![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My auto insurance, though rather minimal (it's an old car - bought it new in Fall of '97) does include glass coverage. I'm not paying any deductible for the replacement. And they'll have someone come out and take care of things tomorrow morning.
Around 1:40 AM Saturday morning two Arschlocher in a red Subaru (as shown in video, which sadly did not get a plate number, damnit) broke the front passenger side window of my car. They ripped out a GPS, an XM receiver, and a control head for an Icom 2820 dual band transceiver - and some of the mounting hardware for some of that.
This was all about speed, and not about knowing what was useful or how. No power cords or antennas were taken, though the radio's microphone was out in the open. They ripped the control cable for the radio head unit out (other connectors simply pulled out, this one had a snap-tab like a phone or network cable.) The XM receiver is useless without its antenna - and a subscription which no longer is going to that radio anyway. The radio control head is utterly useless without the radio itself - which was left. Only the GPS might be of any use stand-alone, but not as effective as it could be with the antenna. Also, it's been years since that GPS was updated. That was on my list of things to do, but I'm glad I hadn't spent the money for that yet now.
The Arschlocher failed to take the mounting stalk for the GPS, but did take the part that goes on the stalk. They also took part of a phone mount, but not the stalk for it. The downside, beyond the damage and loss itself, is that the GPS did have 'home' set, so it could be used as guide. I'll simply say that precautions are being taken, should the Arschlocher get the idea to try to break into the house.
I'll be calling a glass place in town when they open this morning about replacing the window. A "Christmas present" I shouldn't need to have has been ordered to replace the satellite radio receiver. I don't yet know if I can even get a replacement Icom 2820 control head or cable for it. It looks like my phone will do as a GPS, once I work out a new mounting arrangement. I didn't do that before as offline navigation, while it uses good maps, has lousy navigation algorithms. However, since ATT upped the data limit to "Unless you're streaming (lots of) video, don't worry about it." I can use an on-line app that seems to get the navigation right for the addresses I care about most - and the phone comes with me, by default.
I have my doubt these Arschlocher will be caught, but I would dearly love to hear of them spending Christmas in jail. Or in the morgue if they happen to get some meth (I suspect that's what this is about in the end) cut with stuff too nasty to use as rat poison. That would be most satisfying.
Terry Pratchett, through the character of Sam Vimes, notes that all crime is theft. Burglary and theft and embezzlement are certainly theft. Kidnapping is theft of a person. Murder is theft of life. Other crimes are theft of privacy, from simple trespass all the way up (or rather down) to rape. Plagiarism is theft of ideas. It is worth asking then, when something is to be considered criminal, what it is that is being stolen. Not what might be stolen by error or abuse, but what is being stolen.
If one takes the time to examine the founding of the United States of America and its constitution, there was really only one crime, one theft, that had to be guarded against: the theft of individual liberty. What government can do is carefully limited. Some of what government is barred from doing is listed, but it is noted that the listed limitations are not necessarily all of the limitations. Where there is question, the answer is this: Do what maximizes individual liberty.
Looking at the issue of marriage for homosexuals, can anyone show anything being stolen? Despite cries from some religious folks that such a thing would harm heterosexual marriage, there is no evidence of how this could be. Would homosexuals suddenly start stealing wives or husbands? The idea is absurd. Perhaps it is meant as stealing from the pool of available men or women - yet by the very definition, the pool that gays and lesbians would take partners from is not the same as the pool of available heterosexual partners. As there is no theft, where is the crime? And, which way lies greater individual liberty?
Nobody has to like the idea for themselves, as many no doubt dislike the free choices of others. People disagree on who to vote for, on what church to attend, whether to attend one at all, what do with their money, and on and on. But that is the beauty of liberty: it doesn't matter what others believe. You choose whether to vote, and if you do, who to vote for. You choose whether to participate in any religion, and if you do, which religion. You choose how to spend, or save, your money. Already millions disagree with you about which way, if any, to vote, what religion, if any, to pay heed to, and the best thing to do with your money. But that's not a problem, unless they make their own choice to have heartburn over choices that are not theirs to make. So why shouldn't you be able to choose who to marry? Because it might piss someone off? What say should anyone not directly involved have in what is your choice? None at all.
Governor Pawlenty suggested something that has some folks upset. He suggested that protesters who commit illegal acts should be required to pay for the cost of their arrest. I disagree, but not the way some do. Why limit it to protesters? Why not have all criminals pay for their arrest? That would, after all, be non-discriminatory.
Some are claiming this would be a violation of first amendment rights. Nonsense. Signs and bumper stickers would not be illegal. Attending rallies would not be illegal. Marching would not be illegal. Publishing would not be illegal. Speaking one's mind would not be illegal. Disrupting and interfering with other people's lives, however, would now have a price for the disrupter. As it is now, only those whose lives are disrupted pay for the misbehavior of the disrupters. Misusing law enforcement as a publicity tool is not free speech, but freeloading. And freeloading is not constitutionally protected.
Human misbehavior
14 March 2003 13:47A day or two ago there was a radio interview with an author who had risen out of poverty by his effort and writing. This was not what struck me. Effort will accomplish that sort of thing. What struck me was when he described his early affinity for reading he said something about stealing books from a library. I know it happens, but it has has always puzzled me a bit. There might be some market value (especially for rare books) but this was just to read. A strange mindset, that. The whole purpose of a library is allow the reading of books. Almost all of the libraries I've encountered are "free libraries." That is, you go in, and with not much hassle, get a card and can borrow stuff. The card itself tends to be free. The borrowing is free. All you have to do is promise to bring an item back on or before a certain day. What's more, if you bring a borrowed item back on or before the specified day, you can often renew the withdrawal and borrow that item for another week or two! The only time there is a charge is if the borrowed item is not returned, not returned on time, or damaged. And often, the late fee is even waived if it has been only a day or two.
Stealing books from a library makes no sense to me. What other place allows you, nay, encourages you to borrow what it has and asks only that you bring it back by a certain day? It could be said that libraries are the one great communistic or socialistic institution in this country. Public funds and private philanthropy keep libraries going, for the benefit of anyone who cares to use them. About the only limit might be one of location, and interlibrary loaning goes quite a way to eliminate even that barrier. And yet people steal books from libraries. Not just occasionally, but often enough to make it worth the money to install anti-theft devices. Ponder that. Money that could have been spent on the collection, on heating or cooling, on lighting, on the librarians themselves - but instead goes to buy and run an anti-theft system for a place that will freely lend what it has.
Need proof that communism would never work? Or anarchy, or any system utterly and completely dependent on all people being decent would fail? Here it is: library theft.
