Justice from the Bottom Up

Why the current court-jail "justice" system cannot work. What should replace it and how it would work.
by Henry Whitney
(libertarian)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009

You’re dreaming. Nothing special, just a mixture of the familiar and the unfamiliar, neither as they really are. You’re fixing your burglar alarm, but you’re missing a part, so you need to go to the store, but the car has a flat tire. You’re headed to the neighbor’s house to borrow a lug wrench when . . .

Suddenly you’re awakened by the shattering of the bedroom window, and you hear the thump of heavy boots and the rustle of flak jackets. In the distance, you hear the front door being kicked in. Your wife draws her breath in fright. You try to open your eyes, but everywhere you try to look you are blinded by a flashlight. Your toddler in the next room begins to scream in terror. A deep, loud, terse voice calls your name.

"Yes," you reply, "that’s me. What’s—"

"Stand up."

"What’s—"

"Stand up! You’re under arrest."

"What—"

Strong, gloved hands grab you out of bed and push you facedown onto the floor. You struggle to breathe as a knee in the spine pins you down. Your hands are forced behind your back and secured with handcuffs. You are jerked to your feet. "You have the right to remain silent…"

You struggle to pay attention to the voice, but between your wife’s sobs, your toddler’s shrieks, and the sound of the SWAT team going through your dresser, closet, and desk, you comprehend nothing. Eventually the officer stops talking and begins to shove you out of the bedroom, past your seven-year-old, through the house, and outside to the waiting cruiser. Though you see lights on and faces in the windows of some of the neighbors’ houses, you don’t have time to be either embarrassed or grateful that you have your pajamas on.

Somewhere along the line, the SWAT team tells you the charges against you, but that only increases your confusion. "There must be some mistake," you say. You’ve never done anything like that. You’ve never even had any reason to do it. But when you tell them that you’re innocent—in the house, in the cruiser, at the booking desk, and as they push you into your cell—they only respond, "Tell it to the judge."

The next day, when your wife calls your boss and tells him you won’t be in for work, she is surprised to find out that he has already heard your name on the radio. The day after that, your seven-year-old has to come home from school at lunchtime because he can’t stand up anymore to the chants of "Your dad’s a criminal."

After a few days comes the hearing. They read you a list of charges so long that you can’t remember them all. It sounds to you like they’re charging you with the same crime many times, but they assure you that no, each act you are accused of committing broke more than one law. If any of those counts against you stand, you will be in jail until your children are adults. Your trial is set to begin in two months.

Would you like to post bail? The amount is about twice the value of your savings, your investments, and the cash value of your life insurance put together. If you post bail, you’ll lose interest, dividends, and leverage, plus you’ll have to pay interest on the loan for the difference. Whether you post or not, your wife will have to take whatever job she can find. She has been out of the job market for a long time, so she doesn’t have a lot to offer, and she doesn’t have time to look for the best she can get. On top of all that, she’ll have to pay childcare costs. And you have to work—if your boss will take you back—or you’ll lose your job. So you go for it.

Would you like to hire a lawyer? Your wife gets several offers, any of which would cost you more money than you earn in a year. And each solicitation ends with the reminder that "the man who defends himself has a fool for a lawyer." So you settle for the court-appointed lawyer, who "just happened" to be on his way out the door of the courtroom when the judge appointed him. His advice to you is to plead guilty to the most minor of the charges and get the major charges dropped.

"But I haven’t done anything wrong!"

"Well, it’s up to you, but if they stick you with any of the serious charges, you’ll be in jail for a long time. And it isn’t like I’ve got all the time in the world to hunt up exculpatory evidence for you."

You’ve done nothing wrong, and you really do trust the system despite all that’s happened to you. You’ll go for your day in court.

At last your day comes. You are escorted into the courtroom and seated. At the appointed time, the bailiff says, "All rise." All rise, and the judge enters, sits, bangs his gavel, and says, "This court is now convened. The case before us is the State versus—"

And suddenly it hits you. It really is the State versus you. You were arrested by agents of the State: the State employs the SWAT team. The State also builds and staffs the jail. The State incarcerates you pending trial, the State sets bail, and the State informs the press. The State supplies the judge, the State supplies the prosecutor, the State supplies the courthouse, the State supplies the jury, the State supplies the police who present the evidence, and the State supplies the lawyer who pretends to defend you. If you’re found guilty, it will be the State who determines what happens to you. It really is you against the State.

