptoms...


    The UK Government: “Get boosted now. COVID vaccines lose power like batteries.”

    Just keep boosting.

    1. Prediction: One day they'll start telling people to just get a new "flu vaccine" every single year and the sheep will have become so conditioned by the "pandemic" that they'll just line up at the pharmacies for them, baying the entire time.

  40. Crime has to have consequences. Basically legalizing crime is going to cause a crime wave. The consequences should fit the crime, and make the crime less attractive to commit.

  41. "virtually no police department has seen funding cuts"? This author is either lying or is highly misinformed. San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, just to name three of the largest cities, all had funding cuts to the tune of millions.

  42. > Poor people don't turn to a life of crime because of economic struggles

    you're a supporter of artificial scarcity and an economic system that requires losers. hunger is a powerful motivator.

    the extra, pointless shit you support spending money on instead of (ugh!) paying taxes, will probably be stolen or defaced by one of your compatriots who you are starving with your hoarding and greed.

    get bigger locks and bigger guns, I guess, I know glibertarians are very attached to their dysfunctional ideas that lead to chaos and anarchy in the real world.

    Here's the sevo reply automatically, to pre-empt his idiotic, repetitive ass: fuck off and die

  43. Conservatives are blaming Proposition 47, which reduced a number of low-level crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and police defunding for the upsurge. Also predictably, liberals are pointing to a surge in gun ownership during the pandemic as well as economic hardship and isolation caused by COVID-19. I doubt any of those theories offer a full explanation.
    Well it's clear from the article that 1% is the fault of defund the police, and 99% is the surge in gun ownership. In short, IT'S TRUMP'S FAULT!!!!! (and still a residual amount of Bush).

  44. Of course libertarians never have rote and predictable answers, right?
    The comments section below virtually every Reason article would suggest otherwise.

  45. Hello... They're Nazi's!!!! (National Socialist Supporters)...
    As-if there wasn't a MOUNTAIN of history showing what Nazism leads to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.