Take a real bite out of crime -- the Piranha way!

I probably complain too much about runaway federal regulations, but this time, I'm going to do more than complain. I'm going to offer praise for a solution.

We are now so regulated that nearly every one of us has become a federal criminal of one sort or another. While most Americans won't wind up in the the federal penitentiary, it is not for lack of laws (which are cranked out by Congress on a daily basis like shit through a goose), but only because most of us manage to keep a low enough profile to avoid scrutiny by some eager-beaver federal prosecutor, a vengeful bureaucrat, or an activist group with an axe to grind.

Anyone who doubts the metastasizing nature of the federal regulation should read these statistics (in a discussion of how what used to be ordinary negligence has in many instances become a federal crime):

...Congress has exercised precious little self-restraint in expanding the reach of federal criminal laws to new regulatory areas.

Estimates of the current size of the body of federal criminal law vary. It has been reported that the Congressional Research Service cannot even count the current number of federal crimes.3 The American Bar Association reported in 1998 that there were in excess of 3,300 separate criminal offenses.4 More than 40 percent of these laws have been enacted in just the past 30 years, as part of the growth of the regulatory state.5 And these laws are scattered in over 50 titles of the United States Code, encompassing roughly 27,000 pages.6 Worse yet, the statutory code sections often incorporate, by reference, the provisions and sanctions of administrative regulations promulgated by various regulatory agencies under congressional authorization. Estimates of how many such regulations exist are even less well settled, but the ABA thinks there are "[n]early 10,000."7 The appetite for more federal criminal laws is driven principally by political consideration,8 and not by any consideration of whether particular laws are intrinsically federal in nature.9 The growth of "public welfare" offenses will, therefore, be restrained (if at all) only by a public or a court system educated as to the need for restraint.

That was in 2003, and since then I can only imagine how many laws have been added.

Naturally, the more offenses there are, the more criminals there will be. For some reason, it never occurs to legislators that by passing more laws making more and more things illegal, they are by definition increasing crime.

Anyway, that's the problem, and but for something I saw earlier on PJTV, this post would have just been another one of my pointless rants.

But in today's Bill Whittle Report at PJTV, I was stunned to see a discussion of an idea that's similar to one I've had for years: why not run for office on a platform not to create more legislation, but to do precisely the opposite?

Whittle proposes a new party called the Piranha Party, with the following simple platform:

1. NO NEW LEGISLATION:

Instead, they'll work to undo the kind of crap listed above.
2. ONE TERM ONLY:
No reelection, no endless campaigning, no fundraising. After serving for a single term, candidates will return to the real world from whence they came.
3. FAKE PERSONAL BACKGROUND:
Each Piranha candidate will provide a presskit showing the candidate's history of voluntary cannibalism and slow poisoning of orphans, thus freeing up candidates from the hassle of worrying about the usual gotcha games over whether they've ever consumed unapproved substances, improperly filled out a government form, thrown away batteries, etc.

I kid you not!

Piranhawhittle2.JPG

It's hard not to be cheered up by this. It's wonderful idea whose time has come.


posted by Eric on 10.07.08 at 03:34 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7444






Comments

I haven't watched the video yet, but this sounds almost like a serious proposal, even one I could get behind and maybe throw my hat in the ring as a member of so I'll make two humorless objections.

First, no new legislation is too strict. Sometimes there needs to be new legislation. I'd rather sponsor two amendments to the constitution, one requiring that bills be of a single subject and one requiring a sunset clause in each new law (and a phasing in of old laws) so that they would have to be periodically renewed (one at a time, no omnibus BS, see previous amendment) or they expire.

Second, in the House, a single term is too short to do anything. Better to limit it to three terms, matching the six-year senate term, and stagger the elections so that, like the Senate, no more than 1/3 turnover at any one time.

Do that and I'm in!

tim maguire   ·  October 7, 2008 05:53 PM

Awesome idea, very sensible....which means it'll be dead in the water. Politicians maybe craven and stupid, but they will resist all attempt at making them obsolete. They do have some strong survivalist instinct.

Sean the Maggot   ·  October 12, 2008 02:12 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



October 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits