From: Michael Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Feb 15 2001 - 12:27:48 MST
Charlie Stross wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 04:13:48PM -0500, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > Considering that Britain has five times higher rate of property crime
> > than the US, I suppose that y'all are just totally automated and
> > inflexible about handing over your wallets to the average
> > thug-on-the-street.
>
> Ad-hominem. (Not that I'd expect better from you.)
How is that an ad-hominem? It was totally contextual. Individuals in
your society are more willing to enslave themselves to any thug that
comes along, whether it be a government thug, mobster, or freelance
criminal. Yes, I said slavery. I don't consider fractional confiscation
of the product of one's labor to be any more morally acceptable than
full confiscation. Whether you call it taxation, mugging, B&E,
pickpocketing, etc is irrelevant. I see no difference between enslaving
10% of a society or confiscating 10% of everyone's productivity.
>
> How do you like living in a society with ten times the murder rate?
I live in a society with a homicide rate lower than yours (New
Hampshire). I don't consider the big cities that have stringent gun
control laws to be 'my society', and it is there that 90% of the crime
occurs. Big cities in the US tend toward the 'low-trust' form typical of
many european countries, while rural areas in the US are high trust
societies.
State murder rates (per 100,000 population) and weapons offense arrest
rates (per 100,000 population), from FBI Crime Statistics, 1993.
(t = tie) (6)
Weapons Weapons
Murder Offense Murder Offense
State Rate Rate Rank Rank
------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 20.3 142 1 4
Mississippi 13.5 135 2 8
New York 13.3 102 3 20
California 13.1 135 4 9
Maryland 12.7 104 5 19
Texas 11.9 139 6 7
Alabama 11.6 67 7 34
Georgia 11.4 149 8 3
Illinois 11.4 75 9 30(t)
North Carolina 11.3 132 10 10
Missouri 11.3 199 11 1
Nevada 10.4 141 12 5
South Carolina 10.3 77 13 29
Arkansas 10.2 126 14 13
Tennessee 10.2 131 15 11
Michigan 9.8 107 16 16(t)
Alaska 9.0 107 17 16(t)
Florida 8.9 68 18 33
Arizona 8.6 114 19 15
Oklahoma 8.4 91 20 24
Virginia 8.3 129 21 12
New Mexico 8.0 71 22 32
Indiana 7.5 59 23 38
West Virginia 6.9 77 24 28
Pennsylvania 6.8 49 25 40
Kentucky 6.6 106 26 18
Kansas 6.4 94 27 22(t)
Connecticut 6.3 116 28 14
Ohio 6.0 97 29 21
Colorado 5.8 140 30 6
New Jersey 5.3 94 31 22(t)
Washington 5.2 75 32 30(t)
Delaware 5.0 30 33 44(t)
Oregon 4.6 81 34 26
Wisconsin 4.4 165 35 2
Massachusetts 3.9 35 36 42
Nebraska 3.9 78 37 27
Rhode Island 3.9 60 38 36(t)
Hawaii 3.8 60 39 36(t)
Vermont 3.6 1 40 50
Wyoming 3.4 31 41 43
Minnesota 3.4 61 42 35
South Dakota 3.4 41 43 41
Utah 3.1 85 44 25
Montana 3.0 12 45 49
Idaho 2.9 52 46 39
Iowa 2.3 30 47 44(t)
New Hampshire 2.0 16 48 48
North Dakota 1.7 25 49 46
Maine 1.6 23 50 47
Canada's rate was 2.6 per 100,000, which is the same as the average of
the ten lowest ranking states, which, you'll notice all are states with
rather lax gun control laws (as reflected in the weapons offense
rankings), but are demographically very similar to Canada (and Great
Britain). Thus the idea that violent crime is a demographical
phenomenon, not one of increasing regulation or law enforcement,
requires serious consideration.
Because of this compelling demographic link, this supports Greg's
comments about low-trust versus high-trust ethnic groups. Britain's
violent crime rates have risen and fallen in direct proportion to
immigration rates, as has crime rates in the US and Canada. Crime is a
phenomenon engaged in primarily by demographic groups from low-trust
societies that are unsufficiently integrated into mainstream society,
either due to prejudice and ostracism by the majority, insularity of the
unintegrated group, or due to a high rate of immigration of that
demographic group on an ongoing basis overwhelming the ability of local
high-trust standards to prevail.
Britain is an interesting case to study. One could say that they evolved
from a high trust society to a low trust society by two concurrent
methods: first, individualistic types tended to leave or be ejected,
primarily emigrating to the United States, where individuals could form
a high-trust society; secondly, individuals from low-trust societies
were imported, either as slaves, refugees, or willing immigrants, that
eventually dissolved and changed the trust 'pH' of the society to a
low-trust one, especially during the 20th century.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:51 MST