But that’s not all. If you are declared innocent but the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, then the police will look incompetent for having spent time and money on a botched investigation. They will have to reopen the investigation and find someone else to accuse of the crime. At election time, the prosecutor will be open to charges of incompetence, and the judge will be open to accusations of being soft on crime. So they have every incentive to work together to find you guilty: the more criminals they lock up, the more they can claim they’re doing their jobs. If they lock up an innocent man and the guilty commits another crime, they can say, "Well, there are more criminals out there than we thought, and we need more money for more police, prosecutors, and judges." Their incentives push them to press for convictions, not to seek the truth.

And even if you’re acquitted, you still lose your time off work, the interest on the bail loan, the interest on whatever money you took out of investments to use for bail, and the cost of repairs on your house, not to mention your reputation and the sense you and your family may have had that your home is secure from intruders.

Why does it work this way? Let me suggest that these perverse incentives are an unavoidable by-product of a top-down system in which the State is the ultimate authority, possessing the power to back up its decrees by coercion; or you could say it possesses ultimate coercive power and has the authority to use that power as it sees fit. More accurately, to the degree people control the power of the State, they have the means to do anything they please. Just as the legislative system allows some people to buy politicians’ votes on laws that benefit them at others’ expense, the judicial system allows some people to use the State’s monopoly of overt police violence against other people.

In the case of the judicial system, the plaintiff, whether a private citizen, as in liability suits, or the State itself, is attempting to get the adjudicator (judge or jury) to decide in his or its favor so that the agency of coercion will either extort money or other resources from the defendant, incarcerate him, or kill him. The defendant, naturally, is trying to convince the adjudicator not to do so, so he will hire lawyers who are skilled at swaying adjudicators. The verdict—whether just or unjust, based on truth or based on lies—will be what the adjudicator considers expedient. Once rendered, the decision is almost impossible to reverse. That being the case, the primary incentive for both sides is to get the adjudicator to rule in their favor, no matter what the truth is. Lies, bribes, wheedling, threats—if they work, they are part of the process. In a top-down system, might makes right—or at least it makes policy. If you want to know who really holds the power in such a system, look at who wins when there is conflict: they are, by definition, the powerful.

Not only are truth and justice secondary, so is the welfare of the victims of crimes the State prosecutes. For example, robbery victims are rarely compensated for their losses unless they institute a civil suit, in which case the same dynamic of persuasiveness over truth operates. Rapes also are frequently unreported: the victim knows she will have to relive the experience publicly in court, and even if her assailant is convicted, she will still have to bear the costs of counseling, medical care, and, in the case of pregnancy, childbearing and parenthood.

What, you ask, is the alternative? Let’s work backwards from the courtroom.

What if, when you walked into the courtroom to stand trial, not only was the judge himself unarmed, but he had no police force to protect him or back up his decisions? What if you and your friends, and your accuser and his friends, were the only ones armed?

Well, if we’re armed and the other guys are armed, why would we go to court? You would go to court because you’d rather talk than fight. If you’d rather fight than talk, you have no need of an alternative to the present system. Just make sure you can shoot the SWAT team (and their reinforcements ad infinitum) before it breaks into your house. If that sounds unrealistic, let’s assume it’s better to talk.

If the judge is unarmed, what is his function? How can he enforce his decisions? If he can’t enforce his decisions, what good is he? Remember, you’d rather talk than fight. You think you’re right. But your accuser—let’s say for now—honestly thinks he’s right, too. In this case, you’re both not so much going to court as asking the adjudicator to hear both sides, ask incisive questions, and get at the truth. You’re both hiring him for his wisdom, not because you think he’ll cheat the other guy.

The adjudicator won’t be there by virtue of fooling the public and winning an election. Rather, both you and your adversary will have looked at many candidates and checked out their abilities, and you both will have chosen him because you’re convinced he is able to uncover lies and errors, render just decisions, and suggest courses of action that bring about reconciliation between the disputants. Neither side will be willing to trust itself to someone who might treat it unfairly, so if one side proposes an adjudicator who is likely to be biased in its favor, the other side will simply reject him. The trial—it would actually be more like a meeting—will not even be convened until both sides have agreed on the adjudicator and agreed to be bound by his decision. And the choice process works both ways: no adjudicator will be willing to take a case involving people who might try to deceive him during the proceedings or treat him violently if he rules against them. So it behooves both you and your adversary to cultivate a reputation for peaceable dealings. And while the temptation to render biased decisions is always present, any adjudicator with a reputation for bias or even simple incompetence will likely be looking for another line of work before long.

