None of the nearby passengers came to the aid of the dying ukrainian refugee in Charlotte after the killer left the crime scene

This ignorance/apathy by the other, nearby passengers is probably the most shocking/disturbing fact about this murder case in my opinion! Perhaps, the victim would not have bled to death.

What sounds did the dying, young woman make? Hopefully, these sounds and images will stay in the minds of these passengers for the rest of their lives.

This is troublesome and uncharacteristic of Americans! Remember, e.g. the American John Rudat (age 20) who was injured while trying to save two women from an attacker with a knife on public transportation in Dresden, Germany in August of 2025. 

A Society Paralyzed by the Presence of Evil

On The Decriminalization Of Psychoactive Drugs

Posted: 10/3/2019 Amended/revised: 10/9/2019

The decriminalization of drugs has been a perennial favorite topic of libertarians and others! Unfortunately, most of its advocates seem rather naive and ignorant!

From a pure individual liberty perspective there is little doubt that any adult should be allowed to consume such drugs responsibly and without harm to others. 

The rarely mentioned crux of the matter is that with such individual liberty comes significantly increased personal responsibility! Anyone who consumes psychoactive drugs should be held responsible to a higher standard. This includes e.g. more severe criminal or civil punishments for injuries or harm to others when committed under the influence of such drugs. I am not sure many of the advocates are ready for that!

Some of the pros of decriminalization:

1. Medical use and benefits if taken responsibly
2. More scientific research into the benefits of psychoactive drugs
3. More tax revenues e.g. from the sale of such drugs
4. Considerable shrinking of the black markets for such drugs
5. Considerable reduction in criminal offenses, organized crime activity and the like related to such drugs
6. Better medical treatments for addicts 
7. Far fewer accidental overdosing and far lower consumption of low quality drugs
8. Availability of affordable high quality drugs
9. Development of less addictive and less psychoactive drugs

Some of the cons of decriminalization:

1. How to effectively prevent minors from consuming such drugs? A very serious con!
2. How to effectively prevent pregnant women from consuming such drugs that have serious side effects on the unborn?
3. Potentially a massive and long-term increase in the numbers of severe addicts. Alcohol prohibition was a result e.g. of perceived high levels of daily intoxication of large numbers of individuals. The current opioid epidemic/crisis in the USA should be a warning. A very serious con!
4. Potentially an enormous increase in mental disorders due to consumption of such drugs. A very serious con!
5. Potentially a substantial increase in individual decadence and hedonism. A very serious con!
6. Potentially a severe breakdown of human relations and society (e.g. family, volunteer associations etc.). Reminder: China’s Opium wars!
7. How much power and control for governments over production, distribution, and sales of such drugs?
8. Potentially a considerable increase in traffic and other accidents due to intoxicated individuals thereby killing or harming other individuals in the act.

It should be abundantly clear from the above that the subject of decriminalization of psychoactive drugs is rarely pure and never simple at all (to paraphrase Oscar Wilde)! It is a complicated matter that defies easy solutions!

I have previously blogged here about this subject.

On Civil Society And Acts Of Crime

Posted: 9/24/2018

Introduction

This blog post is primarily focused on Western democracies, but, I suspect, my discussion here has some relevance to other parts of the world as well.

Definition Of Crime

Theft, fraud, physical violence resulting in injury or death against humans (includes eg. poisoning), physical violence against or damage to property. Negligence or recklessness which harms others.

A crime committed to (purportedly) correct another crime or a previous crime is still a crime.  

Not every crime defined by law is actually a crime. This is a very important point to keep in mind!

Premise

In a civilized and under the rule of law society there are basically no justifications for crime! There is absolutely not justification for career criminals!

Many Pseudo & Wrong Justifications Of Crime

Plenty of pseudo, but influential justifications for crime were promulgated and steadily promoted over the centuries. Unfortunately, they have gained great popularity and familiarity.

Robin Hood excuse: To steal from the rich and give it to the poor often with the implied or insinuated accusation that the rich themselves are thieves and that is why or how they got rich. Perhaps, there was some truth to this excuse centuries ago or when it comes to uncivilized societies or societies without the rule of law. Most of the times, thieves steal for themselves only and rarely give anything to the poor.

Social or environmental causes of crime excuse: This is a very popular excuse especially among lefties! It is  society or environmental circumstances are at fault why some members of society choose a career of crime. How convenient is that to explain away and to absolve individual responsibility! Once you accept this excuse, its proponents demand a Big Government to take care of it by expanding e.g. the welfare state.

