Checksum Arcanius

The Broken Window is both a fallacy and a truth. In economics, it refers the Parable of the Broken Window, also called the Broken Window Fallacy, and it deals with hidden opportunity costs.

The basic idea is that it is temping to think that a hoodlum breaking a baker’s window stimulates the economy because the baker must go buy a window from the glazier, who then can go buy additional things from others in the community and so on.

However, the fallacy part of it is that forcing the baker to buy a window has the hidden cost of the baker not buying whatever it was that the baker might have wanted to buy in the first place — perhaps a suit. So the extra money to the glazier actually comes at the expense of the tailor, and on top of it, the baker is out a window. So when hidden opportunity costs are accounted, the net effect of a broken window is negative, not positive.

There is also the broken window theory of crime, which basically states that criminal activity tends to congregate towards lesser-maintained areas of a city, perhaps because the look of dereliction makes a criminal feel less likely to be caught. A recent article that I picked up of via Bruce Schneier’s Security Blog discusses a recent student on the broken window theory. The conclusions are interesting:

The results, just now circulating in law enforcement circles, are striking: A 20 percent plunge in calls to police from the parts of town that received extra attention. It is seen as strong scientific evidence that the long-debated “broken windows” theory really works—that disorderly conditions breed bad behavior, and that fixing them can help prevent crime.

[…]

Many police departments across the country already use elements of the broken windows theory, or focus on crime hot spots. The Lowell experiment offers guidance on what seems to work best. Cleaning up the physical environment was very effective; misdemeanor arrests less so, and boosting social services had no apparent impact.

Nevertheless, I still wonder whether the broken window theory is actually a type of fallacy. For example, it is true that a single person can stand up at a sporting event to get a better view, but this does not generalize well: if everyone stands up, it is decidedly not true that everyone gets a better view. Does the same apply to broken windows? In other words, does fixing broken windows in one area correspond to a single person standing up at the sporting event? If all broken windows were fixed, would crime actually diminish or would it sustain at current levels?

Regardless of the answer to that question, I think the last sentence — and especially the last clause — is worth repeating:

Cleaning up the physical environment was very effective; misdemeanor arrests less so, and boosting social services had no apparent impact.

Sorry social scientists.

Today I woke up after a wonderful night’s sleep to the sound of a bird chirping and to the sight of a absolutely goregeous Seattle winter morning. What a way to live!

Tuesday and Wednesday I was suffering from a cold, but Thursday I was on the uptick and today I feel even better. I mananged to finish in my programming languages assignment that I started yesterday and was due yesterday, my Game Theory class is still awesome, and I have a great partner for my security lab which is pretty fun.

I have some laundry to fold, some homework to get a head start on, and some working out ahead of me today.

Life doesn’t get much better than this.

Despite constant setbacks to freedom, it it reassuring to see that there is still the occasional freedom-loving person in a place of political power in this country. Personally, I would like to see something similar to this resolution enacted in every state in the union. It is well worth the read.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1003

AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

While munching on my post-lunch cup of ice in the Hub today, I saw a set of posters I have seen many times before. The posters look similar to the following:

Along with the images go catch phrases like “Too Fast and Furious — Need Legal Help.” The posters are advertisements for “Student Legal Services,” one of many underutilized (I am sure) services paid for by Washington State Taxpayers and UW students. Normally I don’t pay much attention to these posters, but now I am in legal trouble, so this time I did.

It turns out the the office is not far from where the posters are, so I paid them a visit. I filled out a green sheet with the information about my legal troubles, and I now have an appointment to meet with Devin and Ivy, two student lawyers (I believe) tomorrow.

I plan to ask them about:

1. Advice on challenging the ticket
2. Whether the police officer issuing the ticket acted appropriately in “kind of” demanding my license (his intent was clear, even if he was trying to dance around the question legally)
3. What, in general, the law requires of police and myself during this kind of stop and other kinds of common police-civilian interactions. For example, can IDs be demanded? What if I refuse to give identification?

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

Oh, by the way, Washington State taxpayers: this and many other departments like it all around the UW and throughout the state government would be a great place to get back a good chunk of the 5.7 billion dollar deficit.

I received an email today encouraging me to voice my opinion about the proposed economic stimulus plan. Although I do expect the plan to pass, I agree that it helps to voice opposition. Just as I opposed the boondoggle that was once called “The Bailout”, I want to be totally clear that I am firmly opposed to the idea and the implementation of the current economic stimulus plan.

I recognize that the free market suffers from market failures, and as such I am generally in favor of well-crafted Pigovian taxes. However, it never makes sense to send gobs of someone else’s money towards politically-chosen goals. This always leads to bad situations, as we have seen with the bailout money, and as we will soon see with the stimulus money. Mark my words.

I have been remiss in updating the Checksum Arcanius Photo Gallery, but i got on my horse the last couple of days and have caught up. The uploaded photos encompass the months of July 2008 through January 2009, including the transition from my old Canon A610 camera to my new Canon SD 990 IS in December (thanks Dad!)

Of particular interest may be the photo of the enormous amount of snow recieved at my parent’s house:

About 30 inches of snow piled up outside my parent's place

Today while riding to class (a little late), I was stopped by a University of Washington Police Officer on a bicycle for, as he claims, “blowing through a stop sign.” He went through the regular cop intimidation attempts, but I have learned that I have gotten much better at not letting these tactics affect me. Throughout the ordeal, I never admitted any knowledge of guilt (and I still do not), and I even refused to sign the ticket , so where my signature might otherwise be, the cop wrote what looks like “Given to D”.

I have several thoughts after contemplating the incident and my response:

1. I have seen this particular bike cop around before, and I know that I could probably ride considerably faster than him (unless he has been hiding his prowess very well). So, perhaps I could have “gotten away” — he is probably just lucky that I did stop behind the car in front of me soon after my alleged infraction. I stopped because I consider it rude to pass cars close on the right under most circumstances.
2. The cop asked me if I had a drivers license on me, which I did and I told him so. I didn’t give it to him until he asked me for it (and even then he never actually asked me for it, he just implied that he wanted it). I’m curious as to what would have happened if I didn’t have the license on me, or if I had told him I didn’t. I certainly don’t need to have my drivers license with me most of the time, so perhaps I should stop carrying it around most of the time. I already have a “everyday” set of keys and a “driving” set of keys; perhaps I should do the same with my wallet.
3. The cop told me that the fine was $124.00. But then the ticket says the fine is $103.00. Or $103.60, depending on where on the ticket you look. What is up with cops and lying?
4. I will almost certainly contest the ticket. This will cost the system more than they can possibly gain from giving it to me. We should probably all contest every ticket ever, to ensure that it is not financially viable to continue giving tickets out.

For the curious, I was cited under RCW 46.61.050 with the accompanying text “FAIL TO OBEY TRAFFIC ? CONTROL NUICE Bicycle $103.60”. Feeling generous today, I will interpret “NUICE” to be “DEVICE”, which would make the citation make sense.