# Europe Forum > Travelling & Living in Europe > Benelux >  Crime comparison : Belgium vs USA

## Maciamo

Belgium is a quite average European country when it comes to crime statistics. Maybe it is due to the fact that the country is half-way between northern and southern Europe. In general crime tends to be lower in colder countries, whatever the continent or culture. The high percentage of immigrants from poor countries (about 10&#37; of the population, twice more than in the USA) translates in higher criminalities in the larger cities.

The USA are huge, much bigger that the whole EU in land area. It's better to compare US states to EU countries. In terms of population Belgium would be the 8th most populous US state (between Michigan and Ohio). In terms of land area, Belgium would be the 43rd (between Maryland and Hawaii).

Here are comparative statistics (number of crimes per 100,000 persons). The sources used are
US crime statistics by state (in 2004) on Wikipedia, and Crime statistics for Belgium (including 2004) from the Belgian national statistics institute. I have divided for Belgium the absolute numbers by 100 to obtain a rough "per 100,000 persons" value.


*Violent Crimes*

Interestingly, Belgium appears to have a higher rate of *homicides* (9.6) and *assaults* (649) than the US average (respectively 5.5 and 291). 

For homicides, Belgium can be likened to Maryland. Only Louisiana and the District of Columbia have more homicides per capita. 2004 appears to have been an exceptionally bad year in Belgium. In 2000, the rate was only 6.7, like those of California or NYC. Yet, I cannot explain how Belgium has so many homicides. 

According to this List of countries by intentional homicide rate, the homicide rate in Belgium is only of 1.5. Nationmaster also gives 1.5. That contradicts the official statistics of the Belgian government. The rate for the USA of 5.5 seems to be the same everywhere. So something must be wrong with Belgian stats somewhere. 

As for assaults, the stats for Belgium agree with each others, but those for the USA don't this time. Nationmaster gives a rate of 756 per 100,000, against 291 on Wikipedia. That's 2.5 times higher ! If we trust Wikipedia only District of Columbia has more assaults per capita than Belgium. If we trust Nationmaster, Belgium is safer than the American average.

*Rapes*, however, are less common in Belgium (27 against 32 in the USA). Belgium would rank as the 15th safest state in that regard. Nationmaster gives a slightly lower rate for both Belgium (24) and the USA (30), because the year is not 2004 but 2002.

*Property Crimes*

The total rate of *thefts* in Belgium is of 4,234 per 100,000. This is a bit higher than the US average (3,517). However, the statistics are a bit misleading.

First of all, the Belgian statistics place robberies in the Property Crimes category, while it is under Violent Crime in the USA. But *robberies* are almost 4 times more common in the USA than in Belgium (136 against 36).

*Motor vehicle thefts* are also more frequent in America (421 against 273).

Interestingly, the rate of *burglaries* is also higher in the USA (730, against 607 in Belgium), despite the (false) sense of safety in that regard in many parts of the States, where people leave their (back)doors open. In Belgium almost everyone locks their doors. In spite of that, 20 US states experience proportionally less burglaries than Belgium (mostly northern states). North Dakota has the least burglaries of any US states, about half the rate of Belgium.

So what is left among thefts that makes the total number higher for Belgium ? Mostly bicycle thefts (almost a tenth of all thefts !), shoplifting, and thefts in cars (handbags, stereos, navigation systems, laptops).

In other words, serious thefts like robberies or car thefts are more widespread in the US, while pettier thefts predominate in Belgium.

----------


## Tourbillion

One thing that you have to realize about crime in the US is that something like 80% of our crime is gang related, especially violent crime. I live in Los Angeles, where many of the gang members are immigrants, or children of immigrants. I don't think that there are the same kind of gang problems in Belgium, are there? Is it possible there to deport immigrants who are criminals? We are supposed to deport criminal aliens here, but I am not sure that it is always possible. 

In areas of the US where there aren't very many gangs, there isn't much crime, like North Dakota or Montana. There are almost no homicides there either, but if you look at an area with more gang activity, like Detroit, Michigan, they have extremely high homicide rates. 

As for car theft, I think that we have a lot more cars per capita here. This alone probably explains why I am living in the car theft capitol of the world.  :Eek:

----------


## Maciamo

> One thing that you have to realize about crime in the US is that something like 80&#37; of our crime is gang related, especially violent crime. I live in Los Angeles, where many of the gang members are immigrants, or children of immigrants. I don't think that there are the same kind of gang problems in Belgium, are there?


I think that most of the violent crime in Belgium is also gang related. There used to be the Italian mafia (it's a long time we haven't heard of them though), but the major problem now is the Albanian mafia. I heard that the Russian mafia also operates in Antwerp.




> Is it possible there to deport immigrants who are criminals? We are supposed to deport criminal aliens here, but I am not sure that it is always possible.


Technically yes, but in practice it is often difficult. Contrarily to the USA, Europe gets a lot of African immigrants with no passport and no ID at all. When asked where they come from, they don't answer or say that they don't know so that they can't be deported. As for the mafia, the police is too scared to do anything. Many policemen who tried to oppose the mafia were found mysteriously dead in what looked like "suicide".




> In areas of the US where there aren't very many gangs, there isn't much crime, like North Dakota or Montana.


Belgium is so tiny (like Maryland) that there isn't really any place unaffected. You can drive through the whole country in 1 or 2 hours (depending on the road and speed).




> As for car theft, I think that we have a lot more cars per capita here. This alone probably explains why I am living in the car theft capitol of the world.


According to NationMaster, the USA has the highest number of vehicles per capita, but that also includes trucks and motorbikes. 

I doubt that the USA has more actual cars per capita than Belgium because about a third of all cars on Belgian roads are foreign-registered.

Many Belgians register their personal car in Luxembourg (hence the 2nd highest vehicle ownership after the US) to escape speeding and parking fines. Oddly enough there is no cross-border agreement between the police of most EU countries for car fines. Belgium signed its first such agreement with France last year only. That's why you often see people with Luxembourg car plates driving at 200 kph on the highway. They just don't care about fines as they won't receive them.

In Brussels almost half of the cars are registered abroad, because it is the EU capital and a third of the population comes from other EU states and don't bother to change their plate registration (many of them for the same reason as Belgians get a Luxembourg car plate).

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

If you want to compare crime in the US with Belgium (or any other continental European country) then it might be most easily summed up like this: In the US, it's the rich citizen who's got the edge. In other words, if you commit a crime against the rich then you're in deep shit whereas if you're rich and commit a crime against someone who's poor then you needn't worry very much about having too much trouble.

There have been cases of someone murdering poor people and getting off with a year or two in prison and yet if you merely steal from a large, influential company you might get ten years or more! Jesus Christ! Just look at Bush! He's responsible for the killing of thousands of Iraqi men, women, children and innocent soldiers and he'll never see one day behind bars. Charles Manson, on the other hand, never actually killed anyone (by his own hand) but he's been locked away for the rest of his life! 

Ah, America! The leader of the "free world"! Carrying the burden of justice and democracy to every corner of the globe! The shinning light that will take us from destitution to the summit of glory!  :Flamethrower:

----------


## Brad VanGuard

What are you trying to say? I agree that the more famous richer people in the U.S. get off easier than the rest, but when a country is at war that is how it is. Those are rich words from someone who's country wasn't attacked unawares by terrorists.

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

*[/QUOTE]**




 Originally Posted by Brad VanGuard


.....when a country is at war that is how it is. Those are rich words from someone who's country wasn't attacked unawares by terrorists.


*


What are you, George Bush’s nephew or something?

_“ … when a country is at war …“_ What war? I don’t recall any country declaring war on the U.S. 

_“ … from someone who's country wasn't attacked unawares by terrorists.”_ Of course not. Why should anyone attack my country? My country doesn’t skip la-de-da around world destroying governments, setting up puppet regimes, napalming the populace, and then calling them the aggressor. 

Your country has ruined Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Panama, San Salvador, Mexico, Guatamala, and many, many more. You do not have the right to cry about 9/11. That was a taste of *YOUR OWN medicine*. If you don’t take the time to find out what the U.S. has really been doing around the world then don’t expect others to feel sorry for you. 

….. of course, you are one of those who thinks that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack and that there really ARE weapons of mass destruction in Bagdad. So according to you all of those Iraki men, women, children, and soldiers who died in the invasion and all during your occupation deserved it …… right? Only a population of idiots can believe that. You sound like a lot of sheep; _"Baaaaaaa - baaaaa!"_ 

If you want to learn something (other than what you see on Fox bloody News) then start with *"Operation TP Ajax".* If you can take the truth and pain from that let me know and I'll give you lesson number 2.