Notice again how the incentives work in this system. The accuser has the incentive to cultivate a peaceable reputation and to tell the truth once the proceedings begin. If he is shown to be a liar, he will have a hard time next time around finding friends willing to defend him or an adjudicator willing to hear his case. The same is true for the defendant. The armed friends on both sides have the incentive to show themselves quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to pull the trigger. The adjudicator has the incentive to cultivate a reputation for fairness, knowledge, and wisdom, including the wisdom to know when he doesn’t have the knowledge to handle a case; once the proceedings begin, he has incentive only to find the truth, render a just decision, and find ways for both sides to put the incident behind them and get on with life. How different this is from our present system!

And here’s perhaps the biggest bonus of all: if you win the case, you don’t have to pay the adjudicator. Taking the matter to adjudication is the last resort, not the first. If you’re going to take someone to court, you’ve got to be sure that you’ve got all your facts right, because if you lose, you not only don’t get what you wanted from the other party, you have to pay for the trial. And, of course, that lowers the risk that someone will take you to trial.

What if I don’t have a bunch of armed friends to protect me from the other guys? The most important aspect of this system is that it gives you the incentive to become the kind of person others will want to defend and to find people like you before you need them. No organization worth joining takes just anybody, and to the degree any group you want to join wants to both protect its own people and act justly, it will want to make sure that you are willing to protect others and to act justly on your own. Freedom begins with self-discipline; you will need to develop it and pursue relationships with others who desire it. The payoff is the knowledge that the others in the group have passed the same inspection and you can trust each other.

The downside is that joining a group will cost money and privacy. An armed group will by definition have to buy arms, so you will have to either buy arms yourself or contribute to a common armaments fund. To the degree that other groups show themselves to be a threat, you might need to invest in either weaponry that is beyond the budget of individuals in the group or in training for unconventional warfare. As we shall see, the group will also incur expenses when its members transgress, and even when they are falsely accused of transgression. In addition, the background checks and storage for the information will cost money. If all this sounds expensive, think of the time you spend answering invasive questions on your tax return, the tax money you pay now, and the way the present system is chipping away at your privacy. Freedom isn’t free, but it does allow you to keep more of your money, your time, and your privacy.

But no system is perfect, and you need to be careful. In the nightmare scenario we began with, you were being betrayed by those you trusted to protect you—the police. While a justice system run amok is a fearsome enemy, it is not the only enemy around. You can be betrayed by anyone, so you need to become a good judge of character.

Now let’s look at the arrest, where the nightmare began. What form would it take in a bottom-up system?

We can apply the Golden Rule here. If someone mistakenly thinks you’ve done something wrong, how do you want to be treated? Do they need to break your doors and windows, roust you out of bed, humiliate you in front of your neighbors, and put you in a cage so you can’t work or be with your family—even before trying you for something you didn’t do? Or could they simply let you know that they think you’re guilty and that they want the case to be heard by an adjudicator? How would you respond?

I know what I’d do: I’d tell them my story, tell them who could back it up, and let them go do their own research. I would expect the facts to clear me. But if they still wanted to take me to the court, then I’d prefer to want to find . . . not a lawyer, as in the present system, but the adjudicator.

What if I don’t think the accused will react peaceably? In more serious cases, or cases where the aggrieved thinks the accused might not react peaceably, the aggrieved would most likely go to the designated member of his own group, who would express his concerns to the designated member of the group of the accused; the accused’s group would then be in charge of making sure that the accused was present at the adjudication. Depending on the reputation the accused has within his group, he might get a phone call relaying the communication from the other group, or he might be placed under some form of house arrest. However his group treats him, they need to keep in mind that if he is indeed innocent and they don’t treat him as he would want to be treated, he might decide to stop paying his dues and join another group. To the degree that the group profits from his membership, they will want to avoid that, and to the degree that the accused profits from being part of the group, he will also want to avoid ending the relationship. The incentive is for both sides to cooperate, not only with each other but also with their potential opponents in court.

