Once again, scientists prove what society has known for centuries:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12630201&CFID=31056247&CFTOKEN=41038121

Quote :

" Kees Keizer and his colleagues at the University of Groningen deliberately created such settings as a part of a series of experiments designed to discover if signs of vandalism, litter and low-level lawbreaking could change the way people behave. They found that they could, by a lot: doubling the number who are prepared to litter and steal."

11/24/2008 11:55:51 PM

scientists: fuck them. what have they ever done for us?

11/25/2008 12:28:27 AM

corrected:

Once again, scientists prove what society has known assumed to know through anecdotal evidence for centuries

11/25/2008 12:33:41 AM

I like how they considered not taking a flyer to be littering. If anyone's littering, it's the people distributing the flyers in the first place.

11/25/2008 1:31:58 AM

Doesn't this kind of make libertarians look a little foolish?

If one apparently victimless crime has slightly unintuitive effects on other crimes, what else might fall in to this category?

11/25/2008 1:37:04 AM

all they had to do was look at the local ghetto for proof.

11/25/2008 5:05:08 AM

ah broken windows theory, i miss you. reminds me of my crim days

11/25/2008 5:57:14 AM

Quote :

"Doesn't this kind of make libertarians look a little foolish? If one apparently victimless crime has slightly unintuitive effects on other crimes, what else might fall in to this category?"

What victimless crime? Neither littering nor vandalism is victimless. They are both real crimes. (Real in that libertarians would regard them as so.)

I think the crux isn't about supposed liberties, but rather the atmosphere of non-enforcement of laws. Think about it. If you are at some nasty littered bachelor pad, you are far more likely to just leave your trash on the couch or table instead of seeking a (perhaps non-existent) trash can. Also, upon seeing all the cup-rings, carved initials, and other shit on the table, you are far more likely to play "let's-see-if-I-can-stick-this-knife-in-the-table-and-make-it-stay".



[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2008 8:33:25 AM

Quote :

"Doesn't this kind of make libertarians look a little foolish? If one apparently victimless crime has slightly unintuitive effects on other crimes, what else might fall in to this category?"

No, it makes non-libertarians look a little foolish. If land is owned then the owner has an incentive to keep it clean in order to avoid further societal abuse. On the other hand, publicly owned property does not face the same incentives, as those that own it (no one) do not suffer the losses associated with further degradation (tagging, trash, etc) and therefore have no incentive to take action to prevent it.

11/25/2008 9:21:23 AM

As a libertarian [socialist], I find the study a bit foolish. I don't necessarily consider the norms of behavior positive. Disorder encouraged people to ignore a sign and trespass. Oh dear, whatever shall we do? Next thing you know, we'll have complete anarchy.

This research has only established this trend in one specific cultural context. It's premature to apply it universally. What do order and disorder even mean? Who defines these terms? The whole setup is loaded with social and emotional baggage.

Unfortunately, I suspect the powers that be will ignore such details and invoke science to justify further campaigns against the poor and strange.

11/25/2008 5:57:01 PM

Quote :

"No, it makes non-libertarians look a little foolish. If land is owned then the owner has an incentive to keep it clean in order to avoid further societal abuse. On the other hand, publicly owned property does not face the same incentives, as those that own it (no one) do not suffer the losses associated with further degradation (tagging, trash, etc) and therefore have no incentive to take action to prevent it."

Right.

Libertarians, last time I checked, had public infrastructure and national defense as things they think are valid for gov. to handle. But if they also feel that tagging public property doesn't hurt anyone, but this study shows that it does in fact lead to other problems that DO hurt people, then their belief that leaving people alone as long as they are not hurting anyone, is fundamentally flawed, isn't it?

11/25/2008 6:28:41 PM

Quote :

"But if they also feel that tagging public property doesn't hurt anyone"

I think you're confusing libertarians with anarchists. We're the kind of people who mess up walls. Libertarians tend to support immediate execution for such crimes against property.

Quote :

"but this study shows that it does in fact lead to other problems that DO hurt people"

By your measure of harm and with Dutch people, sure. And even if it's magically a fundamental law of the universe that graffiti causes increased murder rates, I would question draconian measures against painting walls. That's a tricky moral argument. Make sure you're prepared.

11/25/2008 6:38:25 PM

^^^? I thought you were big on environment being a huge factor in human behavior.

I don't like the study either, but mainly because I don't like its implications. I hate zero tolerance, and it drives me crazy that it can actually work.

We could just take the ideas about beautification and ignore the notion that taggers should be harshly punished.

Like, the yard of the home I grew up in is horrible. Some guys come by and cut the grass and blow the leaves once every two or three months. Compared to the neighbors, it looks horrible. So people litter in our yard ten times more often than all the other yards combined. This doesn't mean we should stay up with a rifle and pick off drunks as they toss their beer cans and McDonald's wrappers on our lawn. It does mean that maybe we should keep our yard a little nicer.

[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 6:45 PM. Reason : beautification, not beatification]

11/25/2008 6:42:43 PM

Quote :

"I thought you were big on environment being a huge factor in human behavior."

