The name escapes me, but it’s about the fact that once, even though laws were passed, it required personnel to enforce it, so there was a sort of a natural equilibrium between government and citizens. But now that we have all this technology, law enforcement can enforce even the pettiest of laws...?
The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men’s weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.
On the other hand, some things are illegal not for proactive enforcement purposes but to ascribe liability, like jaywalking. That kind of stuff really shouldn't be enforced. But should it be legal? Probably not. Sounds like there's room for a third class of "legal."
If it was proven that more laws = less crime, then I don't think we would have seen the expanse of crime in the 80's and 90's. Think of the war on drugs, the 3 strikes laws, etc. If anything, I think getting more people out of poverty reduces the crime rate (and also adds safety).
The Wild West I don't think so much was a lack of laws, but the lack of law enforcement.
The quote might be true in ancient or modern China, where the laws and restrictions are being made in a dictatorial regime to censor the populace. But that would mean this isn't a quote about the nature of laws, it's a quote about the nature of China in a specific context, and can't really be applied to situations outside that context.
In the U.S., despite the temporary uptick in property crimes in the 80s, it went away again, and on the whole, on average, violent crimes have been in decline for 300 years while the number of laws and restrictions has gone up.
I wouldn't call the war on drugs or 3 strikes to be examples of crime expanding, those are both examples of government campaigns to fight crime. They are both controversial, with a loud and large contingent of citizens who believe those campaigns exaggerated the problems and are wasting vast amounts of tax money without reducing crime rates.
> I think getting more people out of poverty reduces the crime rate (and also adds safety).
Totally agree with you there. Side note, some people believe the "war on drugs" actually perpetuates poverty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Creation_of_a_per...
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...
We have so many laws that basically the legal system can find something wrong you've done, which makes everyone criminals. It's only a question of if they will charge you with it. You can't have a crime without a law, because a crime is when you break a law.
The war on drugs I would definitely say is crime expanding, as we are taking things that was legal, or more legal (even while dangerous or stupid) and are making them illegal. Now a substance abuse problem is also a criminal problem.
Same for three strikes, because many times you're taking a simple crime and over penalizing it. If the US's crime rate has been dropping so quickly, why do we have such a high prison population?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/me...
I also am not sure we're making that many new laws for violent crime. I think that is more or less well described.
And just because it's my favorite saying, "correlation is not causation!"