Even I'm not sure, but for all of our sakes let's say what follows is satirical)
If you live in a major metropolitan area, or a minor metropolitan area, or are unfortunate enough to live in San Francisco, it has likely not escaped your notice that social order is in something of a retreat. While arguably not the most victimized by the retreat of law and order, or just any standards of conduct at all, bicycle owners have been suffering a lot.
Here: read this account [https://archive.is/TgrKu] from a Cambridge resident about how many bikes he has had stolen, and how the authorities have done fuck all about it.
Main takeaways from the linked article:
• Bicycle theft is a endemic problem
• Bike locks are, for the most part, ineffective against determined thieves
• Even when the thefts are recorded, police will not make any effort to identify the culprits. They also do not appreciate it being pointed out to them how they could, with barely any real effort, do their jobs and catch the thieves
• Registering of bikes is a possibility, but for complicated reasons this has not caught on
The author reflects, towards the end of the essay:
"There is no easy answer to bike theft, and any answer that does come will involve the public and the private sector, as well as police. I can glibly cite broken windows theory, I can talk about how small crimes must lead to big. I’m not a police chief arriving at work with a set of competing priorities and not enough officers to staff them. But, if I might, there is one factor I would add in, not caught in crime statistics, that is worth considering, that gets weakened a little every time there is a theft without consequences: the social contract."
The author is completely in the right here. However, because he is writing for The Sunday Times which requires its writers not to write a single word that might cause its readership to spill their morning cup of tea, he cannot be as blunt as he needs to be.
[The following part of this essay is not satirical]
People who are tolerant of public disorder, who do not demand immediate response to vandalism, bike thefts, graffiti tagging, and other "nuisance" are unwittingly inviting fascism. The F-word is one you have seen tossed around a lot lately, and will likely see used again. It is a word that activists, calling everything from the private ownership of productive capital to dress codes fascism - without distinction of type or degree - have drained of its meaning. But it is a real thing that really troubled our world generations ago, troubles it now, and can trouble it again.
The following can be hard for people who have not been the victims of crime to comprehend, but here it is: the need to feel safe, in ones person and property, is innate to human beings and ineradicable. It can be modified by belief: a 250-kiloton MIRV could be falling on your home right now and, if you don't know about it, you will feel secure. At the same time, sensational reporting of violent crime can make people frightened to leave their homes, when the streets are completely safe. But people who see everyday disorder, violence, and incivility will want it stopped.
And if the problem is bad enough…
and has gone on long enough…
and they don't think that the ordinary parties in power care enough…
they are going to vote in people who say thst they will take care of the problem.
And that they will “lock up” those responsible.
And that they will make their country great again.
Leave aside the fact that they are not going to do that. Leave aside whether they are even competent enough to do anything about effective. People are going to choose that over the status quo.
[sarcasm restart]
But people do not need to vote for fascism. Nor do they need to sit idly by and watch it fester. They can do something right now, something more cathartic, more useful, and more productive than "punching a Nazi in the face." Something that can hold back fascism, clean up their communities, and restore law and order.
Consider: bike locks are reactive, as are bike registration services. They are solutions that treat thievery as a natural phenomenon. Worse, they don't address root causes: they just, like a hydrophilic surface, slosh the crime wave off of your own property and onto someone elses. But this is selfish, and does not show proper care for the community: while you may feel fine, your community's sense of safety and social order is as hurt whether it is your bike that is stolen or that of the man next to you.
Instead of reacting, instead of treating thieves as natural, we can do something proactive:
We can maim and disfigure thieves, blowing their hands off with pipe bombs disguised as bike locks.
Picture this: a bike, not even a particularly expensive one, is parked on a downtown street near a library. A bike thief comes along, eyes the lower-tier U-shaped metal lock around the frame, grins to himself, and pulls out their hacksaw. He sets to work.
The library security guard reasons there is no need to intervene, as the bike lockup is not on library property (and why, let us ask, do libraries of all places need security guards?).
The CCTV camera looks on dumbly, patiently storing away megabytes of video that will never be watched by anyone.
The thief is holding the crossbar of the lock in one hand while he saws away with the other. The metal teeth of the saw pierce the outer millimeters of steel. There the hacksaw encounters empty space - empty space and an insulated wire. The wire is part of a circuit powered by a 9V battery. The battery's current is holding open a relay. This circuit was made live, as was the whole mechanism, by the turning of the key in the assembled bike lock an hour ago.
The saw slices through the wire. This causes the relay to close, activating a second circuit.
This second circuit is connected to a large capacitor which in turn is connected to a blasting cap, which is stuck in the middle of a waterproof container of black powder.
The blasting cap primary charge detonates the black powder secondary charge.
The compressed powder rapidly releases hot gases, which accelerate everything around them at over 600 meters per second. Everything includes the casing of the crossbar, which held the black powder charge, and was carefully scored on the inside to insure maximum fragmentation.
In less than a second the bike lock is ruined, the bicycle wrecked, and the thief is minus (at least) one hand.
Engineered carefully, the damage to bystanders or other bicycles should be minimal: we can presume that anyone standing close enough to the immediately maiming area of the blast was providing cover for the thief, and was an accomplice.
Without a hand, our thief is unlikely to steal anything ever again.
Gravely wounded, he will be unable to escape and, once in hospital, can be charged with theft: one can be sure the police will watch that CCTV recording very carefully.
While it would be nice for the thief to face some jail time, the merits of the bike lock bomb solution is that it avoids courts that overly lenient and demonstratively "compassionate". An unmaimed thief would likely never be caught, likely never be charged if caught, likely be given a fine or minimal jail time if convicted, and be back on the streets stealing bicycles within a month, if not that very day. Maimed, without one of their hands - I am presuming the hand that clasped the lock to cut it would be their nondominant hand - they will be a less effective thief, unable to work hacksaws, screwdrivers, or other tools of breaking and entering. Their ability to clamber over fences or up ladders will also be limited. The maimed will be limited in their ability to intimidate the law abiding. While they may draw more on the state in social support, this is less than the cost to the whole public in higher insurance premiums, jail and prison time, and court-ordered supervision.
And removing one thief is not the only virtue of this solution. After a few thieves are permanently maimed by bike lock bombs, bike thievery will become downright uncommon. Cyclists will no longer be deterred from riding. Traffic congestion will ease, and the air in cities is will become less polluted by automobile exhaust.
The solution is respectful of police time as well. There will be less bicycle thefts to log, for one. Thieves are also not exclusive: the men and women who steal bicycles also shoplift, break into cars, and vandalize property. Removing one thief will prevent dozens, possibly hundreds of crimes in just the first year alone. The police will truly be able to focus on the major crimes (they claim) they are dedicating their finite resources to.
And the decline in visible crime and disorder will abate the voting public's desire for draconian measures. Dark political voices will become less attractive, and the respectability of liberal democracy will be improved. So come on: maim some criminals for the cause of liberty.