Hacker News Reader

>But it does work. I was at a restaurant there. Some girls are chatting, and they walk away to go get something, and just leave their bags there unattended. Why? Because it's an authoritarian country - people aren't going to steal stuff there.

Chances are high that you could do the same in most European countries. Just like in the Soviet Union, thieves exist in Belarus. People's perception might be that they're safer, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Just like during Soviet times, people felt safer, but crime still happened. It just wasn't talked about, because it makes the state look bad.

I don't recommend leaving bags unattended in public anywhere these days, they're likely to call in the bomb squad.

Just to add to your point. In old time mafia controlled villages in the old country, anecdotally you did not have to lock your car, but few would argue that an average person in that village was 'safe'.

It almost reminds me of some my parents' peers yearning for the good ole days of communism, cuz riffraffs would not dare to talk back to a cop.

edit: It is hard to argue with that kind of sentiment. It is technically right.

Just like during Soviet times, people felt safer, but crime still happened. It just wasn't talked about, because it makes the state look bad.

Poor example. The anarchy that attended the collapse of the Soviet system brought about a dramatic increase in crime. And while reported petty theft was arguably a reporting problem, the dramatic rise in homicides was not.

For the record my mother-in-law lived in St Petersburg at the time. And her anecdotal reports were that crime that she and friends experienced rose dramatically.

I actually lived in Belarus for most of my life. I would never leave a bag in a restaurant unless I have a clear view of it while ordering something. (I would not do it here in the USA as well). Also, even in the capital of Belarus, some neighborhoods are still quite dangerous to walk around at night.

Would Japan qualify as authoritarian? Yet it is safe to leave things out without watching them, except for umbrellas. There are even places in the US where it is safe enough. I doubt these places are more authoritarian but instead allow such social safety because of other reasons. Authoritarianism can, to some extent, replace those reasons if they are lost, but it replaces them with some sort of mutated social structure that I find has far more problems that the original once you look past the surface.

> Yet it is safe to leave things out without watching them, except for umbrellas.

People have no qualms about stealing umbrellas?

Umbrellas frequently get stolen via the self-justification of "I need it, I'll just borrow it" followed by laziness about returning.

In most of the US, you can safely leave most things without watching them without much risk of theft.

I mean, if you leave something that's a strong temptation (like a big pile of cash) it'll eventually disappear.

Yeah, if you go in to one of the inner cities, your stuff will get stolen, but otherwise, generally nah.

One time I was at a coffee shop in Chicago and I saw a woman leave her laptop unattended while she went to the bathroom with no ill effects.

You better not have left your stuff unattended in authoritarian communist Romania... I get what you're implying but authoritarian regime doesn't always imply harsh and effective enforcement of the law for petty crimes. Sometimes it does but the two aren't necessarily correlated although one probably requires the other.

> This was in the capital of one of the poorest countries in Europe, but it was still one of the safest places I've ever been.

Obviously if you put all people in jail they will be very safe there. But then you have less people working and producing more useful stuff than rotting in jail.

The best example I give of this trade off between freedom and safety is that of women in saudi arabia. They have the least amount of sexual violence in the world.

Well of course they do; it's not rape there as long as you marry the 12-year-old first.

It can suffice to marry the girl after rape (not sure of country and specifics).

In Sharia law, you need 4 witnesses to prove fornication. Bringing a charge without the evidence subjects the one who brought it to 80 lashes.

Whether or not this applies to rape is a question of debate. However in Pakistan it certainly has been interpreted to so apply. Which means that it is very hard for a woman to prove that she was raped.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud#Requirements_for_convict... for verification.

> > This was in the capital of one of the poorest countries in Europe, but it was still one of the safest places I've ever been.

> Obviously if you put all people in jail they will be very safe there. But then you have less people working and producing more useful stuff than rotting in jail.

Friendly reminder that the US has the highest incarceration rate of all countries.

> The best example I give of this trade off between freedom and safety is that of women in saudi arabia. They have the least amount of sexual violence in the world.

Is this according to their official statistics? How do they know they're accurate and comparable? For instance, is rape within marriage considered a crime and regularly prosecuted there?

The US has the highest incarceration rate of countries from which you can trust the statistics.

That is a different thing.

This is plain false, with no legislation protecting women from marital rape and punishment for women who report rape, nothing indicates that Saudi Arabia actually has "the least amount of sexual violence in the world" this is a laughable statement at best.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Saudi_Arabia

I think that is the point that OP was making.