Tony Blair in the UK is decrying a national atmosphere of social chaos, including:
... an extraordinary attack on the decline of the traditional family and the rise of "different lifestyles".Wait, I thought judges and (not-necessarily-racial-)minorities were supposed to be in charge? Indeed, Mr. Blair, we see the same things here in America, though some deny it.In a speech which risked a backlash from single parents' groups and Labour MPs, the Prime Minister said the culture of the "Swinging Sixties" was partly to blame for crime and social breakdown. ...
He added: "Today, people have had enough of this part of the 1960s consensus. People do not want a return to old prejudices and ugly discrimination. But they do want rules, order and proper behaviour. They want a community where the decent lawabiding majority are in charge."
Further,
The Government hopes the plans will reassure voters before figures later this week show a rise in violent offences despite an overall fall in crime.A drop in crime with a rise in violent crime? Maybe it's time to start legalizing guns for law-abiding citizens.
The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.For England specifically:The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.
Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse.
Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.It makes sense that violent crime (with and without guns) would increase when law-abiding citizens are disarmed.Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
Pay attention!
Is it a "rise in different lifestyles" or is it a leveling of the playing field? That can be spun both ways.
I don't want any more abilities, options, rights, and freedoms than anyone else... but I don't want any less either.
our violent crime is rising, but it has still not reached american levels. why do you think the american violent crime level is so high to start with?
j: Actually, if you read the report -- or even the part I quoted and bolded -- you'll see that the UK's violent crime surpassed America's in 1996. Unless you mean somewhere else by "our", I'm not sure where you live.
Mark: It's nice that you don't want any more or less. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to. There are a lot of things that people want to do that are harmful to society and that the majority should have the power to supress. On one end of the scale is murder, and on the other is littering, and there's a lot of stuff in between. Further, it can be beneficial to tolerate some level of harmful behavior, but if the harmful behavior starts to get out of hand then it may need to be reigned in. And I mean "harmful", not merely stuff I disapprove of.
The Libertarian in me says that behavior's legality or illegality should be predominantly determined by it's affect on people other than those doing it.
I reject Blair's assertion that "different lifestyles" (by which I assume he means homosexuality) are having an adverse impact on our society. There are always examples of it that are, but there are also always examples of it that are not.
What's right isn't always popular; what's popular isn't always right.
Mark: Hm, I don't think he was predominantly talking about homosexuality, given my understanding of UK politics.
I agree with your libertarian position, but I think the final determination of effects must be left up to the majority, even though they'll make mistakes sometimes.