----------


## Brad VanGuard

I never said Iraq was behind 9/11. No, I am not Bush's nephew, but I am a Patriot. As a U.S. citizen I would think that I know a little more about our country than you do. We've declared war on terror, not Iraq. Do I think that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Of course not, see you are putting words in my mouth that I never used or implied. I think what we are doing in Iraq right now is useless, except for getting their government stable we need to pull out. We've helped to rebuild their country, not destroy it. As for the innocent lives killed, do you really think an American soldier would just shoot someone ruthlessly? No, of course not. You are making generalizations. As for Vietnam, we sent troops there to try to prevent the communist take over. We tried to help them, not hinder them. I don't watch Fox news. As a matter of fact, I hardly ever watch T.V. I find it a waste of my time. (except the weather report). I would be very grateful if you'd explain how the U.S. has ruined all the countries you've listed.

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> ….. As a U.S. citizen I would think that I know a little more about our country than you do.



As coming from a country with one of the most horrendous media censorships since the fall of the Soviet Union, you would be well advised to know that you (as an American citizen) know far less about the U.S. than any average western European. 


Here is a prime example ….



> I think what we are doing in Iraq right now is useless, except for *getting their government stable we need to pull out. We've helped to rebuild their country, not destroy it.*


If you really knew anything at all about the U.S. in Iraq you would know that you have torn down the complete infrastructure and there are tons of proof of this. You have sent in _“experts”_ and _“teams of advisors"_ and then gave them nothing at all in which to accomplish their task. Not even chairs, tables, computers, or an office. Those teams were screaming to be heard in Washington but instead they were sent home again without achieving a single thing. We know now that that was the intention of the U.S. from the very start. To destroy the country and let it falter so that you could keep your people in there indefinitely. Why? *TO PUMP THE OIL for your own benefit.* The U.S. has rebuilt *NOTHING*. But you have no chance of knowing that because *ALL* of your media goes through the U.S. military/government censorship filter. 






> As for the innocent lives killed, do you really think an American soldier would just shoot someone ruthlessly?


_“Innocent lives”_? What do you call those thousands upon thousands of Iraqi soldiers who died while defending Iraq against your invasion? …. *“Guilty”*? Where are those weapons of mass destruction that was to prove you had a _“right”_ to attack them? Tucked away in a safety deposit vault and buried beneath a tree in Bush's garden? 





> As for Vietnam, we sent troops there to try to prevent the communist take over. We tried to help them, not hinder them.



You don’t know very much, do you. Like I said *“American censorship”.* It’s not your fault. You were told that the Vietnamese people asked the U.S. to help them? Jesus. 

Let me tell you something that you don’t know. I was a volunteer soldier in Vietnam. Don’t try to tell me that the Vietnamese wanted any of us to be there. 





> I would be very grateful if you'd explain how the U.S. has ruined all the countries you've listed.


 
You would *“be very grateful”*? Sorry, I don’t believe that. Did you read about *“Operation TP Ajax”* as I told you? No. You didn’t. Start there and then I’ll give you more to learn. 

You do know how to read, don't you? Just let your finger slide across the page and mumble.

----------


## Brad VanGuard

Do you hate the U.S.? If that is the case then just spit it out instead of beating around the bush.

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> Do you hate the U.S.? If that is the case then just spit it out instead of beating around the bush.


Let me spell that again for you ..... 
*“O-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n TP A-j-a-x”*

Too difficult to remember?  :Laughing:

----------


## Brad VanGuard

I don't doubt things have gone on that shouldn't have. I know that for a fact, but then again good things have happened too. No I am not contradicting myself. I do know more than you think. Don't count me out just because I disagreed. Now, I'll read Operation TP Ajax, but I just want an honest answer to my question. Do you hate the U.S.?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I don't doubt things have gone on that shouldn't have. I know that for a fact, but then again good things have happened too. No I am not contradicting myself. I do know more than you think. Don't count me out just because I disagreed. Now, I'll read Operation TP Ajax, but I just want an honest answer to my question. Do you hate the U.S.?


Brad, I'm a dual citizen living in Europe most of the time and can tell you that what happened during the Bush years has wrecked America's reputation everywhere, unfortunately. it is going to take a long time to repair the damage. 

Look at the terrible shape the United States is in today because of Bush / Cheney, and it may get worse. A poorly educated populace, with inadequate health care, high poverty, a growing violent crime rate, little economic opportunity for the middle class...

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> ..... I'll read Operation TP Ajax, but I just want an honest answer to my question. Do you hate the U.S.?


