[dahart]

I feel like the history of the United States is a fairly stark counter-example to this thought. The chances of dying or getting robbed in the 1800s Wild West were much higher than they are today. The standard of living and safety has improved more or less monotonically since then, mostly due to more laws and regulations. Even recent history in the last 50 years has seen violence and crime decrease while laws grow.

[cbanek]

While crime rates have certainly changed, I'm not sure you can easily say that it's because we have more laws. If anything, it seems like a lot of laws are enforced with huge bias to race/class/wealth.

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.

[dahart]

You're right, I can't say more laws are causing less crime. But I can say more laws and less crime are correllated in the US, which is still a counter-example to your Tao Te Ching quote, that claims more laws cause more crime. We know that's not true.

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...

[cbanek]

Violent crime isn't all crime, and I think the counterexample to what you're talking about is the number of non-violent laws we make:

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!"