This was sent to the Lancaster City Council before the City Council Meeting on September 11:
It has recently come to my attention that the city of Lancaster wishes to prohibit registered sex offenders from entering their town. It seems that excluding registered sex offenders is one of those bipartisan issues that everyone can agree on. I frankly don’t understand why.
Liberals and progressives who are worth their salt have at least heard of Immanuel Kant. Kant is widely considered the forerunner of any serious liberal system of ethics. A product of the Enlightenment, Kant suggested that we could use reason to determine what was just and unjust in a society. He suggested that we as individuals and as a society adopt a categorical imperitve to determine if an action was just. The categorical imperitave instructs us to imagine what the world would look like if everyone did the same action. If the result of everyone choosing the same was bad or negative, then the action was immoral. Likewise if every city in the United States adopted your policy, we would have no choice but to imprison people forever or kill them. Quite frankly, a policy of locking up a specific group of people or killing a specific group has generally been against progressive and liberal policies in this country. My suggestion is that you also exclude blacks, Jews, and Catholics from your city to at least give your new policy some historical grounding.
Conservatives have typically taken the stance that when the government does things, it screws them up. Conservative thinkers will point out that the war on poverty has not solved poverty and has just led to a huge, unsustainable debt crisis. Government attempts to intervene in the economy tend to backfire. We are unable to even construct roads properly, if we understand the argument correctly, since the big complaint has been “bridges to nowhere.” Yet it seems that federal and state governments do everything wrong except convict only guilty people. At least, that is the only logical assumption behind your decision to exclude a group of people solely because they were convicted of a particular crime. You automatically assume they are guilty. I would think that you would not want a corrupt, liberal-dominated state to have the power to put random people on a publicly accessible registry so that their papers can be checked at random intervals. At least have the good sense to bring back the swastika and knee high leather boots – the 30’s were, after all, a happy time.
Unless this policy is reversed or you are all subsequently voted out of office (in an ironic and just world you would also be kicked out of the city), I have decided that I will never do business with or hire anyone who has lived in Lancaster. As far as I’m concerned, I have no place in my personal or professional life for people who openly endorse fascism.
While reading this interesting letter it occurred to me that even if all the registrants were imprisoned or killed the problem would NOT be solved because new offenses are, and would continue to be, committed by non-registrants. Statistics show that the vast majority of sex crimes (between 87% and 96%) are committed by someone not on a public registry. If you jail all the alcoholics will there be no more DUIs? Of course not, other people will still drink and drive.
I also must point out that the politically ambitious are not concerned with facts or philosophies, they just want to create, feed, and then benefit from, the fears and hysteria now rampant in our culture.
The “middle class” with ‘victimless crime’, is categorically being replaced with a “criminal class”