You’re a criminal, you know. Well, maybe you don’t. But you are.

Someone has run the numbers and figured out that the typical American commits three felonies a day.

If you want fewer criminals, make fewer things illegal.  Failing that, why toss non-violent offenders in prison when we could rattan cane them instead?   

I’m still waiting for a single reason why we couldn’t offer “criminals” the choice between a horribly painful caning and years of incarceration.  And I still hope that someday someone with a national audience will raise the question.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to You’re a criminal, you know. Well, maybe you don’t. But you are.

  1. SDH says:

    I’m down with the fewer laws proposition, but, of course, the easiest way to exert state control over people is to make them all criminals.

  2. Brett says:

    To my mind, a crime is a violation of an individual’s rights, not a mere violation of the law. By my definition, much law is actually crime.

    • wormme says:

      Me too. While I’m willing for local communities to restrict behavior to a considerable degree, the Fed? A law in discord with the Constitution? It’s not a law, it’s a chain.

      Oh, I submit, of course, because the alternative is being persecuted by the most powerful organization in history. The acid test will come when they systematically punish us for exercising our First Amendment rights.

  3. Mazzuchelli says:

    Felonies, hardly. However, count on me for two serious misdemeanors during the morning and afternoon commutes. Ah, the flyover states, where cars can be driven as God intended. Maniacally.

  4. DiogenesLamp says:

    I just wanted to see what your opinion is regarding a new law my state just passed. If you are stopped by police, if you don’t show proof of insurance, they tow your car away.

    For a person who cannot afford insurance, this effectively steals the car. Thoughts?

    • wormme says:

      Urk. I can see the train of thought, if one concedes that operating a sometimes deadly device is a privilege and not a right. But good grief, that seems extremely brutal.

      I didn’t have proof on hand once, though I had insurance. They gave me a “provisional” ticket, which was thrown away when I came back with the proof. You’d think that approach would bag most scofflaws eventually, without utterly disrupting innocent lives. I guess insurance companies have better lobbyists that disorganized drivers do.

  5. DiogenesLamp says:

    Urk. I can see the train of thought, if one concedes that operating a sometimes deadly device is a privilege and not a right.

    Such as a firearm? (batting my eyelids innocently… 🙂 )

    But good grief, that seems extremely brutal.

    “Let them eat cake.” I don’t know if you’ve had any personal experience with the legalized theft system referred to as a towing “service”, but if you don’t get your vehicle away from them immediately, you will not be able to do so later.

    Towing fee: $120.00
    Storage fee: $ 20.00/day, one day automatic upon being towed.
    Cost of insurance: ~ $100.00

    ONLY the owner listed on title can retrieve vehicle:
    Plus must get a release from the police dept:
    1/2 to 1 day of work lost: ~ $50-$100

    Cost of immediate retrieval $290-$340 .

    So we go from being denied the right to use the public road, to denial of the right of ownership. Strangely enough, this denial of property doesn’t bother those who support putting conditions on the right to use the public roads.

    But WAIT !!!! There’s more!

    Fine for driving without insurance is $350.00 AND you lose your drivers license!
    (kinda hard for you to go get your car back if you can’t drive it. Guess you’ll have to bring along a friend, eh ? Better bring an unemployed friend, or add the cost of them missing work as well. 🙂 )

    Of course, why you would need insurance to drive a car when you no longer have a license is a bit of a quandary. I guess it will allow you to get your property home, where you can possibly sell it, or let someone else drive it. I Haven’t even pointed out yet how much it will cost you to get to work without being allowed to drive your car, but that will be an ongoing expense.

    In fact, you can effectively bankrupt and ruin someone’s life, all to protect the property (before the fact!) of someone, ( who freely risks their life) IF there is an accident.

    Now I wonder if a Reasonable Man would think this is reasonable? 🙂

    • wormme says:

      I wouldn’t dare argue with anything you say.

      Hard cases make bad laws. If poor people damage others without the ability to make recompense, it’s bad. If you make poor people destitute through onerous legislation and expenses, it’s bad.

      The conditions you cite are worse than those I’ve enountered, but it’s been a few years. And yes, of course, it’s agreed that these are crippling conditions for a sizable minority of citizens.

      I’m pretty sure we agree that this is what happens when businesses are politicized. You whack the non-insured enough and they’ll sacrifice other things for insurance. Good for the (lobbying) insurance companies, bad for almost everyone else.

      The problem is that where you and I prefer more liberty, apparently the majority does not.

      So we shouldn’t expect improvements when the Fed casts its jaundiced eye at a national auto insurance policy. It will inevitably veer toward the more authoritarian approaches.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s