True But Unfair

Chicago Was Safer Under Capone - True But Unfair
Chicago Was Safer Under Capone – True But Unfair

It’s quite true that Chicago was safer for the majority of residents and visitors during the past times when Al Capone and his mob effectively ran the city than it is today under Lightfoot or her predecessors of the last few decades. This is, however, an grossly unfair and misleading comparison. Society was different and objectively better in Capone’s time than it is now or has been for some time, and that is what’s causing the city’s collapse and increased danger.

Simply put, society in general and the specific demographic causing most modern violence in Chicago was better in that it was less prone to serious violence in the 1920s than it has been since the 1960s. Hence, while objectively true, the statement that Chicago was safer when Al Capone ran the city is misleading and unfair to a large extent.

Yes, the politicians placed in charge in the past few decades have done nothing to stop the problems, mostly because they cared more about votes from the problem groups and their enablers than in safety and the rule of law. But still, we’re not the same. It’s, while true, it’s not at all fair to compare the current population with their betters of bygone days.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

Why Norwegian Drive Safe

Why Norwegian Drive Safe
These Are All Over The Place

According to “experts,” the absolutely safest roads in the world can be found in Norway, with the Nordic nation scoring an impressive 8.21 out of 10 on the study. Indeed, in Norway, only 2.7 people out of every 100 000 die in road accident per year, as opposed to, for example, 11.0 deaths per 100,000 per year in America.

But why is this so? The answer is, of course, both easy and not directly related to anything involving cars, roads, or driving. It’s a matter of linguistics and the polyglot norm of the Norwegians. Face it, anyone who can read English is going to slow down when approaching a fartsdumper (speed bump), and they’re all over the place.

Tags: | | | | |

de Blasio’s Safer NYC

de Blasio's Safer NYC
de Blasio’s Safer NYC

So, Mayor “Cop Killer” de Blasio releases a horde of 1500+ prisoners because of COVID-19 and brags how the city is safer. Meanwhile, inexplicably, murder rates and other crime rates soar immediately afterward.

It truly begs the question, safer for whom? Certainly, it’s not safer for those in NYC who actually pay taxes.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

A Safer AR

A Safer AR - AR-10
A Safer AR – The AR-10

After all, it’s all about feeling safer. Well that, and the AR seems to be unit of measurement for unreasoning fear among the gun-grabbers.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Internalizing Peltzman

Dr. Sam Peltzman, Professor of EconomicsDr. Sam Peltzman, a renowned professor of economics from the University of Chicago Business School, espoused a hypothesis which became known as the Peltzman Effect. It dealt with the unintended, negative, and contrariwise effects of safety regulations.

Distilled down to its simplest terms the Peltzman Effect is a theory that claims that the safer people believe they are the more likely they are to engage in risky behavior.

Dr. Peltzman is certainly no crackpot and the Peltzman Effect has been discussed by experts in a variety of fields for years, though the public at large may have remained unaware of it.

The Peltzman Effect is the hypothesized tendency of people to react to a safety regulation by increasing other risky behavior, offsetting some or all of the benefit of the regulation.

— Paul G. Specht
Journal of SH&E Research, Volume 4, Number 3 (2007)

I think this rather prosaic phenomenon is one that Conservatives had long ago internalized, whereas Liberals have yet to grasp it. This causes a fundamental chasm between how the two groups view government involvement in people’s lives.

Dr. Peltzman’s rhetoric on the topic focuses on willful contrarian or reactionary risk taking. This I disagree with. I think the results are largely caused by subconscious false security instead.

It truly simple; every “safety net” that is emplaced results in people feeling more secure, often overly so, and results in them taking greater risks. AIDS relief, TARP’s “Too Big To Fail,” the Auto Bailouts, repeated extensions of unemployment benefits, ObamaCare, Union labor contracts, gated communities, and Peltzman’s favorite, seatbelts & airbags – they all result in the same thing, a reduction in perceived personal risk. They also all result in the unintended secondary or follow-on effect of increased risky behavior by those “protected” by such things.

Sadly, Liberals haven’t internalized Peltzman’s hypothesis and keep expecting regulation of people’s behavior to have positive results in the long run.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |