It comes down to appropriate use of tax-payer funded resources.
Something which no one seems to be able to agree on. Nor is it well-managed in the first place.
Does it? I mean general enforcement of our laws tends to be universally agreed upon as good - otherwise why have laws. It's the mechanics of it that sometimes cause the most strife.
In this particular case - can you propose a better solution than a bench warrant that doesn't on it's face violate the 4th amendment of the constitution? Seriously, how do you make someone pay a fine they are refusing to pay? What's the alternative?
With regard to a "parking" ticket. What sort of crime does it truly represent? A vehicle was left, stationary, in a location, for what was assumably a short period of time (cosmically short if we look at the grand scheme of it all.) No one was hurt, property was not depreciated, life goes on.
Maybe that's how you see it but that doesn't make it true. Generally speaking parking rules are not arbitrary, they come from a general need within the community. Often it is to allow maintenance, keep available spots open for others who also need to use them for a short period of time, and cut down on blight like "abandoned cars" (which actually used to be a problem if you go back far enough). Many times, without parking enforcement the overall cost to the community goes up in both maintenance and use. Also, limited parking and the expense can encourage public transportation, so there are positive benefits. Here's a good article to get you started
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.htmlSo of what benefit to society is an under-trained, rookie enforcement officer going to have placing extortionary notices on these stationary, ephemeral objects? I use extortion in a literal sense, as it would be a crime if any average joe were to try and con money out of somewhere, simply for being where they are.
Dial it back John Birch. As the great Jerry Reed once said:
"Well, if the Lord that made the moon and stars
Would have meant for me and you to have cars
He'd have seen that we was all born with a parking space"
This becomes further complicated when you ad homeless transient vehicles to the equation. Can you squeeze blood from a turnip? Is homeless transience also a crime? If a homeless transients vehicle is impounded and destroyed (by a private for profit business no less) does that constitute a human rights violation under the UN Declaration of Human Rights? (Shelter, Travel, et al)
You know parking restrictions don't apply everywhere - you usually only find them in areas that have high traffic (like town or city center) or in suburban neighborhoods where street parking is a premium. I don't think it is that unreasonable for the city to prevent a someone living in their car from camping out in front of city hall, esp when there are other options for parking. Also why are you talking about UN declaration of human rights when it applies to actions of the UN and participating countries in international relations. I think you would probably be better served reading up on constitutional protection, esp 4th amendment regarding seizure. But this is beside the point because as long as they have somewhere to park, you can't say they are being "deprived of shelter" by parking somewhere that has a visibly posted restriction.
Ethics, Philosophy, and Law are muddy subjects, rarely in congruence with each other. We have too many laws, born out of short-sighted philosophies, and seldom containing the ethics of a consciously evolved species.
I think you are certainly demonstrating the shortsightedness portion of that with your argument here.
Shared space in a community, like a parking space, is "Shared" space. Certainly even you can agree that hogging a publicly shared commodity is a little unethical, right?