I’ve vilified the SWAT team, but their violent actions, rational given the present top-down system, would be unnecessary in a bottom-up system. The job of the arresting agent (police or SWAT team) when they serve an arrest warrant is to take the suspect into incarceration. To the degree that the agents can expect the suspect to react violently—for example, by shooting them through a window or the door—they have an incentive to wait until the suspect is most vulnerable and least suspecting and to make their move as forcefully as possible.

In the bottom-up system, there is no arresting agent. The agent who showed up at the suspect’s door would be his employee, a representative of his own group, whose job would be not to incarcerate but merely to apprise the suspect of the charges against him and tell him of the terms under which the group would help in dealing with those charges. The representative would not be using force, so the suspect would have no reason to respond with force. In fact, the original terms of the agreement by which the suspect had joined the group would almost certainly include a provision that canceled the suspect’s membership in the group the instant he treated such a representative of the group violently. Once he was cast out of the group, his adversary’s group would be free to consider him fair game, and, like today’s police, they would likely come after him with as much force as they could muster. Here again, the incentive in a bottom-up system is for peaceable behavior and cooperation, not overwhelming force.

All this so far assumes that the accused is innocent. What if he’s guilty? Again, let’s begin by applying the Golden Rule, this time to a guilty party. Let’s say you thought you could get away with it, but you were found out after embezzling a million bucks from your employer or molesting your neighbor’s child. Do you want your accuser going to the media so everyone knows your name and what you did? Do you want the neighbors to see you hauled off in the middle of the night? Do you want your kids teased at school because of you? How would you want it handled?

I know what I’d want. I’d want my employer or the parent to come to me alone and say, "This is the evidence I have that you’ve done this heinous thing. This is what I want you to do about it." If he weren’t sure I’d react peaceably, he could bring some of his group with him or go through the channels described above. But I’d want it first to be just between us; after all, if I’m guilty, I know I’ll lose if the case goes before a competent adjudicator, and I’ll not only have to pay what he decides that I owe, I’ll have to pay him to assess or punish me. As long as I’m able to convince my adversary that I want to cooperate, I can keep the matter just between us. (Others would doubtless become involved during the restitution process, but the matter would be a long way from public knowledge.) He could state his terms and I would be free to accept or make a counter-offer, which he would be free to accept or decline. Again, the matter would be just between us. If we couldn’t agree on what was to be done, I could agree to see an adjudicator with him alone. If that still didn’t work, then both groups would be involved.

Notice the incentives here. As the perpetrator, I have the incentive to settle with my accuser before the matter goes to an adjudicator. It is also in my adversary’s best interests to be merciful to me—and it would be mercy, not something I deserved—by respecting my privacy, at least as long as he doesn’t want a reputation for kicking people while they’re down. And even before my accuser confronts me, it is in my best interest to have the reputation of being someone who can be dealt with successfully one-on-one.

I realize the irony of that last sentence in the context of the hypothetical cases I’ve proposed: if the accused were honorable, he would not embezzle or molest children. But all people are flawed, and otherwise honorable people sometimes do dishonorable things. Few people, and certainly no Christians, look forward to the day when all thoughts and actions will be known by everyone. We all have thoughts, words, and deeds in our past that we don’t want others to know about. If you embezzle or molest children, especially if you’re a pastor or someone in a similar position of trust, you are indeed acting dishonorably. But if you are quick to confess and truly make amends, have you not by definition erased the earthly guilt of the transgression and so been justified, just as if you’d never transgressed? Do you need to be publicly disgraced on top of all that? Can we not assume that the burden of making amends in and of itself will provide a great, if not a sufficient, deterrent to similar misbehavior in the future?

What if it doesn’t? What about people who just don’t change their ways? There are two possible scenarios here, depending on the size of the restitution needed.

If the crime was small and the perpetrator is able to arrange to compensate his victim from his own resources, it may be that he simply enters a cycle of committing a crime, being caught, paying restitution, and doing it again. One would expect that, say, a shoplifter, after having to pay two hundred dollars (including the surcharge involved in settling the dispute) for a twenty-dollar item would conclude that he’s smarter just to buy the item to begin with. But if for some reason he prefers to steal, as long as he makes restitution each time and the victim is more than fully compensated for his losses, this becomes simply an unconventional kind of exchange in which both sides benefit.

In the case of large crimes like mega larceny or molestation, the restitution process will almost certainly involve people other than the perpetrator. Almost all embezzlers are unable to pay back their victims, and not only do child molesters indenture themselves for such things as counseling and medical expenses, but most victims and their families desire to see them suffer some sort of non-monetary consequences. (Public flogging comes to mind.) In the case of massive embezzlement, the defendant’s group would probably arrange a payment from a designated fund (taken from dues by all members) and then decide how to deal with the perpetrator. In the case of molestation, the group would have to cover the victim’s medical expenses and administer whatever other discipline was needed. In both cases, they would probably demand lifestyle changes on the part of the perpetrator so they wouldn’t have to bail him out again. If he continued to misbehave, however, they would probably terminate his membership, and he would have the problem of excommunication described earlier .

But what if the perpetrator is someone from another group? Then the reputation of that whole group is on the line. If they refuse to talk or bring the offender to adjudication, your group may decide to drop the matter and simply compensate you for your trouble. Or they may decide to spread their side of the story to other, more honorable groups in the area who, if they agree you have a good case, will begin to distrust the offending group. Members of the offending group will subsequently not be welcome in situations where non-members feel vulnerable. For example, if the original crime was shoplifting, they may be denied entry to stores owned by members of other groups. If it was rape, their members may no longer be welcome on the streets of other groups’ communities.

The most important resource a society has is the good character of its people. No system, not even what I’m proposing here, can cure a society that is determined to be evil. The temptation to abuse one’s body through drugs or sexual immorality, to steal, or to assault others comes from the heart. Similarly, good character comes from the inside, from a transformed heart and from a renewed mind; it cannot be imposed from the outside. The more government tries to regulate substances and sexual behavior, the more lives are ruined by both. You can put your possessions in fortified containers, but that doesn’t make a thief not want to steal them. Staying in your house may keep you from being assaulted, but it doesn’t make rapists and other thugs stop wanting to get at you. The best way to keep thieves and rapists away—and to avoid becoming one yourself—is to live in a polity that provides incentives that reward honorable behavior. We have seen that a bottom-up society provides those incentives.

But what if those incentives don’t work? What if someone refuses to go to an adjudicator? Simple. You get your group and go after him. If you and your group want a reputation for autonomous violence, then you wipe him out when you find him. If you want a reputation for doing things decently and in order, you invite members of other groups to the adjudication proceedings so they can see this is not a show trial.

But what if they still keep pushing? There may come a time when there is no alternative to war.

We live in a fallen world, and there is a time for war as well as a time for peace, a time to kill as well as a time to heal. Even Abraham, the father of the faithful, suffered the hardship of war, and he seems to have prepared for it by developing his character and reputation in the way we’ve discussed. He had a private army that seems to have been made up of volunteers: The Hebrew word translated "servants" by the King James Version can also be translated "slave," as (elsewhere) in the New International Version, but there is little reason to believe that if these "slaves" had had even perceived grievances against him and chosen to run away or turn on him he would have had any way of stopping them. He certainly could not appeal to any king or other top-down power to keep them under his rule. His rule depended on the willingness of his servants to be his subjects. Indeed, the greatness of Abraham and Abraham’s God is shown by the willingness of their servants to remain with them even when they call on those servants to take personal risks to accomplish ends that hold no perceivable benefit for the servants.

The purpose of arms is to kill, as is the purpose of an army. That’s how you make sure that when the talking ends, you can live with the final result. Smart campers keep food out of their tents at night so that bears don’t attack them. But if everything else fails and the bear comes into your tent and there’s no escape, your only hope is to kill it. Wounding it is arguably worse than not shooting at all: an angry bear is even fiercer than a hungry bear. You need to make sure that the group you join not only treats its members justly but can defeat all potential attackers, either on its own or through alliances with other groups. Again, we would hope that doing all we can to live at peace with our neighbors, whether members of our group or of others, would guarantee peace and lower the proportion of our lives devoted to self-defense, but this doesn’t always work.

