America's Real Criminal Element: Lead • Hacker News Board

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#151

Post by baddox » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 2:55 AM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #141

baddox wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can I prove it, and why should the burden of proof be on me? The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist."

The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist." You are the one claiming that litigation can exist without government. Litigation has never, in all of recorded history thus far, existed without the backing of government. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard to imagine in the first place. It's no harder to envision than, say, a yellow car with 5 wheels. Sure, in all of recorded history there may never have been one, but surely I don't have to make one or show you one to convince you that such a thing is possible.

But anyway, Medieval Iceland is always cited as the closest thing to a nation-wide private legal system. Admittedly, it's not exactly the system I would prefer, because there are still some roles that are not open to competition. But it's fairly close, and it should be close enough to help you imagine such a system.

If you can look at social arrangements smaller than entire nations, there is plenty of private (and voluntary) dispute resolution all around the globe. In fact, that method of conflict resolution is often chosen voluntary by both parties to avoid the inefficiencies or perceived unfairness of government.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#152

Post by baddox » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:00 AM UTC

clavalle wrote: post #148

baddox wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is to keep someone from killing me to get their way? Private insurance? Are they going to go to war for me after I'm dead? Yes, that's the idea, although "going to war" is hyperbolic. Private insurance would be strongly incentivized to seek out and punish murderers, assuming of course that potential customers would find that service valuable. The leap from the government's monopoly on violence to a competitive…

>I don't mean the cost of weaponry. I mean that you have to pay thugs well, mostly because of the inherent risk I mentioned earlier. There is also risk of massive retaliation which can end up causing a lot of damage to humans and property. If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. It seems to me that your position is only maintainable if you take many questionable assumptions as a given --…

> If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today.

There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Obviously, single individuals can and do commit nearly any physical act you can conceive of. That doesn't mean that all acts are affordable to deploy on a massive scale, especially when you're worried about earning a profit.

I chuckled at your assumptions, because they apply equally (or I might argue, more so) to a challenge of the desirability of government. Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference. The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few. The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#153

Post by tlb » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:00 AM UTC

colomon wrote: post #61

greendestiny wrote: post #7

I'm tempted to repeat the oft said correlation is not causation. But really I have never thought that captures the problem I have with studies like this. Of course correlation does not necessarily imply causation. What I really find to be problematic is a small time series of data of a facet of a human behaviour across a population is probably going to correlate extremely well to many other time series across the sam…

Yeah, it just feels like the entire article is too convenient. 1) Everything seems to work out perfectly, no matter how it is considered. For instance, if lead contamination in the ground is such a big deal, why does lead in gas track so closely to the crime rate? Wouldn't it be the case that it would track on the upside but not the downside? 2) He keeps on emphasizing lead lowers IQ. But the Flynn Effect suggests th…

You're assuming that the causation goes lead -> lower IQ -> more crime. Indeed, the Flynn effect doesn't support the lower IQ -> more crime relationship.

Lead has a wider range of neurological effects than just reducing IQ. The causation may be more likely: lead -> unknown neurological changes -> more criminality & lower IQ.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#154

Post by lkbm » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:15 AM UTC

cateye wrote: post #37

Doesn't the article really miss medical evidence like the influence of lead on the brains, neurons, MRI scans and experiments with animals and stuff?

There's a second page that goes into that.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#155

Post by ricardobeat » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:03 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #152

clavalle wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't mean the cost of weaponry. I mean that you have to pay thugs well, mostly because of the inherent risk I mentioned earlier. There is also risk of massive retaliation which can end up causing a lot of damage to humans and property. If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. It seems to me that your position is only maintainable if you take many questionable assumptions as a given --…

> If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Obviously, single individuals can and do commit nearly any physical act you can conceive of. That doesn't mean that all acts are affordable to deploy on a massive scale, especially when you're worried about earning a profit. I chuckled at your assump…

> There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there?

Yes, there are. Frequently over nothing at all.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#156

Post by baddox » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:08 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #155

baddox wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Obviously, single individuals can and do commit nearly any physical act you can conceive of. That doesn't mean that all acts are affordable to deploy on a massive scale, especially when you're worried about earning a profit. I chuckled at your assump…

> There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Yes, there are . Frequently over nothing at all.

Please explain. The government is the only one I can think of.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#157

Post by ricardobeat » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:30 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #156

ricardobeat wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Yes, there are . Frequently over nothing at all.

Please explain. The government is the only one I can think of.

Organized crime, drug dealers, etc. often kill people for small offenses, "honor" crimes, ratting out, snooping or just for fun. Haven't you seen any mafia/yakuza movies? Real life is much, much worse.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#158

Post by danielharan » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 5:14 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #71

LiveTheDream wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't get that sense at all. The article acknowledges multiple times that this is not a new breakthrough. The point is that the danger of lead is so well known that it's strange criminologists don't make a bigger deal of the lead/crime correlation. More recent studies show the lead is even more dangerous than previously thought.

But criminologists do make a big deal of it. Here's a study from 5 years ago, which received wide public attention at the time, pointing out the correlation: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal... And the MJ article spends half the time talking about how economically worthwhile lead abatement measures would be, without bothering to report that lead abatement is already well subsidized and pro…

Only the first author is a criminologist, and it's in a medical journal with images of brain scans. In fact, it sounds like the study mentioned in the original MJ post.

A single reference by a criminologist in a journal of another field does NOT prove that criminologists take this seriously. Given the author claims to have contacted several experts in that field with none giving the lead theory any credence, you'd need a bit more evidence to show they do.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#159

Post by clavalle » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 5:28 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #152

clavalle wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't mean the cost of weaponry. I mean that you have to pay thugs well, mostly because of the inherent risk I mentioned earlier. There is also risk of massive retaliation which can end up causing a lot of damage to humans and property. If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. It seems to me that your position is only maintainable if you take many questionable assumptions as a given --…

> If that were true people wouldn't be killed over pocket change today. There is no organization of individuals which routinely kill people over pocket change, is there? Obviously, single individuals can and do commit nearly any physical act you can conceive of. That doesn't mean that all acts are affordable to deploy on a massive scale, especially when you're worried about earning a profit. I chuckled at your assump…

>Remember, what we call "government" is really just a bunch of people that society recognizes as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence—that's the only difference.

Wrong. They are a group of people acting within a common framework of rules. These rules constrain their behavior, especially violent behavior. Part of this framework works to ensure no one person, small group or even large sub-group can act independently of these rules.

>The only change I'm proposing is for society to recognize no individuals as the sole legitimate purveyors of violence, rather than a select few.

This opens violent action to anyone who cares to engage in such behavior by whatever rules they see fit.

>The fact that people irrational and ignorant is all the more reason to not allow any of them to become the sole legitimate purveyors of violence.

I disagree. I think this is a fine argument for having a common set of rules for violent action agreed upon and enforced by as many people as possible. The irrational and ignorant will be held in check according to the common rules by everyone else with that responsibility.

Re: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

#160

Post by driverdan » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 6:28 AM UTC

jwess wrote: post #69

It's scary to think that the transition to unleaded aviation fuel, or avgas, only began a couple years ago, and is scheduled for 2018 [0]. Currently, Avgas, which is different than jet fuel in that it's mainly used by private single-engine planes (ICE instead of turbine), can still contain up to 2.12 grams of lead per gallon [1]. Surprisingly, this 2.12 grams of lead/gal is termed 100LL, for 100-octane "low-lead". Up…

Automotive race fuels are leaded as well. I'm not sure what the regulations on them are.