Sheriff Arpaio's Tent Prisons

Since there hasn't been anything posted here in a while, I'd like to find out everyone's thoughts on the controversial Arizona sheriff, Joe Arpaio. I've posted below a brief commentary on the subject from Brad Spangler of the Center for a Stateless Society which I'd also like to discuss:

Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is literally roasting prisoners alive. Temperatures inside the tents at the prison camp the Sheriff operates are reaching 145°F. By way of comparison, a round of roast beef is said to be medium-rare when it reaches a core temperature of 130°F to 140°F.

Obviously, this is a horrific crime on the part of the Sheriff and all working for him. While it’s common to label such abuses under statism as an aberration, both the ovens of Maricopa County and Dachau are logical consequences of the perverse economic incentives of monopoly government.

The entire punishment-based approach to justice, including punishment for victimless non-crimes such as drug use or being Jewish, is an example of the Misesian calculation problem in the context of the state’s monopoly of law. Abuses such as Arpaio’s are an inevitable result so long as monopoly government is in place.

Market anarchists correctly recognize genuine crimes to be best understood as torts. Any genuine offense is an offense precisely because it’s an injury to someone else who did not deserve it. If some behavior could not be treated as a tort, it is injustice to treat it as a crime. No victim, no crime.

Flowing from the above is the understanding that justice is not punishment but compulsory restitution. Yet without a free market for adjudication of disputes, the monopoly state has no way to find rational price information for compensation of victims — no more so than Soviet central planners could figure out a rational price for a loaf of bread that would keep bread on the shelves without terror.

The state, any state, is in all cases economically blind and can’t calculate. As a result, the state must maintain the pretense that arbitrary punishment is justice, instead, and insulate those who carry it out from the liability costs for their criminal (i.e. tortious) actions that a free market would place upon them.

Any thoughts?

Arizona Immigration

I think the passing of Arizona's new, staunch law on immigration represents a fantastic point our Founding Fathers wanted to happen: the distinction between state and federal governments. People are all up in arms over this new legislation- people outside of Arizona, that is. The people inside of Arizona like the legislation (for the most part). They passed it because they wanted it. No one else outside of Arizona has follow the Arizonian laws and they don't have to worry about the laws there. It's not a federal law, it's a state law. Don't complain about what other states are doing unless it's your own state is what I say. It's wonderful to live in a country where different states with different problems can handle their problems in the way that best meets their needs, without messing everyone else up.
P.S. If you are registered to vote in Utah, vote for Bob Bennett! The Convention is May 8th!

Undecided on Immigration

Since amnesty looks like the next big push by the Obama administration, and in the wake of Arizona's new law strengthening immigration enforcement (Rich, your unique perspective as a current AZ resident would be much appreciated here), I thought it would be an appropriate time for this blog's first discussion about immigration. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I haven't formed any hard and fast opinions on this topic. I want those of you who have strong opinions about it to convince me that you're right.On the one hand, I'll admit to having a soft spot in my normally icy cold, stony, conservative heart (that one's for you, Creighton) for those who are willing to leave everything they have behind and come to a land of promise - a land that rewards those who break a sweat, work hard, and improve their lots. At some point in time, this is what our ancestors did. After living in Argentina for 2 years, I can't blame or fault anyone that would rather come here for the chance at a better life as long as they're willing to work for it. Speaking of working, I've worked alongside some "undocumented immigrants" or "illegal aliens" and some on work visas at Custom Fence, and I've found that in general, they are very hard working, family-oriented individuals who sent the majority of their earnings back home to provide for their families, and made concerted efforts at learning english (although I also know there are plenty who are not hardworking or law abiding once they're here).

On the other hand, I know many people from Argentina who have waited years and years, and for whatever reason have not been successful at entering the U.S. legally. Liberals like the word "fairness." How "fair" is it to those countless immigrants who have respected our laws, waited in line, tried to come here the right way, to have so many leap frog them by crossing the border illegally? I'd be very upset if I tried to get here legally, couldn't, to then see a blanket sweep of amnesty. I'd be thinking, "man, I'm an idiot! Why didn't I just hop the fence?" Wouldn't the mere talk of amnesty, then, increase the incentives and encourage people to break the law? I believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and thus, am sympathetic towards those who try to come here the right way. But this brings us back to square one: is the current law a good one? Should it be changed? If so, how? Should we take the path chosen by the people of Arizona toward stricter enforcement? Or should we go down the road the Obama administration wants toward amnesty?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading what ya'll have to say.