Here's a great resource to learn how Project 2025 will affect you or those you love and care about on specific issues such as health care, food assistance, education, etc. The site is called "25 and Me" and is a collaboration between Rajat Paharia and Google Gemini. — Read the rest

The post "25 and Me" is your guide to the horrors of Project 2025 appeared first on Boing Boing.

Today is the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. That ruling is one of the most famous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, and probably the most widely praised. But many aspects of the ruling remain controversial, including elements of the Court's reasoning, and how the decision fits in with various types of constitutional theory.

In honor of the anniversary, the American Journal of Law and Equality is publishing a symposium on Brown. I am honored to be invited to contribute. A draft of my aricle, entitled "Brown, Democracy, and Foot Voting," is available on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Traditional assessments of Brown's relationship to democracy and popular control of government should be augmented by considering the ways it enhanced citizens' ability to "vote with their feet" as well as at the ballot box. Brown played a valuable role in reinforcing foot voting, and this has important implications for our understanding of the decision and its legacy.

Part I of the article summarizes the relationship between foot voting and ballot box voting, and how the former has important advantages over the latter as a mechanism of political choice. Relative to ballot box voting, foot voting offers individuals and families greater opportunities to make decisive, well-informed choices. It also has special advantages for minority groups, including Blacks.

Part II considers traditional attempts to reconcile Brown and democracy, through arguments that the decision was actually "representation-reinforcing." While each has its merits, they also have significant limitations. Among other flaws, they often do not apply well to the Brown case itself, which famously originated in a challenge to segregation in Topeka, Kansas, a state in which – unlike most of the South – Blacks had long had the right to vote.

Part III explains how expanding our understanding of Brown to include foot voting opportunities plugs the major holes in traditional efforts to reconcile the decision and democratic choice. Among other advantages, the foot-voting rationale for Brown applies regardless of whether racial minorities have voting rights, regardless of whether segregation laws are motivated by benign or malevolent motives, and regardless of whether the targeted ethnic or racial groups can form political coalitions with others, or not.

In Part IV, I discuss the implications of the foot-voting justification of Brown for judicial review of other policies that inhibit foot voting, particularly in cases where those policies have a history of illicit racial motivations. The most significant of these is exclusionary zoning.

As I note in the article, it is difficult to produce a thesis on Brown that is both original and useful. More has been written about this decision than almost any other Supreme Court case. Readers will have to judge whether I managed to succeed.

The post The 70th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education appeared first on Reason.com.

This year is the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, arguably the Supreme Court's most iconic decision. The American Journal of Law and Equality is publishing a symposium on the topic, and I am one of the participants. A draft of my contribution, entitled "Brown, Democracy, and Foot Voting," is now available on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Traditional assessments of Brown's relationship to democracy and popular control of government should be augmented by considering the ways it enhanced citizens' ability to "vote with their feet" as well as at the ballot box. Brown played a valuable role in reinforcing foot voting, and this has important implications for our understanding of the decision and its legacy.

Part I of the article summarizes the relationship between foot voting and ballot box voting, and how the former has important advantages over the latter as a mechanism of political choice. Relative to ballot box voting, foot voting offers individuals and families greater opportunities to make decisive, well-informed choices. It also has special advantages for minority groups, including Blacks.

Part II considers traditional attempts to reconcile Brown and democracy, through arguments that the decision was actually "representation-reinforcing." While each has its merits, they also have significant limitations. Among other flaws, they often do not apply well to the Brown case itself, which famously originated in a challenge to segregation in Topeka, Kansas, a state in which – unlike most of the South – Blacks had long had the right to vote.

Part III explains how expanding our understanding of Brown to include foot voting opportunities plugs the major holes in traditional efforts to reconcile the decision and democratic choice. Among other advantages, the foot-voting rationale for Brown applies regardless of whether racial minorities have voting rights, regardless of whether segregation laws are motivated by benign or malevolent motives, and regardless of whether the targeted ethnic or racial groups can form political coalitions with others, or not.

In Part IV, I discuss the implications of the foot-voting justification of Brown for judicial review of other policies that inhibit foot voting, particularly in cases where those policies have a history of illicit racial motivations. The most significant of these is exclusionary zoning.

As noted in the article, producing a thesis on Brown that is both new and useful is a tall order. Few if any other judicial decisions have been analyzed so much. But, as the saying goes, "fools rush in where the wise fear to tread." And so I accepted the journal's invitation.

I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticisms.

The post New Article on "Brown, Democracy, and Foot Voting" appeared first on Reason.com.

In a special edition of Just Asking Questions recorded before a live audience on the Honduran island of Roatán, Reason's Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe talk with Mark Lutter, founder of the Charter Cities Institute, and Patri Friedman, founder and board member of Pronomos Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in charter cities.

The conversation took place at the Alternative Visions for Governance conference sponsored by the Reason Foundation, which publishes Reason. The conference happened within the jurisdiction of Próspera, an autonomous zone for economic development—known as a ZEDE—made possible by a 2013 law passed by the Honduran National Congress. 

They discussed lessons learned from the launch of Próspera, which has expanded despite a hostile presidential administration, the proliferation of biohacking and medical procedures within the zone, the history of self-governing cities, the relationship between charter cities and democracy, and where in the world prospects are best for future experiments in privatized governance. 

Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or on the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.

The post Patri Friedman and Mark Lutter: Does a City Need a State? appeared first on Reason.com.

Last night, Stephen Colbert criticized the Supreme Court's decision to delay Donald Trump's January 6 insurrection trial by agreeing to hear his immunity claim. Colbert declared February 29 to be Trump Day, "that one magical day you can do anything you want because no laws apply, evidently, according to the Supreme Court" due to the court's decision to hear Trump's immunity defense, which will cause a significant delay in the trial. — Read the rest

The post Stephen Colbert – corrupt Supreme Court is now "null and void" appeared first on Boing Boing.