Do you owe a ticket in Phoenix?

[John/az2]

I was flipping through the channels tonight when a news story on ABC caught my attention.

They claim that there is $190,000,000.00 owed to the city of Phoenix in fines and court fees. And their solution to the problem was to crawl in bed with the government and display over the next two days of those who's names are in the upper portion of that list.

Nothing like a snitch program sponsored by the "free" press!

Does this get to me?

Damn right it does!

Do I have any tickets in the city of Phoenix? Nope, but in my view it's a violation of liberty's principles to charge such fees when there is no victim outside of the government's over inflated ego.

Fines, fees + no victim = behavioral tax levied against those who's only crime is... well, nothing.

 

[Mike Irwin]

$190 MILLION?

Even if the average of all of those tickes is $250(I'm including penalties along with the initial fine) that's over 700,000 individual tickets!

That doesn't sound at all right.

Washington, DC, with an incredible ammount of scofflaw parking by diplomaggots doesn't have anything even remotely approaching this kind of figure. I think DC's unpaid fines figure is more along the lines of $10 million.

I have a hard time believing $190 million.

 

[bastiat]

What are the tickets for? Parking? Speeding? Misdemeanor violations? Some tickets are deserved. As much as I dislike oppressive government, sometimes the tickets need to be handed out as punishment. And when those tickets that were handed out aren't paid, you have to take steps to get the money, otherwise the punishment is meaningless.

 

[John/az2]

Mike,

It doesn't matter if it's $1.00 or $1,000,000,000.00.

It's the principle.

A new "Neighborhood Nark" program in full swing by ABC. It's kin, "SS# required for a hunting license so we can find dead-beat-dads" program certainly gets more protests from this board.

Why is that do you suppose?



Bastiat,

Why? Who was harmed?

Punish for harmful results, not behavioral modification.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I'm simply addressing the logisics of what was reported -- $190 million simply doesn't sound right.

Unpaid tickets, and various methods of collecting them, from public humiliation to the Denver Boot, go on around the country all of time time.

 

[labgrade]

I dunno, John. "Behavior modifications" are (quite likely may be) fines against running red lights - things of that nature that surely could cause harm by idiots who won't live within the "normal constraints" that we place upon ourselves to coexist (somewhat) safely.

A "harmful result" is likely when someone runs a red light & T-bones a Soccer-Mom's mini-van chock full-'O-chillrun .....

Do know that I am not for wholesale ticket-writing as a revenue-generator, but some things may require a "penalty" due to the naturee of the infraction - & hat of a "behavior modifier."

Far as the ABC-flash .... your NN remark cuts as close as any, & I couldn't agree more. Watch for more hot flashes - "yer neighbors' a (fill in the blank) & Turn Him In!" programs.

Maybe when rewards are offered for turning in yer neighbor we could really get a grip on these scofflaws .... (we really do need a tongue-in-cheek smiley)

 

[KSFreeman]

In Frynex? No, but then there's Prescott.

 

[John/az2]

Labgrade,

Even if you gave officers the power to summarily execute people who ran red lights, you'd still get people who run red lights.

Even if you make gun possession illegal, you'll still have people who possess guns.

It is my contention that tickets issued against behavior that is reckless, but has harmed no one, is wrong, and falls into the revenue generation definition.

We might as well make bungie jumping, rock climbing, skydiving, hang-gliding, race car driving, etc illegal as well!

 

[labgrade]

Please don't mistake my ill-formed method of presenting a view.

Even though a rational anarchist, I still believe that are certain ways which we should all live to coexist with one another. There may be certain reasons why an "entity" may wish to modify behavior through a monetary compensation - a fine.

Even though I 'd agree that if you don't "cause a problem" you shouldn't be fined, I could still argue (perhaps not convincively) that someone with an alcohol level of .8 (& driving on public byways) is a danger - hasn't yetcaused a problem, but still just waiting to cause "somewhat of a difficulty."

It is a responsibility issue far as the potential to cause harm (can you see the slipperly slope even I would agree on)? & I really don't have any hard 'n fast answer there .... maybe another topics along the lines of "are your rights absolute?"

Someone parking in the "wrong place" & "after dark" & getting a ticket is just stupid in my way of thinking, but there are cases where "an entity" (representing "us all") may have its advantages.

I dunno ... thinking out loud ....

 

[C.R.Sam]

Prescott is tryin to not fry as we speak. Bad fire threatening the city proper. Already within the city limits in a few areas.

160mil........I'm with Mike, that would indicate that tickets are a major part of the budget.

Narcing on your neighbor, family etc sounds like wartime Japan, U.S.S.R etc.

 

[John/az2]

C.R. Sam, Mike,

That was a figure of accumulate ticket debt to the city. Not, from what I understood, an annual figure.

One guy had 22k as his total owing.

Those tickets included building code infractions, not just traffic violations.

 

[bastiat]

Bastiat,

Why? Who was harmed?

Punish for harmful results, not behavioral modification.

That's what I was trying to determine, and you didn't answer. What are the fines for? Or are you saying that no governement fine is ever valid???

So if someone is driving drunk, they get a hefty fine, don't pay it, then they're ok and the government is the bad guy? Or somebody parks in front of my driveway, gets a ticket, and doesn't pay (remember, I was harmed because some dufus was parked in front of my driveway, interfering with me) he shouldn't have to pay, therefore having no punitive effect? What kind of logic is that???

 

[John/az2]

Bastiat,

You said, "What are the fines for? Or are you saying that no governement fine is ever valid???"

Just about.

If there is NO party that is harmed (<- please reread those last five words) by the action of the individual then the fine falls into the realm of "revenue generation", or simply another form of taxation. Call it a "behavioral tax".

I don't care if it's a drunk driver, crack head, driving fast, parked on the wrong side of the street...

