Comments (11)

• freude bud

  heh ... tell that to the folks in nyc.

  don't think you'll be convincing too many with this post.

  Published: December 22, 2008 1:54 AM

• TokyoTom

  Jim, I'm a bit confised by your post.

  Is your local newspaper a part of government? Do you NOT want them investigating local government agencies or government-supported agencies?

  As for the broken-windows theory of law enforcement, I think that there is strong evidence in support of the idea that if property and communities are well-maintained that they are less prone to vandalism - not that I condone unfair law enforcement. In any case, I fail to see a connection between the broken-windows strategy and your newspaper's reporting on your county animal shelter

  I'm with you in making sure that we keep our eye on the "major assaults on our freedom", but aren't these coming more from politicians than local cops?

  Published: December 22, 2008 2:31 AM

• a Duoist

  When I read von Mises in graduate school, I never once read in 'Human Action' any of the vitriol in this post. I'm deleting this website from my 'Favorites' and will leave you to your psychological hate.

  Published: December 22, 2008 4:20 AM

• I Hate Cops

  TokyoTom,

  Local Cops are the right arm of politicians, therefore when politicians kill our freedoms with their bills, the local cops then kill our freedoms with their guns !

  Published: December 22, 2008 7:37 AM

• Jim Fedako

  TT,

  The point -- buried in there somewhere -- is that vigilance at the local level -- especially when dealing with minor theft, etc. -- does not translate into reduced crime at the state or national level -- especially when considering thefts of freedom.

  Yes, the newspaper is doing its job by questioning the $10 issue at the animal shelter. And, no, the newspaper never seems to extend that effort to the major crimes. They should.

  There is a competing theory that says the average man (of which I am one) will be more offended by the forged time sheet than (say) the billion dollar theft in DC. The reason: I can put my intellectual arms around the $500 theft but am unable to make sense of the $1 billion theft -- the number is just too big.

  Regardless, local vigilance has not translated into a protection from the large crimes committed by government against its constituents.

  There are a number of applications of the broken window theory. There is the property version where property owners give the impression that their property is being watched, protected etc., when the property owner fixes broken windows, etc.

  Then there is the application of this theory where the policy "enforce" minor crimes to show that they are giving the impression that they are being watchful, etc.

  And there is strong evidence that the NYC success -- supposedly due to an application of the broken window -- was actually due to other factors, factors that reduced crime throughout American cities over the same period.

  That said: some 25 years ago, I attended the Univ. of Pittsburgh and lived in a not-too-safe area. Yes, the police would occasionally show me their flexed muscles as I walked to class in the daylight. But those same "threats" to my property during the day never transferred to safety at night.

  Another example is that after an armed home invasion in my suburban neighborhood, the county deputies began enforcing traffic laws in the neighborhood. This included a deputy pulling me over for "running" a stop sign on my morning bike ride.

  Ironically, I have no intent of ever committing a home invasion -- armed or unarmed. Yet, no deputy was ever in the neighborhood at night -- when the invasions typically occur. The deputies gave a false impression of security by "roughing up" folks in the neighborhood.

  Oh, and we haven't experienced another home invasion. Is it because it was a one-time occurrence, or did me putting me foot down at every stop sign miraculously stop future crimes?

  Published: December 22, 2008 7:44 AM

• Taylor

  Jim,

  When a "low-level state employee" fudges a time card and therefore causes the State to take from your wallet even more than it otherwise would, are you sorry to see him go?

  I think I get your point, but I'm not sure I understand the seeming sympathy towards the minor crimes of the bureaucracy?

  Published: December 22, 2008 11:47 AM

• Mark Knutson

  Guess my own brand of libertarianism doesn't include muzzling the press, however poorly they exercise their power. Nor am I in favor of criminals' freedoms, and from everything I have read, giuliani did a good job of reducing crime in new york city.

  Published: December 22, 2008 12:05 PM

• (8?»

  "There is a competing theory that says the average man (of which I am one) will be more offended by the forged time sheet than (say) the billion dollar theft in DC. The reason: I can put my intellectual arms around the $500 theft but am unable to make sense of the $1 billion theft -- the number is just too big."

  While difficulty in grasping large numbers is a legitimate concept, I don't feel it accurately portrays what is going on here. It isn't so much the size of the number that is difficult to comprehend, but the the very crime itself, which comes down to the legitimacy of government.

  Anyone can understand individual small-scale theft, and how it undermines public trust in an institution, therefore the authorities are quick to react. Otherwise their legitimacy is suspect to challenge.

  Meanwhile, the theft of $1B will most likely always be wrapped up in some sort of political program, providing these same authorities with plausible deniability that they were really only trying to "do good."

  This leaves the believers in government in an incoherent quandary. Since theft is ok for their purposes, they are forced to let the theft stand, lest they be forced to admit their complicity in the destruction of society.

  So other than go after the low-level cheaters, just what are the "leaders" to do to garner support from all sides?

  Published: December 22, 2008 12:09 PM

• Ryan H

  The authors of the original thesis (Wilson and Kelling) use the following example:

  "Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and it it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside."

  Doesn't this somewhat support an Austro-libertarian view of property rights? (Sans the authoritarian conclusions the authors reach of course).

  I don't think that it necessarily follows that the theory is bad per se. However, by placing law enforcement and government as the central player, it ignores that these entities create much of the chaos in inner-cities by denying property rights to those undertaking "undesirable" entrepreneurial activities (drug dealing, prostitution, etc.)

  Published: December 22, 2008 1:14 PM

• Mark Knutson

  From what I have seen, keeping on top of low level offenses does indeed have some leverage in discouraging criminality.
  
  The fact that the big-money criminals in our society are not punished properly does not invalidate the broken window theory. It just means there is a failure of criminal law enforcement for white collar crimes.
  
  While I don't like my country being destroyed by legal and illegal financial fraud, I don't like my windows broken either.

  Published: December 22, 2008 2:14 PM

• Vanmind

  Jim, don't forget that bigger bureaucratic criminals often answer for their crimes in other ways -- like nooses and firing squads.

  Published: December 22, 2008 11:37 PM