What is the relevance of your question? Is my answer prerequisite to you reading about about *Operation TP Ajax*? 

You told me, _”I’d be very grateful if you'd explain how the U.S. has ruined”_ other _”countries."_ That wasn’t really true, was it. *Operation TP Ajax* is the foreword introduction to that "explanation" - but you still are persistently avoiding it.

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> ..... A poorly educated populace, with inadequate health care, high poverty, a growing violent crime rate, little economic opportunity for the middle class...


You're right, of course. With all of that in mind it's not so difficult to understand why such a nation not only votes in the buffoonery of the country but defends its treachery as well. 

During the Vietnam War it was nearly impossible to get "Mainstream Joe" to rattle the walls of the White House because to criticize the government (in the collective mind of that "poorly educated populace") was the same as saying that those already dead in Vietnam, "died in vain". Of course they died in vain, but "poor education", brick-wall censorship, and Göbbels style propaganda means that "patriotism" is the most important and manipulative tool for such a government. Naturally, a force of "good" against "evil" is the catalyst to keep the machinery going, and where the "threat of communism" once held that post it is now a CONTRIVED "threat of terrorism" that's the culprit.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> You're right, of course. With all of that in mind it's not so difficult to understand why such a nation not only votes in the buffoonery of the country but defends its treachery as well. 
> 
> During the Vietnam War it was nearly impossible to get "Mainstream Joe" to rattle the walls of the White House because to criticize the government (in the collective mind of that "poorly educated populace") was the same as saying that those already dead in Vietnam, "died in vain". Of course they died in vain, but "poor education", brick-wall censorship, and Göbbels style propaganda means that "patriotism" is the most important and manipulative tool for such a government. Naturally, a force of "good" against "evil" is the catalyst to keep the machinery going, and where the "threat of communism" once held that post it is now a CONTRIVED "threat of terrorism" that's the culprit.


Well said...  :Good Job:

----------


## carpathia

> What is the relevance of your question? Is my answer prerequisite to you reading about about *Operation TP Ajax*? 
> 
> You told me, _”I’d be very grateful if you'd explain how the U.S. has ruined”_ other _”countries."_ That wasn’t really true, was it. *Operation TP Ajax* is the foreword introduction to that "explanation" - but you still are persistently avoiding it.


 
The Usa population from a crime perspective is this-

2% of the US population are 'black males' between the ages of 13-50 years old.. that 2% of black males commit over 50% of all street crime in the United States, much of it in the larger cities, and in the communities of blacks in larger cities that everyone else has fled from..

Without that 2% segment of the young black male population the nation is actually very low crime, as you can legally have a permit at negligible cost to carry a concealed handgun in 48 of the 50 states..

I am not a national but during my residence, I have permits from TWO states to carry a concealed gun..

In those areas, no crime.. !!

probably most crime in belgium are not belgians, and many attackers are not even europeans.. so basically the statistics are not so different if you account for a given segment of the population that scews statistics.

The USA people are not aware of much and the problem is, they have ONLY TWO parties.. their is a legal monopoly by the two parties so no others can come along and correct their activities or injustices..

the americans know no concept of many parties and they vote for only the two they are allotted in almost all cases. this is what leads to the bad decisions and problems as the two parties are easy to buy and get support for things under false pretences..

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> ... 2% of the US population are 'black males' between the ages of 13-50 years old.. that 2% of *black males commit over 50% of all street crime in the United States*, much of it in the larger cities, and in the communities of blacks in larger cities that everyone else has fled from..
> 
> Without that 2% segment of the young black male population the nation is actually very low crime ...


But you give no statisitc on the *AMOUNT* of crime in the U.S. 

If you deport all the blacks from the U.S. then "50% of the crime" will be attributed to some other ethnic-social-racial-religious category or the fact that 98% of crime in the U.S. is carried out by those people who are ... right-handed. 

I do understand what you want to say but your statistic proves nothing at all.





> I have permits from TWO states to carry a concealed gun ... In those areas, no crime.. !!


... and yet in the areas of worst crime there are not only guns but nearly all of those crimes are committed *WITH GUNS*!

Your logic doesn´t convince me in the least.





> The USA people are not aware of much and the problem is, they have ONLY TWO parties.. their is a legal monopoly by the two parties so no others can come along and correct their activities or injustices..
> 
> the americans know no concept of many parties and they vote for only the two they are allotted in almost all cases. *this is what leads to the bad decisions and problems as the two parties are easy to buy and get support for things under false pretences..*


They live under fascist/mafia conditions.

----------


## carpathia

> But you give no statisitc on the *AMOUNT* of crime in the U.S. 
> 
> If you deport all the blacks from the U.S. then "50% of the crime" will be attributed to some other ethnic-social-racial-religious category or the fact that 98% of crime in the U.S. is carried out by those people who are ... right-handed. 
> 
> I do understand what you want to say but your statistic proves nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and yet in the areas of worst crime there are not only guns but nearly all of those crimes are committed *WITH GUNS*!
> ...


I am speaking of violent crime and street crime-

true as you say- without the 2% who commit 50% of crime, the crime rate *could* still be later cut again by 50%, but even without the subsequent rate drop, the overall level of crime would already be astronomically lower, to the point of negligable. 

Sans the small segment of active-age black male population, 
not older black males or black females,..
american crime in these segments such as assault, rape, murder, housebreaking, robbery, etc.. is not different than statistics from much earlier era.

The civil rights act in 1965 america disallowed any restraints on blacks, who within a decade has increased the crime rate from a previous first-world level,
to african or hatian levels.. as nothing could any longer be done to specifically address their outsized share or these criminal activites. 

I lived in New Orleans to read at Tulane.. these are the facts.

In all Louisiana, you can carry a gun, and you would be well advised to do so. 
*The predictor for crime in the regions surrounding Tulane is not the access of firearms, as all have such access,* _the predictor is the percentage of the african-american population in the immediate locale._

The state is divide into parishes-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parishes_in_Louisiana

If you go to region of parish where the european-derived population lives, there are all the same access to the weapons, and almost no significant crime, and very rare gun crimes.

If you go to the region of parish that african-derived population lives within, the are same access to weapons, and violent attacks / crime that is of proportion beyond the pale, with routine daily shootings in the streets. 

in the second case, almost all attacks will be from one african overtaking another african, as the european-derived peoples have fled the locale now.

The africans and europeans all were better off and had more stable society from the times that restrictions were placed on the africans, as it is not simply a matter of TREATING one the same as the other, and granting the same priviledges, they BOTH must have the ability and willingness to BEHAVE in accordance with the same norms, and they do not. 

If you try to go to the city of New Orleans, the safety of all in your party is not guaranteed if you stray outside the streets with police posted, and almost 100% of all crimes/attacks are carried out by african-derived peoples.

If you go, you must go to Lafourche Parish, instead of New Orleans, this is where I vacation and their is no crime here, it is very humid but very little black aamericans.

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> I am speaking of violent crime and street crime-
> 
> true as you say- without the 2% who commit 50% of crime, the crime rate *could* still be later cut again by 50%, but even without the subsequent rate drop, the overall level of crime would already be astronomically lower, to the point of negligable. 
> 
> Sans the small segment of active-age black male population, 
> not older black males or black females,..
> american crime in these segments such as assault, rape, murder, housebreaking, robbery, etc.. is not different than statistics from much earlier era.


I don´t want to over simplify your statement nor do I want to argue American laws regarding blacks but it must be obvious (by clear logic of survival in a country that awards wealth with more wealth) that decreasing the population of the unemployed will automatically decrease crime. But *blaming* the unemployed, the destitute, or blacks and arming against them isn´t what I call the "solution". I call that the "problem".

----------


## carpathia

> I don´t want to over simplify your statement nor do I want to argue American laws regarding blacks but it must be obvious (by clear logic of survival in a country that awards wealth with more wealth) that decreasing the population of the unemployed will automatically decrease crime. But *blaming* the unemployed, the destitute, or blacks and arming against them isn´t what I call the "solution". I call that the "problem".


''The chicken came first,.. or was it the Egg'' is now the stage of your assessment.

Can you employ gainfully a violent, agressive individual with a severe criminal history, behavioural ill-temperment, or learning defficient?.. 

can you find employment for someone who familially has lived in their home nation for 300 years and still has not mastered their own grammar/language of daily usage..whose dialect is not comprehensible to most other citizens? 

can you find employment for people who routinely produce 5-6 children by 5-6 different partners, with no means to support even themsleves,.. with partners whom they may not even know?..

can the female who had her first child at 13 and has now 4 more all by different fathers she found appealing for one night, ever be employed outside of the home.. there is no one with any interest in these offspring to assist, she has no marketable skill..and on and on..

can you find a position for children raised in environments where this behaviour and brutality is the norm and valued as proof of ones virility,.. where shooting another on the city street, is viewed as accepted and honored means of dispute resolution?