No harm, no foul. And if there is harm due to recklessness, malicious intent, etc. let the punishment match the crime.

If someone parks in front of your driveway and hinders your access to it, I would call that HARM, and should be dealt with appropriately.

We have a plethora of "behavioral" statutes that, to me are an extreme of misdirection in, what is supposed to be, a truely just judicial system.

If you (hypothetically) carry a firearm concealed when it is stated in the "laws" of your area that such action is illegal, without a "priviledge" paper from the local LEA, and should you be discovered with such a device on your person, WITHOUT the permission slip, you would face fines and maybe jail time. And for WHAT? You hurt no one by your actions, yet a piece of your life is taken from you by force.

Take a look at what is happening to a gentleman who experienced such a scenario as described above.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113652

And you sanction this? The principle is the same for all such laws.

Now, reread what I posted to Labgrade if my position is still confusing.

 

[bastiat]

If someone parks in front of your driveway and hinders your access to it, I would call that HARM, and should be dealt with appropriately.

okay, what is appropriate, then? I can't damage his vehicle. I can't move it. All I can do is call police. They can have it towed. To punish him for inconveniencing me, they fine him. Is that then bad? Am I now the bad person because I've invoked the threat of a fine to get him to change his behavior?

He is inconvenienced (he has some money taken from him) because he has caused harm to me. That is punishment. That is why we have a government in the first place.

If he doesn't get a fine, what incentive does he have to not do it the next time he's in the neighborhood? My disdainful glance in his direction? Remember, he's parked on public property, but he's inconveniencing _me_, and I don't have any option to directly incovenience _him_.

Drunk driving? Hell, they should be pulled over, fined, and have their license taken away for awhile. Nobody has a right to drive impaired on a public street - where they have a possibility of killing one or more persons. If he wants to drive drunk on his own property, fine. But once you enter onto public roadways, you play by the standards that the community has set to protect itself.

You seem to be jumping from point to point without stringing together a compelling argument, other than you dislike public fines where you perceive no harm to others.

Tell me, if I was to go out in public, say to a crowded park, and then start shooting randomly, but not at any person, should I be stopped from doing so? After all, no one has been harmed (yet). The police shouldn't stop me or discourage that type of behavior until I've actually harmed someone, according to your 'logic'.

 

[labgrade]

Compelling, from "both sides."

Although I'd tend to think that we can "all get along" (ready? here's the obligatory) :barf: yeah, I know, I do ....

We should be able to do so without Big Brother getting into the act merely by doing The Right Thing. Doubtful that most of us know what that is & would stray (too) far from it.

But, there's those who wouldn't know The Right Thing if it bit 'em in the butt. For that we do have a Governmental Entity to "punish" 'em, either through fines or worse.

Doubtful I'd get too far (in the blocked driveway scenario) in just firing up the family truckster & plowing that guy out of my driveway. Someone's sure to cause a nit about it. But, what would be the recourse if I coldn't do it myself? Even in the event of "calling the cops," I still have my access deprived in the meantime. Extra "fine" imposed for my inconvenience?

Far as the "shootin' in the air" scenarion ... whatayado? wait till a bullet hits some nun on the head? wait till the gun's depressed below 45 degreees & then cap 'im ... ? 15 degrees? ... zero? Still "just" shooting in the air, no?

I dunno & don't purport to have any of the answers, fools need rules to tell 'em how to interact with a society, & if there's not some penalty for being a butthead, I don't know what'll keep their head out.

 

[John/az2]

Geeze, calm down.

Maybe you should just move your driveway!

I already said that that would consitute harm because you have been denied access and egress to your property with your vehicle. And you have already described the action that should be taken against that individual. If you missed it go back and read your post. It's there in black and white, typed by your very own hand.

As for the person shooting randomly in a crowded park... Hmmm... seems to me that he would be threatening death or grave bodily injury. That would be an appropriate time to excercise the right to keep and bear arms. A case for self-defense to be judged by a jury of our peers.

Oh! But we couldn't do that because carrying a firearm is against the law. We might hurt someone.

I have great faith in the ability of people to govern themselves when not hampered by an oppressive government and when following simple good ethical practices.

It seems to me that the connection that you are missing in all of my arguments is one of basic freedom that states, in essence, "As long as my actions do not infringe upon the rights of another, the law has no hold upon me." (and I'm sure there are those on the board who can word it much better than I have.)

This is the principle that I am talking about. Show me the infringement upon another in all the above conditions, and I will concede you the point on that condition.

 

[labgrade]

CALM DOWN, is it!?

NOBODY tells ME to calm down.

I hear ya, John, truly do.

"I have great faith in the ability of people to govern themselves when not hampered by an oppressive government and when following simple good ethical practices."

Works for me & good 'nuff.

Just trying to devil's advocate & expressing some questions of my own to help git at the root of it.

BTW, The Nation of Schnitzches is proposed by Aschroft Hizownhoner ... Land of the Free.

 

[John/az2]

LOL! Labgrade, I was talking to Bastiat, and you posted even as I was composing.

 

[Mike Irwin]

OK, that sounds possibly more plausible for building code violations, etc.

My question is, why has the city let this situation decay to such a level?

Why not agressive collection efforts?

And, quite frankly, building code violations may be minor things, or they can be major things than can cost a lot of people their lives, the same as running a red light or doing 95 mph through a residential neighborhood...

 

[ehenz]

Do you have to live in Arizona to understand this thread? Cause I don't.

What alternative is there to keep people from driving drunk, shooting their gun in a park, parking infront of my drive, or running stop signs?

I find it hard to believe that people who get into auto accidents do these intentionally. People need to be conditioned into doing the correct thing (driving), and if that means hitting their walet, so be it.

I'll keep watching this tread to see if I become more uhmmmm... enlightened.