Grits readers will be familiar with the column's pragmatic, less-government thesis: "Less government can’t just be about less taxes. If you want to cut the budget in a meaningful, sustainable way, you must identify something government is currently doing that costs money and choose not to do it." The article concluded thusly:
Those 90,000 or so arrests qualify as something the government is currently doing that costs money that the state could choose not to do. If the state would make that choice, it would reduce upward pressure on county property taxes, essentially removing an unfunded mandate. Plus, it would help “get the government out of the lives” of those 90,000 individuals, in particular, whose personal liberty interests in and of themselves are no small thing.
Does anybody seriously believe that public safety would be harmed?