_The eventual answer is often if not almost always NO, to all.._

the question of whether this population adopted this attitude before or after mal-treatment is rather beside the point, but, in point of fact-

the crime rates/societal behaviour in black africa is not dissimilar from those of american blacks once the constraints of the past were removed, 

the situation of most S.S african diaspora population even those not subjected to enslavement is not dis-similar from US blacks, 

not only behaviourally but developmentally, no population of blacks are comparable to first world populations even after gleaning the technology of their conquerors. Zimbabwe today is starving and dying, under black rule, far worse off than the Rhodesian black population was, under the former administration that was imposed upon them. 

Almost all of the decline in black american society does not take root until the post-civil rights movement era, as the african illigitimate birth rate in america was on par with the general white population, UNTIL the rule of law stepped in to ENFORCE ''equality'' of treatment.

As soon as the artificial legal equality was mandated, american blacks did as they pleased instead of as the mores of the greater society dictated, and reverted to a standard that is roughly that of africans elsewehere in world.

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> ''The chicken came first,.. or was it the Egg''* is now the stage of your assessment*.


No. I´m from (essentially) a social-democratic country, I´m not interested in what came first as long as solutions are reached. However, if you insist - crime comes after despair. The U.S. is a scandelously capitalist country of inhumane proportions. So the source of the *PROBLEM with crime in the U.S.* begins at the top, not at the bottom.

----------


## carpathia

> No. I´m from (essentially) a social-democratic country, I´m not interested in what came first as long as solutions are reached. However, if you insist - crime comes after despair. The U.S. is a scandelously capitalist country of inhumane proportions. So the source of the *PROBLEM with crime in the U.S.* begins at the top, not at the bottom.


social-democracy is requisite that the population as a whole have common cause and share common social mores.

when you add vast populations THAT DO NOT SHARE the COMMON social mores, 
the social-democratic system breaks down at least on the local scale where this muti-tiered acceptance of norms manifests.. 

In scandinavian nations traditionally, the homogeneous nature of the states meant that this system of adherence to voluntary norms worked exceptionally well. As you dilute that population with NON-adherents it will no longer function and will eventually collapse if the dilution reaches critical mass.

Most of the worlds population that are not products of the enlightenment are *AMORAL FAMILIALISTS* by practice and nature.

the order of loyalty runs, 
immed. family, 
then tribal group, 
and for some MAY extend to nation state.. but not always. 

This is the social norm for almost all of the worlds population outside of europe, and altruism is often seen not as a valued component but as treachery to ones own people or weakness.

My culture has extensive exposure to this reality, as eastern europe has suffered under hundreds of years of eastern occupation, and stood powerless to watch the vicious nature of turks and asiatic as our peoples were savaged. 
You soft peoples have never had your sons taken by the Islamics, castrated, and turned into Jannisary slaves to fight their own people. There will be no social-democractic courtesy from a imagined trans-national, egalitarian global community. 

The softer european nations have none of this history and are plump and satisfied that, if generous enough, there is a modernistic dane just waiting to emerge out of every shipment of somalis or sudanese..

This will be your peoples end, as they will not recognise such realities that they were spatially insulated from, as without the experience you are unable to conceptualize that the egalitarianism you proffer will always be accepted and will not be reciprocated.

----------


## Miss Marple's nephew

> social-democracy is requisite that the population as a whole have common cause and share common social mores. when you add vast populations THAT DO NOT SHARE the COMMON social mores, the social-democratic system breaks down ..


This, as with most or your post (though not all of it), is insightful and worthy of serious consideration.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> This, as with most or your post (though not all of it), is insightful and worthy of serious consideration.


Certainly, Carpathia's most recent comment deserves some thought...

----------


## Savant

> No. I´m from (essentially) a social-democratic country, I´m not interested in what came first as long as solutions are reached. However, if you insist - crime comes after despair. The U.S. is a scandelously capitalist country of inhumane proportions. So the source of the *PROBLEM with crime in the U.S.* begins at the top, not at the bottom.


well, if your theory is true, then if we go somewhere else, where blacks aren't "oppressed", then there should be less black crime... funny i don't know of a single place where blacks don't contribute disproportionately to the crime... do you know of anywhere IN THE WORLD that this is the case? certainly in africa, where they are very rich in natural resources and blacks are the majority, they should then be thriving... right???  :Laughing:

----------

