Jay Jardine points out an example of turning the jackasses in government against themselves. In Fight Every Ticket, he proposes "Costly to Govern" as a fitting epitaph for his gravestone, thus providing the title of this post.
The biggest problem with resolutely standing your ground, middle fingers pointed skyward and aimed at The Law and Its Enforcers, are the liabilities the state has assumed you owe it once you break its rules:
I'm driving home from a friend's house after having three Lone Star beers and a few bong hits over a period of two hours. I'm driving home at my usual velocity, which is to say 10 to 15 miles over the speed limit. I'm spotted by a cop and pulled over. Imagine what I face now:
Would it be worth fighting these charges in the parallel hopes of getting them either dismissed or reduced and imposing extra costs on a government grown used to having its way with us? That's up for each of you to decide. Personally, an episode like the one above would be disastrous for me if I were convicted of everything and handed even the minimum punishments. I don't have the financial leeway to dabble in legal proceedings and no lawyer would want to take up my real argument against the whole affair; I'd have to settle with a lawyer who fights the case on technical grounds or appeals to my status as a good citizen.
*choke*
But the costs imposed on the State of Texas would far outweigh the costs imposed on me. The grinding machine of justice would have to accommodate my presence in the system. State employees would have to allocate resources to prosecute me, judge me, punish me, detain me, and file me. I guarantee their real, absolute costs would far exceed mine. Would it make a difference?
Probably not. I'd be a speck of a percentage in the general budgets of the City of Austin, Travis County, and the State of Texas. The coerced taxpayer foots the bill for these services, so it isn't like they respond to costs like a normal entity would. Nothing would be repealed unless I found a continuous line of astoundingly sympathetic judges and juries willing to overturn long-established laws and practices on principles that would threaten the government's ability to manage our lives.
In the end, I'd be out at least hundreds of dollars I don't have and hundreds of hours better I'd rather spend on...drinking beer, getting stoned, and hanging out with friends. For all that inconvenience, the governments involved would barely burp. Would the satisfaction of knowing I decisively won the battle of absolute costs while utterly losing the battle of relative costs be enough to justify the resistence? Not for me.
It doesn't seem fair because it isn't.
UPDATE 10/28/2004 10:22am
Related thoughts from Billy Beck.
UPDATE 1/28/2005 11:51am
Hypocrisy or Consistency?
UPDATED 6/8/2005 2:51am
An Austin Parking Ticket
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
You noticed.
I'm here to tell you that I dont regard you as one of the "slugs", because you're obviously thinking about it.
Onward.
>>But the costs imposed on the State of Texas would far outweigh the costs imposed on me. The grinding machine of justice would have to accommodate my presence in the system. State employees would have to allocate resources to prosecute me, judge me, punish me, detain me, and file me. I guarantee their real, absolute costs would far exceed mine. Would it make a difference?
Yes, It would make the problem WORSE. One doesn't impose "costs" on the State of Texas by doing this -- one gives them another excuse to jack the tax rates. They have The Gun, and can always extort more money from the rest of us to pay for the expansion of state power needed to keep you in jail. The bureaucracy would be digesting you ON MY DIME (and yours of course.)
I am convinced that open defiance is not the way, appealing as it may seem.
T.J., there are a number of choices we face, the primary being resistance or acquiesance. If I choose to resist, my primary choice is to make that resistance violent or peaceful. Given my values, I prefer peaceful over violent. That means what?
*Openly voicing my disagreement with the state, the ideas supporting it, and the people advocating it.
*Voting...even though there are compelling arguments that this option morally sucks and is practically useless.
*Ignoring some laws, either secretly or in open defiance.
You say that fighting an arrest/indictment in court ultimately ends up costing the taxpayer, for obviously that's from whom the government takes its resources. Therefore, that method of resistance is wrong. However, if I get arrested, the option remains to fight the sanction or to admit guilt and move on. What would you suggest I do in the situation outlined above? What would you suggest I do if the situation were different and the arrest would be easily proven to be unlawful itself? The cost to the taxpayer is lower but still exists.
Personally, giving in every time I'm arrested in order to spare the Texas taxpayer the marginal cost of screwing me doesn't seem right. I certainly don't think the path to liberty is through the courts, but I think it is almost inevitable I'll be forced to face the criminal justice system as a defendant some time in my life. Besides, the moment you've entered the system, you engage the state and the resources it has taken. Would you just plead no contest to everything on the spot?
Posted by: Drizz on October 29, 2004 09:25 AM