OK, Don't start having a
cow yet, there are things to consider. Home The System The Atom The Economy The Opposition The Cost
There is a huge demand for drugs, with the market being in the tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The drug dealers and cartels have far more power than some would even want to care to suspect. They have friends who have access to telephone and computer equipment, and to government facilities, and they have vast amounts of money, and vast armies that can be sent out to perform any number of tasks, including assassinations. Laws have not managed to prevent this from happening, I might add. There is too much demand, and too much money to be made.
From my own personal experience, I have reason to suspect that they have more than enough power and resources to effectively stand in the way of the anti-crime idea, should they so choose.
There are many other criminals. I could easily exhaust my web page server's hard disk capacity trying to detail them all.
None of these people would be pleased with the anti-crime technology, if the government decided to rise up and impose it upon them against their will. Many of these people have known no other existence, and are actually, without expensive and lengthy training, unqualified to hold any other position. There is the valid concern that the economy is not healthy enough to immediately provide all of these resources, if by some freak chance even 20 percent of those types of criminals decided to reform themselves.
Initially, criminals would, rightly, recognize this idea as a potential threat, capable of ending their incomes and lifestyles. I also suspect that they would take as many steps as would be required to avoid the implementation of this idea. In the case of organized crime and the drug trade, this would likely include killing as many proponents of the anti-crime technology as would be required.
It is realistic to assume that if this technology were to be put to the public vote, a respectable percentage of the US population would vote against it.
Opposition to the anti-crime technology does not only include criminals. From responses I received over the last year. it is obvious that there are a respectable number of people who would be opposed to the idea on the simple grounds that their privacy might be invaded. I have been surprised by the number of people who have assessed this proposal who have rejected it on that basis alone.
Taking a witness with me, I went to speak about the proposal to a county Sheriff of a respectably large city (without naming names here), and was told by the Sheriff that he would be against the idea, because he was worried someone might see him scratching his butt. I am completely serious, this is what he said. Would rather scratch his ass than fight crime... after swearing an oath to uphold the law to the best of his ability. I went to the local TV station and told them what he told me, but I said they would have to ask him and see if he told them the same thing; I wouldn't be a witness, because I didn't need to get pulled over for a traffic violation every time I crossed his territory.
Humor aside though, the US Constitution guarantees the right to all US citizens to be secure in their person and property. This could be a valid Constitutional basis for defeating this proposal. However, there is a way of handling the technology which addresses this issue.
This is a democracy, after all. What we end up with is a large number of US citizens who wholeheartedly support this proposal, because its benefits are obviously extremely valuable to them, and another large group of people who are against it, some for reasons which are likely to be Constitutionally defensible.
However, since it is such a vast improvement in personal security, it can also be said to be defensible under the Constitution because it allows a more total realization of the right to be secure in one's person and one's property. The issue is vague enough, regardless of one's perspective, that it is impossible to produce a clear and obvious verdict as to whether the proposal violates Constitutional rights or not.
If it was a clear cut issue, there could be no argument. Many times, where there exists such ambiguity, a controversial issue will get discarded because of the lack of an overwhelming majority of either supporters of detractors. However, in this case a method exists whereby everyone can end up being reasonably satisfied.
It is a virtual certainty that if this proposal were put to a public vote, a minimum of 20 or 25 percent of US citizens would vote against it. The number might be as high as 40 or even 50 percent. I have received many replies from my original internet promotion of this idea, and I make these claims on the basis of my responses, in addition to current crime rates. It was by no means a scientific poll.
Either way, it would cause vast social changes in any area it was installed in, experimental social changes. One would not want to entirely commit the entire United States to this proposal, because no one yet knows what the results of such an experiment might be.
There are many other valid reasons to put the issue to a public vote, and let the public decide if they want the technology or not.
What I propose is to take the vote, and whatever the percentage of the yes vote, set that percentage of the United States aside, and install the anti-crime technology in that percentage. Whatever the percentage of the no vote was, set that percentage of the United States aside, and fail to install the anti-crime technology in that percentage.
This is a valid solution, which would agree with just about everyone, except for a very small minority who might have to suffer the inconvenience of having to move to another State. This is likely the only valid solution that exists.
This way, everyone gets what they want. Those who want it, get it, those who do not, do not. This can be done, but there is one major detail that would have to be agreed upon. Examine this map:
OK, Don't start having a
cow yet, there are things to consider.
Alaska in this map is of course shown smaller than actual size, but since the majority of Alaska is uninhabitable, showing it in this scale is actually a valid visual indicator of it's population capacity.
This map is by no means cut and dried. Actual zoning would certainly be considerably different.
California and Florida don't
approve?
Even with California's voting presence in Congress, it could legally be allocated directly according to the States having the highest percentage of the no vote (the highest crime rates).
This might be the map in that case. In any case except the first map, California is worse off.
Which is better, having part of California protected, or none of it?
For the time being, until a few things are explained, it is probably best to assume many things.
Maybe Canada will install an identical system the same way, and Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota would be included. and Nevada, Utah, and Colorado would not be. Maybe one of 500,000 other possible arrangements will come to pass.
For reference purposes, I will refer to the areas where the technology is installed as 'civilized zones', and the areas where the technology does not get installed as 'anarchy zones'. Maybe 'Neanderthal zones' would be better and more descriptive, since there would still be law and law enforcement identical to that which currently exists in those areas.