Poverty as excuse: This is a particular lame excuse! There are many non criminal and voluntary ways available in a civil society to overcome or reduce poverty. Many individuals in a civil society are willing to provide voluntary help or relieve to those in poverty. Crime as a means of taking justice into your own hands is not acceptable.

Substance or other addiction excuse: Poor addicts cannot help themselves but to commit crimes to sustain their lives of addiction or so it goes. In prison, addicted criminals could receive medical treatment for their addiction. Whether to legalize drugs is another topic. How to deal with intramural (in prison) drug dealers is another question.

White collar versus blue collar crime excuse: This is another one of the famous, often repeated excuses. The excuse tends to go like this that white collar criminals:

1. Face much less law enforcement
2. Rarely go to jail
3. Can afford to hire much better attorneys for their defense
4. Evidence against them is much harder to come by

These arguments are flimsy and do not hold up to scrutiny, e.g. the victims of white collar crimes are often very sophisticated themselves and should have better known or the victims do not even choose to indict the criminal for various reasons.

Opportunity makes a thief excuse: Yes, of course, put the blame on the victim of a crime. Good defenses against crime often do not come cheap and these defenses need to be constantly updated and 100% maintained 24 hours year round, while a criminal (like a terrorist) has to succeed only once at a time, manner, and place of his/her choosing. A very asymmetric advantage of a criminal.

The Economic View Of Crime

To summarize:

1. Criminals are rational, planning, and calculating like other humans.Criminals constantly weigh the benefits and disadvantages of committing a crime versus a law abiding life
2. Criminals tend to fear or avoid crimes punished with harsh sentences
3. Criminals tend to avoid strong crime preventative measures
4. Crimes pays very well for some career criminals. Therefore, many try to become such criminals themselves
5. The very asymmetric advantage of a criminal, because he exploits human trust and wish to live in peace and harmony. The huge advantage of a criminal of choosing where, when and how to commit a crime

Ultima Ratio Justification

One of the very few acceptable justifications for crime would be the threat of imminent starvation of the person or a loved one of the person. E.g. the person steals food, because the person tried everything humanly possible to obtain food legally, but the person failed due to no fault of his or her own.

Widespread Complacency About Crime

It appears, there is a widespread complacency about crimes in Western democracies:

1. There will always be some crime committed. Crimes cannot be completely eliminated
2. Criminals should be given more opportunities to become a law abiding citizen and a valuable member of society
3. It is society’s fault at large that we have criminals. So let’s treat criminals as human as possible

In a civil society, (not even petty) crimes should never be ignored or taken lightly. Crimes undermine the foundation of a civil society. Crimes encourage further crimes.

Ted Kennedy And Chappaquiddick

Posted: 7/14/2018

Just read this Smithsonian article released at the time of the movie Chappaquiddick (4/2/2018): Why the True Story of “Chappaquiddick” Is Impossible to Tell In 1969, Senator Ted Kennedy careened a car off a bridge, killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne, but the story of the night’s events remain muddled today

The trial judge is quoted as saying: “He has already been and will continue to be punished far beyond anything this court can impose—the ends of justice would be satisfied by the imposition of the minimum jail sentence and the suspension of that sentence, assuming the defendant accepts the suspension” (emphasis added)

Ted Kennedy should have volunteered to go to jail for two months for leaving the scene of an accident and should not have accepted the suspension as the judge suggested!

Perhaps then Ted Kennedy would have become a much better politician than he ever was!

The Marginalized Terrorist Excuse

Posted: 1/15/2015

Since the terrorist acts in Paris, France last week more and more opinions come out to explain that these terrorists were marginalized.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no excuse for such murderous acts! Each individual is ultimately responsible for what he or she does not society etc.

There always many alternatives available to deal with life’s hardships or lack of opportunities etc. Anyone is free e.g. to protest peacefully against perceived injustices etc.

Speed Limits In The USA Are Unconstitutional

Founders In Their Own Words

James Madison in “Property” published in the National Gazette (3/29/1792):

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, …” (emphasis added)

What would James Madison say today about speed limits? He would probably agree it is an abomination!

Why Unconstitutional?

It is a prime example of how government constantly kills individual responsibility and imposes on its citizens a one size fits all solution.

