were trying to do their job, they probably would have gotten away with it in the past. And I guess I'm biasing it by saying "getting away with it" because maybe there was nothing to get away with. But a 30 percent pay raise for police, I think that is called for. So I would overfund the police based on this new situation.

So whoever wanted to defund the police, this probably moved in the wrong direction. And by the way, there's no economist who would disagree with me, right? It's the same job except way extra risk. You have to pay extra for that. That's how it works. So if defunding the police is what anybody wanted, I'm pretty sure this should work the other way if economics works the way it's supposed to.

The Nextdoor app, I hear, has a new feature that'll tell you if you're being racist before you send your message. What do you think of that? What do you think of the Nextdoor app? Before you send out a little message to the neighbors, apparently it's got some artificial intelligence built in that's just looking for keywords such as "Blue Lives Matter." It'll flag that. That's actually one of the examples. It'll flag it to say, you know, some people would take "Blue Lives Matter" as a racist statement. Are you sure you want to send it? It'll still let you send it.

Or "All Lives Matter." If you type "All Lives Matter" into the app, it'll stop you and say, whoa, you know what's going on here, right? It's gonna look a little racist. Think twice. What do you think about that? Are you up for that? Are you down for that?

I have mixed opinions. I usually violate the common thinking whenever information is presented that's useful. So in my opinion, Nextdoor is presenting actually useful information because there might be people who literally don't know that they're about to ruin their own life by saying something that they think is supporting all life and equality, but other people are going to think you're a racist. I don't know. I think it's worth trying. Maybe see how people think about it. Give it a whirl.

If they were actually blocking you for saying it, then that's another question. But if it's just information and it's information that can save your life literally, it's worth a try. They can always reverse it if the users don't like it. But anytime you can try something cheaply and it's got a good purpose behind it, yeah, why not give it a try? It's a little creepy but it's a test, you know. Everything's a test if you can reverse it easily.

All right, let's talk about this Chauvin outcome. If you didn't hear me last night, I did a livestream last night. But let me recap my opinion.

Number one, I am satisfied with the jury's work on this. I thank the jurors. I do not think that the jury's job is to decide the law. So this is where I might differ with some of you. I don't believe that the jury's duty, and I use this word intentionally, I don't think that the jury's duty was to attend to the letter of the law as instructed by the judge. That was their job description, right? It's not their duty. Their duty under the law is to follow the law just as best they can. So certainly if the only duty you were talking about is what their legal required description of their responsibility is, then it was their duty to follow the letter of the law.

But what's the higher law than the legal law, the one that's written down? Is there any higher law? Of course there is. Of course there is. There's the greater good. If you ever ran into a situation where following the letter of the law was clearly bad for the greater good, what would be the duty of the jury?

I'm going to give you an artificial example where the jury knows that following the letter of the law would just be wrong. What's their duty? Is their duty to follow that law that they know is wrong? No, never. Their duty is to be humans. Their duty is to be Americans. Their duty is to their fellow citizens for whom they have taken some sacrifice to serve on this jury.

Now before we discuss the question of whether they handled it right separately, can we agree that their duty is to do the best they can for the greater good? They might not get it right, but their duty is not to follow the law if the greater good is in a different direction. Does anybody disagree with that? I want to see if there are those who would say that they should follow the law even if they knew the law was evil. I'm not saying that's the case in the Chauvin case, just as a principle.

A lot of people here disagree. I will take your disagreement with respect, meaning that I respect that. I respect that point of view completely. I have complete respect for the opposite view of mine, which is if you think that following the law is just always going to be better even if there's some evil in a specific case, I can see that. That's not a terrible argument, by the way, because there's an assumption built in that following the letter of the law gets you to, you know, in the long run you've got a better situation. Yeah, that's fairly good.

But I disagree. The human law is always higher than the real law, you know, the written law in my opinion. And the problem is whether you are wise enough to know when to make this critical exception. And that's a problem, right, because maybe humans are not wise enough to make these exceptions. But there is a reason that we have jury trials and it's because we're all more comfortable with a system in which some capable people who mean well do the best they can. That's as good as you can get. It's a pretty good system.

And I would say the system worked in that sense. And I do think that the jurors took into account their own safety, which I support. I think they took into account what would happen to society, which I would support them doing that. And just in this specific case, I think they took into account potential riots. I think they took into account how the police would be viewed. I think they took into account racial animosity. I think they took into account how it feels. Should they? Well, most of you think no, but they did because you can't not. Nobody has the ability to turn that off. It's all part of the forces.

So here's what I like about the outcome. I do believe that it was a close call in terms of whether he was guilty of anything versus not guilty. I think that the jury heard all of the evidence and I didn't. That's important. The jury heard all of the evidence. I didn't. Most of you, almost 100 percent of you, also didn't hear all of the evidence. You didn't live through it. So if the people who lived through it and saw all of it have a different feeling about it than I got from my little keyhole, I'm not going to say they're wrong because the assumption is if all 12 of them voted the same way, it's more likely that I would have voted that way too if I'd seen what they saw, experienced what they experienced. But I didn't, right?

So I'm not going to second-guess people who did the work when I didn't do it. And when I watched anybody online who also didn't do the work, didn't watch every minute of the trial, I don't value their opinion as much as I value the jurors. And there was nothing in the jury description, which I found actually helpful even though it has the bad effect of probably doxxing them. But actually reading about the backgrounds and the way they answered the questions, I actually have a lot of confidence in that group. And it was mostly white people in the jury who convicted a white guy, which also helps