How does one go about increasing the State's cost of jailing you?

[Dave Ridley]

what are some thoughts you guys have regarding the best ways to go about "making yourself expensive" in jail?

David's civil dis over in keene has me thinking about this. 
The ones I tried during my "distribution of handbills" lockup:

Refusing to give them any health information or submit to tests...that forces them to put you in isolation and spend more time dealing with you. Trying to talk you into stuff, threatening you, huddling among themselves, etc. Actually in my case I did submit to one test because I thought it was the kind thing to do, but if I had to do that over I probably would refuse that one as well.

Refusing to answer most personal questions.  That forces them to look things up, make calls,
Asking a lot of questions of every bureaucract that comes near you.  Technically this can make guard's day more interesting and enjoyable but I'm not against that if it takes up their time and helps spread to them the message of liberty.  My favorite questions are: What percentage of your inmates are charged only with victimless offenses?  Do you think it's right to be a party to jailing them?  How often have you used violence in the last two months?   Thanks for talking with me, etc.  A longer list of questions would probably be good to have.

Walking slowly might be an option but I haven't tried that in jail.
Showing up outside the courthouse on the day of a trail but refusing to go in....is another idea i've heard.

Some people refuse to go where they're told - forcing jailer to choose between doing nothing and carrying them. seems to work for women but not men. 

Whatever you do, don't take a position then back down from it.  If anything, you might want to start with very limited peaceable resistance and climb the latter to more intense peaceable resistance.

All the stuff i did was mainly just to be civilly disobedient, it wasn't aimed at raising the cost.  Having that as an additionaly objective would seem to broaden one's options for making a pro-liberty impact.

What are your suggested means for achieving this end?

[Kat Kanning]

Staying in Max ups the cost.

[David]

I hadn't thought much of how to increase the jails expenses.  Jail itself is expensive. 
Was it you Dada, or Russell (or both) that when out in the commons area of the jail tried to recruit prisoners to nhfree?  I think that is a terrific idea.  Possibly much more effective long term than trying to increase the cost of enforcement beyond the gov'ts actually putting me in jail. 

[Lloyd Danforth]

Back in the 60's and 70's student activists, when jailed, worked to 'organize' the other prisoners

[d_goddard]

Dada, have you had a major philosophical shift?

At your court appearance, you nearly rejected having a trial until the judge confirmed there would be zero extra cost to taxpayers.

[Dave Ridley]

Dada, have you had a major philosophical shift?

At your court appearance, you nearly rejected having a trial until the judge confirmed there would be zero extra cost to taxpayers.

ya i have mixed feelings about all that.  i've started to wonder if maybe david is onto something with increasing their costs of attacking you.
but whether I try to do it or not i'd like to know what the options are.

[J’raxis 270145]

On the one hand, increasing their costs ultimately means the State is stealing more money from us, which means you're indirectly responsible for such theft. But this argument ignores that the State and its officers have a choice of whether or not to steal, and they choose to do so. You may be responsible "in fact" for what the State is doing, but it is they who are morally responsible for the theft.

"Look what you made me do!" isn't an acceptable excuse for wife-beaters and child-abusers, and it's not an acceptable excuse for the State, either.

I also think this argument is illegitimate because it tends to be used as a way to get people opposed to the State to shut up. Every case I've ever seen where someone is trying to sue the State for some abuse is met with this argument: "Thanks, it's my tax dollars you're going to get because the cops beat you up." That's not a legitimate counterargument to the lawsuit—that's a legitimate argument to make sure the cops are prevented from beating someone else up.

And on the other hand, is the pragmatic argument: Increasing their costs makes it less expedient for them to enforce the minor, stupid laws against us that they do. It may be true that at the end of the fiscal year, the State can simply appropriate more money to make up the losses, but in the here-and-now, you are wasting the department's money which could be better spent elsewhere, and their beancounters are going to have to go the State at the end of the year and justify asking for more money: not to enforce laws against "real crime" but because they blew through their budget to deal with protesters and spent $500 enforcing $5 parking tickets.