In fact, we may find that our worst enemies are members of our own groups, or even of our own families. These threats will probably come in the form of suggestions that some form of coercive, top-down system is needed to secure the well-being of group members. If these suggestions succeed in effecting change to the bottom-up system, they will bring us or our progeny inevitably to the nightmare of midnight invasions by agents who can act with impunity.

This is all well and good, but how do we get to a bottom-up system from here? The most important thing you can do is to develop your character, to become the kind of person others will want to defend. This means learning to be peaceable in all your relationships with all your neighbors, learning to avoid top-down, coercive activities. Consider yourself the only one responsible for yourself and everything you value. Educate your own children. Plan and provide for your own retirement. Avoid government handouts. Do everything you can to make sure others cannot wrong you. Don’t put yourself or your valuable property anywhere someone you don’t know can do you violence. Fortify your home. Make sure that if there’s a disaster (flood, tornado, riot, terrorist attack), you can feed, house, and defend your family. If, despite all your efforts, you are wronged, don’t go to the police; if you don’t know the perpetrator, write the loss off; if you do, settle the matter out of court. If you are accused, again, do everything you can to settle out of court.

The transformation of the system won’t happen overnight. But it will happen. Thirty years ago, the only way to get a document across the country was to put it in an envelope and tell the post office to fly it. You were at the mercy of the State’s monopoly on mail service: you paid the price they set, and it arrived when they decided to deliver it. Then Federal Express came along and could get letters across the country faster, if not cheaper. The State countered by taxing Federal the cost of a first-class stamp every time Federal carried a letter, thus making it even more expensive to send via Federal than via the post office. But then came the inventions of the fax machine and e-mail. Now, instead of days, it takes seconds to get letters across the country and even around the world. The post office exists today primarily because it is irrelevant: living with it is less bother than getting rid of it would be. Its role as a channel of communication is diminishing by the day. In the same way, the more we live as bottom-up people—serving our neighbors rather than trying to dominate them—the more people will see that this is a better way to live and seek to emulate us, if not to join us.

This may sound like a pipe dream. After all, we live in a day when power is being concentrated like never before: SWAT teams, unknown in the 1970s, invaded people’s homes 40,000 times in the last year. Some of those arrested were guilty of violent crimes, but others were guilty only of crossing lines drawn by the government—they had harmed no one—and others were guilty of no crime at all. Voices that protest this situation are rare, so it is more likely that the near future holds a totalitarian system rather than a bottom-up system. But top-down systems don’t last. And when the SWAT teams, secret police, show trials, and prisons and torture have failed to bring about the justice, security, and prosperity people seek, they will look for servants to lead them. You want to be that servant.

I’ve been assuming that people always do what they believe to be in their best interests. Jesus gives us good reason to believe that while people always act in what they think is their own best interest, they don’t always know what that best interest is: "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" He was speaking to those who didn’t realize how far down the bottom line really is and so were willing to settle for trinkets and cheap thrills. I would suggest that those who prefer a top-down system—perhaps thinking that their best interests will be served by those at the top—don’t know how far down the bottom line is either. Whereas wisdom tells us, "A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold," our might-makes-right system encourages people to do whatever is necessary to win elections, gain entitlements from the government, win frivolous lawsuits, escape convictions on technicalities, and intimidate opponents into surrendering without a fight, even if it earns the scorn of honorable people. And, of course, whenever that happens, simpletons see that the system honors the unscrupulous and despises honorable people, and they quite rationally choose to join the ranks of the unscrupulous.

Life in a bottom-up polity will be simple—what is simpler than keeping your hands to yourself, telling the truth, and working for your neighbor’s benefit?—but it will not be easy. The best of us will choose to stray off the right path at some point. Those choices are the result of our rebellion against God. Because of that rebellion, we need forgiveness, first from God for that rebellion, then from our neighbors for the harm we cause them by our bad choices. Then we need to be reconciled, first to God, and then to our neighbors. The Bible promises that those who allow Jesus to govern their lives will be forgiven by God and that God’s Spirit will actually give them the power to develop the character needed to live the kind of lives that a bottom-up polity requires. The Bible also provides unchanging, objective guidelines—more than guidelines, they are commands—for the development of such a polity, one person at a time.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
5 thumbs so far

Facebook Share: Share

Share on Twitter

The views expressed in this article are those of Henry Whitney only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Henry Whitney is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Henry Whitney of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.

Justice from the Bottom Up

Leave A Comment