In the News

A man who shot two burglars that had illegally entered his home is being charged with first degree murder.  (He is certainly culpable for his overreaction, but 1^st degree intentional homicide is an unwarranted charge.  These two criminals had broken into a number of other homes, including his on two recent occasions.)  Our tradition clearly states, a man’s home is his castle.  As Locke understood, we all have natural rights.  We lay down these rights to form civil society.  I have a right to judgment when I am wronged, but I lay down that right to a governing official if I want to be a member of civil society.  But when the government cannot or will not act—e.g. someone pulls a gun on me in a deserted alley or my home is getting burglarized and the perpetrators are allowed to walk free, then I have a right to act to defend my natural rights.  Anyone that threatens my right to life has thereby forfeited their right to live and I am justified in taking their life to protect my own.  I am not saying this is how we should act (for as Christians we lay down a number of our rights), I am merely stating that we have these rights.       

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250208/Byron-Smith-Homeowner-shot-dead-Nicholas-Brady-Haile-Kifer-taunted-girl-died.html

In Madison a man that beat one man to death and beat another significantly (in two separate instances, both occurring while he was on parole) has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.  He will be a free man by the time he is as old as I am.  Just a few months ago I read a case about a man that got over three decades for impersonating a teen online.  He was 20, but said he was 16 and convinced a number of underage girls to send him lewd pictures of themselves.  This is obviously wrong, but I cannot understand how this man, with no criminal record, got sentenced multiple decades longer than a man with a criminal record who beat someone to death.  

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/man-gets-years-for-beatings-that-killed-one-injured-another/article_3a66e5ef-6eac-57b0-b93c-40dfd124cde5.html

Meanwhile, Madison police are launching sting operations against drivers and riders using ride share apps.  The price for giving someone a ride—a $1,300 ticket.  

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/police-lyft-uber-drivers-cited-in-ride-sharing-sting/article_8cf054ff-7c55-5448-8cff-eee89da884f2.html

I can’t figure out how on earth this activity could be illegal in a free country.  We have two consenting adults doing something private that hurts no one.  How is that illegal?  You could use an app to set up affairs—that would and does cause far more societal harm, yet that is legal.  You can chain, whip, or beat someone, you can cover them in excrement or dip them in blood and so long as they consent, that is legal.  Yet you cannot offer to give someone a ride in exchange for a few bucks?  If the government can prevent us from doing this in order to protect an organized, monopolized business interest, then in what sense are we a free nation?  We’ve traded real freedom for the illusion of freedom—we’ve reduced all freedom to the right to take off our pants.  We certainly are living in a Brave New World.  

*Added: My understanding of these applications was faulty.  Apparently Lyft and these other groups hire people drive others around.  When people ask for rides, Lyft assigns passengers to drivers.  This is a taxi company acting without a permit and the tickets, though possibly excessive, are warranted.