I am. Nothing I've posted contradicts that in any way.

Quote :

"I hate zero tolerance, and it drives me crazy that it can actually work."

I can accept that. However, there's no reason to believe it's our only option.

Luckily, the study's head himself thinks it shouldn't be used to support Guliani's crusade:

Quote :

"Keizer says that the research is the first to explain and demonstrate experimentally the "broken windows theory", but he adds that it would be a mistake to see it as vindication of "zero-tolerance" policies, like those deployed to clean up New York in the mid-1990s. Zero-tolerance policies can be counterproductive, he says, because people simply see them as declaration of war and carry on offending."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16096-graffiti-and-litter-lead-to-more-street-crime.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 6:57 PM. Reason : head quote]

11/25/2008 6:49:42 PM

To answer your question, moron, defacing property would not be considered a "victimless" crime by libertarians. Unless of course it was your own property, then you would be fully within your rights as the owner to deface it.

11/25/2008 6:58:50 PM

This makes me want to grab a can of black or red spray plant and go nuts.

11/25/2008 7:06:10 PM

...damn liberal vandals

11/25/2008 7:22:42 PM

I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical. Just ask joe_schmoe. He sure don't want me on his team.

11/25/2008 7:51:27 PM

^ correction:

it's not that i don't want you on "my team" (whatever that really means), it's that you have certain emotional and social hangups which prevent you from joining any credible team.

but i think we do agree, generally speaking, about a number of issues -- at least at the pragmatic level.





[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2008 8:02:01 PM

I know you've ranted about grungy anarchist types giving liberals a bad name in the past. We make similar complaints about mainstream leftists. So it goes.

11/25/2008 8:04:59 PM

i dont consider myself a leftist, mainstream or otherwise. liberal or progressive would be more accurate.

but you guys are worried about "mainstream leftists" making you "look bad"? LOL. come on dude, seriously. Grow up, already. it's way past time. your parents are starting to worry.

11/25/2008 8:15:53 PM

Quote :

"but you guys are worried about "mainstream leftists" making you "look bad"?"

No, we don't really worry about looking bad. It's a bit late for that. Rather, we complain that mainstream leftists and such aren't suitably revolutionary. Allow me to illustrate with a song:

I trade Internet jokes about Dubya,
They sure are funny to me.
But don’t even think about asking
For me to give up my new SUV.
I don’t know what you mean about oil,
I just wish that gas could be free...
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

Well I’ve signed about a thousand petitions,
And my golf score is six under par.
And I keep myself up on the issues
By listening to N.P.R.,
And you know that I’m changing the world
With these stickers all over my car!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

And you know that I’m not a racist,
I've been on the side of the blacks all along.
And I always give a few extra dollars
To the young man who mows my lawn!
And I’ve never read Emma Goldman,1
But I know that she must have been wrong!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

Yes I went to that pro-choice rally,
I think women should get equal pay.
But it’s sure nice that my wife cooks me dinner,2
And she puts my clean laundry away!
And maybe our country ain’t perfect,
But revolution is never the way.
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

Yes, I cheered when they caught Saddam,
I knew that the news wouldn’t lie,
And I'm glad that the war is now over,
Cause my 401k's on the rise!
And you know that I love my country:
Best democracy money can buy!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

Oh, once I was young and impulsive,
I wore every conceivable pin.
Even went to the socialist meetings
And I learned all the old union hymns.
Ah, but I've grown older and wiser,
That's why I'm turning you in...
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal!

11/25/2008 9:09:52 PM

and that's meaningful to you? i mean ... good lord, did some high school sophomore write that?

I'm embarrassed for you.




[Edited on November 26, 2008 at 1:27 AM. Reason : truly. ]

11/26/2008 1:21:14 AM

^Don't be a bitch about the poem thing. Kinda discourages other folks from sharing, you know?

[Edited on November 26, 2008 at 2:44 AM. Reason : LMN LMN LMN]

11/26/2008 2:41:11 AM

fuck you, who said you could talk?

11/26/2008 2:54:17 AM

Quote :

" and that's meaningful to you? i mean ... good lord, did some high school sophomore write that? I'm embarrassed for you. "

agreed especially with lines such as

Quote :

"I think women should get equal pay. But it’s sure nice that my wife cooks me dinner And she puts my clean laundry away!"

those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

11/26/2008 10:13:44 AM

Quote :

"and that's meaningful to you?"

Yes, though mainly amusing. To me and at least a few of my comrades. We've listened to the song a couple of times at Food Not Bombs.

Quote :

"good lord, did some high school sophomore write that? "

Phil Ochs wrote the original way back when. Evan Greer modified it for the present. That's the version I provided.

Quote :

"agreed especially with lines such as"

One of my favorite parts. A little nod toward radical feminism.

11/26/2008 4:41:03 PM

[* polite applause *]

11/26/2008 5:09:43 PM

So how about them broken windows, folks?

11/26/2008 5:12:29 PM

They were probably broken by mexicans and native americans.

11/26/2008 5:18:08 PM