Don’t put crooks (thieves) in prison!

Chip them or slap a bracelet on them, and send them out to work. Make them earn enough money to pay appropriate restitution, at which point the tracking device would be removed. In this way, the punishment would be commensurate with the crime – you are not free until you have paid back the value of what you stole. The restitution would go through some intermediate agent, whose fee would be paid by the offender, and then into the pocket (or bank account) of the victim.

It makes sense – putting a thief in jail does nothing for the victims. It has a huge cost to society, and apparently not enough deterrent to actually stop crime. Criminals count on not getting caught, and if they do get caught, most sentences are so short that jail is no deterrent, either. And why are sentences so short? Because our prisons are so overloaded that they turn them over as fast as possible.

Chipping would allow the justice system to track convicts until they have completed their restitution. This would have the advantage of being able to find them when they try to skip; and more importantly, it’s pretty difficult to break into a house when some government gent knows exactly where you are, and when you are there. Or to hijack a car, hold up a bank, mug Joe Schmoe, or break into that soda machine.

For cyber criminals and embezzlers, maybe the chip could record keystrokes and either transmit them to some remote location, or store enough to be able to download at some set interval.

We’l discuss drug “crimes” another time, and so that leaves the prisons for crimes against people. Violent offenders. There are possible ways to deal with some of them that don’t involve prison, but violent offenders are the only people who ought to be incarcerated. And even some of the violent offenders would be better rehabilitated by paying restitution or doing some sort of service work to atone for lesser crimes.

Their victims might also be better served, as well. If a thug assaults you, you and/or your insurance company bear the costs of your medical treatment, possible counseling, and time off work. It seems only right that the perpetrator bear those costs. That would be justice.

The costs are just too high for our society to continue to not only pay the costs of the violent act, but then to lock up, feed, clothe, guard, cover health, dental and education costs for people who commit crimes against property and some minor crimes against persons.

We can’t afford it, and most importantly, it’s not working. Our prisons are full. The prison industry is huge, and the biggest consumer of our “Health and Human Services” dollars.

That’s right, most of those “welfare” dollars are actually prison dollars. We keep cutting welfare programs to pay ever-increasing prison costs.

What a waste. What a shame.

Prison bound. Wasted years.

A steaming plate of . . . lasagne?

I just ran across a presentation by a Libertarian from Oregon, who said "Politicians are the members of the organization who make change comfortable to the average voter”.

Over and over, this is what it boils down to – we must make voters comfortable with change, otherwise they are not going to vote for change. They will continue to vote for what they know, what they are comfortable with.

What makes them feel safe.

We’ve all heard it, “better the devil you know, ????”

This is where the works of Dr. Mary Ruwart and Michael Cloud are so valuable. In translating the ideas of Liberty, and the mechanics of change into comfortable plans that voters will buy.

Marketing ideas, selling Liberty to consumers: the voters.

Until Libertarians and the LP learn to do this more effectively, we won’t be successful in the marketplace; the voter booth.

I’m not talking about watering down the message, I’m talking about framing it in more attractive terms.

If we were talking about feeding people, it might look this way . . .

A man who has spent all day shoveling snow will fall upon a steaming plate of lasagne, no matter that it fell apart as it was served, and the noodles, sauce, cheese are all stirred together. He’s hungry, starving for that plate of food, and it will not matter to him that it is served on a plain, thick white plate that has drips of sauce running across the edge where the lasagne was spooned onto it. It is hot, the smell is enticing, and it will taste better than anything he can imagine. Give him more, more, more!

At the next table, we have a woman who lives on diet pills and too much coffee. She has little appetite, may have never experienced ravenous hunger, and is afraid that lasagne will take three days to remove from her hips, if she does eat it. She will be enticed by a tiny portion, beautifully served on a fine china plate, surrounded by a large salad of succulent greens, lightly dressed in a low fat dressing. It’s beautiful, fits her diet plan, and is healthy.

In either case, the product, whether lasagne or freedom, is the same, the presentation is worlds apart.

Persuading soccer Moms to partake of a few bites of freedom is the way to win. Mom takes a bite and carries it back to the nest, where the children are allowed a little more freedom; they learn about living in a world that is more free. Dad gets his taste, and encourages Mom and kids in an even more free lifestyle. Next time Mom steps up to the lunch line, maybe she throws caution to the wind and has two bites. Kids, being freedom loving little anarchists, have already sneaked the pan of lasagne out of the fridge and devoured it, cold, with their grimy little hands.