Founders who gave us a 2nd Amendment and similar provisions in various state constitutions would be more than amused to see that 200 years later citizens and their elected representatives have chosen such limits on the freedom of movement.

Freedom is indeed never more than only one generation away from extinction to borrow these famous words by Ronald Reagan.

Speed Limits Are Highly Arbitrary

Speed limits in their current form are a manifestation of paternalism. We are all treated equal, right? Like any paternalistic/authoritarian measures it severely undermines individual responsibility and liberty.

There is no doubt in my mind that speed limits as defined on many US roadways are highly arbitrary and defy common sense. Given the advanced technological state of today’s motor vehicles a speed limit of 55 or 65 on many US highways is ludicrous.

Speed limits are a typical example of the pervasive government regulatory approach of one size fits all. It’s liberty killing presumed fairness by subjecting everyone to the same cruelty. It’s government meddling in our lives exploiting that law abiding citizens abide by these rules.

Justifications For Speed Limits Are Bogus

1) Justification: Safety

I do not believe that there is any convincing, critically reviewed evidence out there that higher speed causes more injuries and death than under those restrictive speed limits like in the US. statistics that purport to show a reduction in fatalities after introduction of speed limits are a fallacy. I might be wrong, but I think most of the statistics out there were produced by people interested in maintaining speed limits. Most likely these static statistics do not reflect humans enormous capability to adapt very well to different environments.

Really bogus are any arguments along the line that introducing higher speeds would have adverse effects on safety. Only during a transition period, I would tend to agree.

2) Justification: Energy Conservation

To counter fuel consumption or high prices of crude oil. I would argue that fuel consumption in idling traffic going stop and go etc. wastes a lot of fuel on major highways every rush hour. Speed limits impede the flow of traffic on highways and exacerbate the phenomenon of frequent, sudden, dramatic slowdowns for no good reason etc.

The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) Act of 1974 was a disgrace. That it took the US Congress until 1995 to repeal it and to return the authority to set or not to set speed limits to the states is a prime example of federal overreach.

3) Justification: Environmental

Vehicle noise is much less a concern today than it was perhaps in the past. If someone really cares of about vehicle noise emission why are loud motorcycles and cars not immediately impounded?

As mentioned before unreasonable speed limits cause all kinds of perverse traffic patterns that likely worsen the air quality.

A False Sense Of Safety

How many drivers on US highways do not properly look in their rear mirrors before they make a lane change? Too many.

Why were US soldiers warned every day on American armed services radio to be aware of defensive driving on German highways? You could be road kill if you forgot to look in the rear mirror.

Thus, I would argue unreasonable speed limits have a deleterious effect on individual responsibility.

Speed Limits As A Source Of Government Revenues

Speed limits are often just that a fairly predictable source of significant government revenue. Thus, there is obviously a conflict of interest in setting speed limits on our roadways.

Congestions Caused By Highway Patrol Officers

Highway patrol police cars standing visibly on the side of the highway during rush hour are causing unnecessary congestions. Instead of chasing criminals or reckless car drivers these police officers earn money sitting in their cars doing what? Watching out for citizens so they obey speed limits?

Highly Demeaning To Responsible Drivers

I strongly believe that most individuals are most of the time acting responsible especially if basic rules are clearly defined and punishment for irresponsible, harmful actions is swift and commensurate.

I personally find it aggravating that I have to constantly watch my back and every entrance ramp, HOV lane or other potential hiding areas along the roads where these dumb and highly overpaid highway patrol police officers might be preying by car or motorcycle on you. What a waste of taxpayers money for no good reason! Cops ought to catch criminals not law abiding citizens (a speed limit is not a law)!

Thus, I have to divert my precious attention from watching the traffic and surroundings to avoid accidents to spotting police officers.

Alternatives

Why is telecommuting/teleworking still so rare?

Severe sentencing of irresponsible drivers who caused traffic accidents. In case of personal injury, stiff jail time should be mandatory. No excuses. Irresponsible is, e.g., someone who drives an old, worn out car too fast. Driving and drinking will get you in jail, if an accident occurs.

Speed limit signs should be replaced with realistic recommended speed plus higher save speed postings.

Difficult roadways need more warnings.

Today’s technology would also allow to install drive recorders (like black box flight recorders) or to have more traffic surveillance cameras. Thus, when an accident occurs, there will be more evidence.

Other, Related Blog Posts

Here, here, and here.