posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:51 PM
Man, if I actually were a tyrant -- a benevolent one, of course -- I could stop the litter issue with one simple edict. All littering would be met
with swift and decisive justice -- immediate, on - the - spot execution.
Sounds too drastic? Do you believe execution does not fit the crime of littering? Well, perhaps it is but the point I am trying to make here is that
often it takes a bit of social engineering to "help" people behave in the manner in which society, in general, would like. No one actually likes
litter, no one likes to waste their contribution to society, via taxes, to be wasted on a behavior that could be changed so easily. Simply putting
up "do not litter" signs does not seem to work. Perhaps, if we added the word "please", littering would come to an end?
Behavior is often modified by making the action in question -- in this case littering -- not worth the penalty. It seems that a simple fine will not
solve the problem. Perhaps the penalty should be increased? What would be a good and effective deterant to littering? A $100 fine? $200? $500? A
cool one thousand dollar fine for tossing a gum wrapper on the street?
I don't think so. You might have a cleaner neighborhood but you will still find that errant gum wrapper. The only sure way of dealing with
littering is through a mandatory death penalty for the least infraction of the littering bylaws. Of course if that doesn't work, the law could be
expanded to include members of the offenders family -- wipe out that "littering gene" once and for all!
Thank you.....this has been a policy statement from the "benevolent tyrant" I have read this statement and I approve it.