In the end, it’s not how many pounds of freedom we sell, it’s how many people we persuade to take a tiny bite that counts.

For freedom is potent stuff – it infects a host, reproduces like a virus, and then it spreads.

Me, I'm Not Comfortably Numb

Time to revolt?

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
-Will Rogers


Yep, a joke.

What else can you call a government that outlaws plastic bags, bottled water, and microwave popcorn?

All in the name of global warming.

This is, by the way, the same city that was asked, just a few years ago, to provide bottled water in schools, since some of them were providing polluted water to children.

The same government who proposed to tear down a historic viaduct, and replace it with a tunnel that would run through a major ground fault that is overdue for a quake; that runs along a waterfront, where it would require a horrific effort to keep the Pacific ocean out; and would require over 6 acres of trees to mitigate the carbon dioxide produced by the operating systems?

The same government official who would ban guns while using armed guards for personal security, who talks about banning SUVs, and compelling cab companies to use hybrids, while being driven around town in a chauffeured SUV.

The same government official who believes that you and I need to be compelled to ride the bus – but the bus is not workable for his schedule.

The same government who would ban beach fires.

Who among us believes that it is the place or right of any elected official to make these kind of arbitrary pronouncements? And many of them have been done by executive fiat.

Pronouncements by Mayor Greg Nickels. Mayor Moron, in some circles.

A fascist. The worst kind of fascist. One who decides, then makes pronouncements from the seat of power, that we are forced to live with.

And the ultimate insult? Not only does he want to tell us how to live our lives, he refuses to live that way himself.

Come the r3VOLution. Bring it ON!

Apparently, another mayor of a large US city has decided that he can accomplish what no other government has been able to do - lower the rate of violent crime by banning guns.

In Seattle, Greg Nickels is imposing a ban on guns in all city owned venues. It's not law - that would be a direct violation of Washington State Constitution, but this rule would eject citizens from the properties that they own, if they don't leave or surrender their guns.

The other Washington tried it - it hasn't worked there.

The Brits tried it - it hasn't worked there.

. . . the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was “in startling free-fall.”

Banning guns isn’t the answer. Prohibition never works.

Look at the Prohibition of alcohol – it made a minor social problem into a morass of mobs, gun violence and crime.

Drug prohibition? That’s working well, huh? Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) officers denounce that plan. Drug use actually rises (forbidden fruit, you know!), and the prohibition created the usual black market, complete with increased prices, turf protection, and an entire Drug War industry, replete with overtly (give me $$, and I won’t bust you) corrupt, and morally (lying to make a bust, entrapment) corrupt cops and officials.

Gun bans won’t get the guns out of the hands of criminals and nutburgers. Witness the Brits’ example. Gun violence went up, and otherwise law-abiding citizens were prosecuted for possession.

You know, my dad carried a gun to school, at least in the winter, when they risked attack by wild animals. Parked his horse under a tree, and his gun in the cloakroom.

I went to high school in a rural farm community, where a huge percentage of the student autos in the parking lot were pick-‘em-up trucks, most with gun racks in the back window. And yes, many had guns in the racks. And I’m only in my 40s.

Despite the widespread availability of guns, gun violence was not virtually unknown.

So, what changed, you may ask. For one thing, attitudes about guns – more regulation, which always makes things more attractive to some; and with the idea that guns are bad, came a total lack of education about gun use and safety. Most people these days are unaware of how to operate, clean or store a gun. Even fewer realize what guns can or cannot do. They see TV, where people are shot and die from ridiculously minor wounds, and they see li’l bitty guns, with li’l bitty bullets, blow holes through concrete walls. All of which leads to total ignorance, just a lot of fear.

It’s not the guns that cause violence. A few years ago, a whacko in the Seattle area attacked a woman with a sword. In one highly amusing story, a Seattle activist attacked the mayor with a megaphone.

People have killed each other with hammers, autos, knives, medical equipment, every poison known to man, and with our bare hands. We’ve planned or written about killing with legs of lamb, icicles, and any number of unlikely household objects.

I fully expect that Seattle’s pet moron will try to work his way through the entire list of possible weapons.

When they came for the guns, I didn’t do anything; I wouldn’t own a gun. When they came for ricin, I didn’t do anything; I wouldn’t own any deadly poisons. When they came for the knives, I didn’t do anything; I wouldn’t own a knife. And when they came for our hands, there was no one left to help . . . or at least, no one who could get a grip on the situation.

Do not go gentle into that good night, people . . . Rage against the Machine!