The red areas on the maps represent anarchy zones. (The southern parts of California and Florida, western Texas, all of Alaska, Arizona, and New Mexico, and small extreme southern parts of Utah and Colorado. The green areas represent civilized zones. (The rest of the USA)
What ever the actual arrangement might come to be, it has to be done this way.
It can obviously be called discrimination against certain States for no apparent reason. But the fact is, to set aside a percentage of each of the 50 States would defeat the purpose and effectiveness of this technology to a very large degree. Criminals would simply commit crime in the civilized zones, and flee into the anarchy zones, with a high success rate.
Remember, the United States was Civilized from East to West. Large parts of the West are still relatively uncivilized. Since there is no other obvious justifiable basis for how the technology would be installed, this one would be as good as any. By the time the government gets done haggling about it, who knows, it may be installed from West to East or South to North.
or maybe a 100 year plan, who knows...
Just remember, these example maps are but one possibility. None of this is etched in stone. The actual progression will undoubtedly be quite different.
These maps could well be labeled 20 years, 40 years, 60 years, 80 years, and 100 years, under a 100 year installation plan. The details have yet to be worked out.
This type of approach accomplishes a number of different purposes, and solves a number of different problems.
The extended installation time limits economic damage, keeps costs down, allows for technological advances, and gives criminals and those who want their privacy time to relocate.
Since this is a social experiment, with unknown ramifications, it avoids rushing into something that might have unforeseen problems, and as such preserves the resources necessary to undo such problems.
Who knows, if the government fails to provide permanent safeguards, such as a Constitutional Amendment, against government misuse or abuse of such a system, the Neanderthals from the anarchy zones can come back and save the rest of us from the system or the government trying to misuse it, and say "We told you so..." This safeguard is reason enough in and of itself to create and maintain anarchy zones.
In the example maps above, you see that the criminals still have a respectable number of cities, so they can hang out in dark alleys and deal drugs, and have their drive-by shootings, and have slums to live in.
Organized crime lamers can commute to work from the civilized zones, what more could they ask for?
Perhaps the criminals will become more patriotic, and go down and rob the Mexicans and Cubans and Colombians, instead of us.
Remember, although I call them anarchy zones, there will still be law enforcement as we currently know it in those zones.
While traffic out of the anarchy zones into the civilized zones will be unimpeded, there must be a delay when traveling from a civilized zone into an anarchy zone.
There will have to be a buffer area, say 5 to 10 miles wide, between any anarchy and any civilized zone.
Without this delay, and this buffer zone, criminals will commit crime in a civilized zone, and flee into an anarchy zone.
There will have to be visual inspections by police of all vehicles, to make sure that no one wearing a mask or disguise can leave a civilized zone and flee into an anarchy zone. Sure, this will cost something, but the cost will be microscopic when compared to the overall benefit to the economy.
It may be necessary to impose a one or two hour wait in the buffer zone when leaving a civilized zone to enter an anarchy zone, to better prevent certain types of crime. It may well not be necessary. If kidnapping or abduction out of a civilized zone into an anarchy zone ever occur, this may be necessary.
Checking driver's ID's at the buffer zone should be enough to prevent this type of crime from occurring. Some of the border crossings could be made toll crossings, for vehicles, to pay for the ID checking, but as I said before, this cost is microscopic as compared to the economic benefits to be had.
The equipment itself can automatically detect anyone attempting to make an unauthorized (unregistered) crossing of the border, and alert authorities in time to prevent the unauthorized crossing, if the buffer zone is wide enough, 5 to 10 miles wide.
People who voted against the technology will want to move to an area where it will not be installed. People who voted for it will want to move out of those areas.
This approach does not significantly alter property values.
Because the partitioning exactly reflects the wishes of the voters, as many people will want to move into an area as want to move out of it.
The main social changes in the anarchy zones will be an increased crime rate, and in all likelihood, slightly lower wages than in a civilized zone.
In other words, we all have to live with the choices we make.
A guarantee the government will have to make in order for this plan to be successful is a Constitutional Amendment that states that the results of the vote will always be respected and upheld, and the areas will be allocated in an economically fair manner deemed to be reasonable by a majority, and that the only way the size or location of the allocated areas can be changed is by another vote.
The Amendment should state how often such nationwide votes will be taken, perhaps once every 50 years, to make future area allocation adjustments.
It could well be that some States could set aside an anarchy zone in an area that borders two or three other States, and the other two or three States could do the same in their adjacent areas. Of course, the more areas there are, the better chance of a criminal committing a crime and fleeing successfully into an anarchy zone.
At any rate, this type of partitioning would seem to be the approach that would be most likely to survive democratic proceedings, meet with the least amount of opposition, and irritate the fewest people.
Home The System The Atom The Economy The Opposition The Cost
Copyright 1997, 1998, Robert J. Nelson.
See also COPYR978.GIF, an integral component of this work, for a full legal copyright notice.
This work is composed of the following copyrighted files: COPYR978.GIF, FIXCRIME.HTM, SYSTEM.HTM, NUCLEAR.HTM, ECONOMIC.HTM, OPPOSE.HTM, and COST.HTM. No other files are covered under this copyright.
You must have the author's express written permission to reproduce this work if either of the following are true:
1) It is part of any package sold for profit, or if you gain monetary profit from the use or publication of any part of this work.
2) It is your intention to republish this work, or if you publish this work, in any medium which contains advertising of any kind.