[John Edward Mercier]

Not always true. You can litigate the abusing officers without financially attaching the taxpayers. Most lawyers just wish to attach every last dollar they can find.

Containment costs aren't all discreationary. So some things add to costs, while others simply use resources already being paid for. Its why police are forced to do traffic duty, and now are expected to write so many warnings/tickets per shift. Can't having them sitting around all day waiting for a crime to happen, so we use them for revenue to offset costs.

[J’raxis 270145]

Not always true. You can litigate the abusing officers without financially attaching the taxpayers. Most lawyers just wish to attach every last dollar they can find.

Certainly—New Hampshire firearms laws, for example, make the officers personally liable if they refuse to issue CCW permits under certain circumstances. But in most cases when people sue the State, it's against the State directly, so the People end up paying for it.

[Caleb]

On the one hand, increasing their costs ultimately means the State is stealing more money from us, which means you're indirectly responsible for such theft. But this argument ignores that the State and its officers have a choice of whether or not to steal, and they choose to do so. You may be responsible "in fact" for what the State is doing, but it is they who are morally responsible for the theft.

There's also the point that it only increases the cost to the taxpayer if he chooses to be a taxpayer. I look at it like this, Hey, if you choose to fund terrorism, you deserve whatever the terrorists take from you.

[John Edward Mercier]

The State of NH doesn't have very much direct taxation. So you can avoid most of it pretty easily.

[Ron Helwig]

"Look what you made me do!" isn't an acceptable excuse for wife-beaters and child-abusers, and it's not an acceptable excuse for the State, either.

This screams for a sendup on AIYH to me.

[d_goddard]

"Look what you made me do!" isn't an acceptable excuse for wife-beaters and child-abusers, and it's not an acceptable excuse for the State, either.

This screams for a sendup on AIYH to me.

You just volunteered yourself to doodle, Mr. Helwig!

[David]

On the one hand, increasing their costs ultimately means the State is stealing more money from us, which means you're indirectly responsible for such theft. But this argument ignores that the State and its officers have a choice of whether or not to steal, and they choose to do so. You may be responsible "in fact" for what the State is doing, but it is they who are morally responsible for the theft.

I'm not picking on you J., but you are prolly not the only one who has had this thought. 
Each person is responsible for their own behavior.  If gov't employees choose to arrest me, then they and only they have made the decision to increase the cost.  I have a right to live free of gov't oppression.  If I choose to live that way, how am I personally responsible for the oppression the gov't does? 

And on the other hand, is the pragmatic argument: Increasing their costs makes it less expedient for them to enforce the minor, stupid laws against us that they do. It may be true that at the end of the fiscal year, the State can simply appropriate more money to make up the losses, but in the here-and-now, you are wasting the department's money which could be better spent elsewhere, and their beancounters are going to have to go the State at the end of the year and justify asking for more money: not to enforce laws against "real crime" but because they blew through their budget to deal with protesters and spent $500 enforcing $5 parking tickets.

Every group of people survives because they have money to do what they do.  In the end, it is all about the Benjamins.  If they use them to oppress me, It is their fault that they don't have enough money.  The gov't can only increase taxes so much.  Eventually people will stop paying.  It won't be because of some grand idealogical breakthrough, it will be because they don't have money to pay the mortgage, cable bill, and the gov't bill.  Then we come back to the cost of enforcement.  When they cannot justify the cost of enforcement relative to the revenue gained, they will stop raising taxes. 

[John Edward Mercier]

That will be true soon enough. The federal government has a couple trillion dollars worth of IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund that will need to be transferred to market debt. That market debt will put strains on interest rates making consumer debt less agreeable. Consumers will slow spending, thus slow income, and less income means less taxes to spend and more market debt.

The only other options of course are to convince seniors take a benefit cut... or the more wealthy seniors to take tax increases.