Finally, a Thank You!

Although the original and my reply were tongue-in-cheek, the exchange proves the adage that many a truth is spoken in jest.

The original Anchorage Daily News editorial ("Thanks, Taxpayers") ran on March 9, 2006: http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/7515978p-7427776c.html

My reply was printed on March 18: http://www.adn.com/opinion/letters/story/7542775p-7454257c.html

Here it is, with the adn's cutline:
Having anyone thank a taxpayer departs from business as usual

Regarding your editorial "Thanks, taxpayers" (March 9):
Well, thank you.

Your editorial marks the first time that I, as a taxpayer, have been thanked by any recipient of my hard work.

Usually, those who suck away the lifeblood of the working people are too busy lobbying to get more (or complaining that they're not getting enough) that they don't take the time to give us workers a simple "thank you."

I'm touched, really, even though I no longer live in Alaska (but with that amount of loot available, maybe I'll quit working and move back).

---- Tim Kern
Eagle Lake, Fla.

The Ultimate Victimless Crime

For as long as I can remember, we libertarians and constitutionalists have been railing about "victimless crimes," such as private drug use and prostitution. We always run up against the same arguments: "You should be in the family that's been broken up because of a prostitute's STD," and suchlike.

Explaining that drunk driving is a victimless crime (as long as no one's life or property is actually harmed -- situations where other criminal laws take over) is another losing cause.

How about a completely, totally victimless crime: carrying a concealed weapon? If the weapon is properly concealed, no one is affected by it, in any way. If the weapon is brandished, or used in a threatening way, or if it is actually misused -- then we have laws to handle that.

But why -- with a "crime" that no one would even know about (lacking a search -- or magnetometer), should anyone be concerned?

I would think that, using such a politically-incorrect example, rational civil libertarians could back unrestricted concealed carry. (Irrational opponents, by definition, cannot be reasoned with, and thus must be dismissed. I hate manipulating anyone into an irrational reaction, even if it's favorable to my position. An irrational person's "conviction" is too tenuous, as well as being effectively meaningless.)

Note: I can't tell you how many people I know who have committed this "crime" for years, never once committing any other "crime," and never once displaying their weapons.