It's not weird at all, in my opinion, because it's just so TRUE. There ARE weird people out there that simply want everything that you have and will take it all when they get the opportunity. Not to mention the people who are stealing because they really need the money, and people with Alzheimer's who can't help stealing things.
I've never had a flat tire in my life, but I'm still driving with a spare tire in the trunk.
And when they do happen, they'll be very loud and publicized. That's probably what we see more often than first-person cases.
The bike cost $30. If I get one stolen every 10 years, I figure I'm paying $3 / year for the convenience of not having to bother with locking or carrying a key.
You'll also hardly have a problem in the states barring some high crime areas.
Sweden also used to be like that, but it's been changing over there.
Unfortunately most places are not like this. From developing countries (especially Brazil) to major touristy cities in Europe. :-/
No, they're not. The social uniformity and equality in Japan that makes Tokyo surprisingly safe for its size is also responsible for the lack of entrepreneurship and innovation in Japan.
> Why can't we build a society where we have the former and not the latter?
If you want some young people to succeed spectacularly, then you also have to allow some (a lot) of young people to fail spectacularly. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
How does the second statement follow logically from the first? How does putting a floor under the bottom of humanity automatically put a ceiling over the top?
Note, I don't believe this is deterministic at the individual level. People choose to do crime or to think differently. Nevertheless, at the level of society, the law of large numbers applies.
One of the interesting conclusions one can draw from studies of physics and biology is that it's highly likely that "choice" is really a very complex chemical process, rather than some independent act that a unified person entity performs in complete isolation from their brain and body.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is completely true, I think we can make significant progress in improving people's ability to "choose" by approaching the problem of detrimental or criminal choices from a biological and physical perspective -- that is, to use a rational, scientific approach to influencing brains and bodies as highly complex, sentient physical objects, rather than a moral, philosophical approach to distributing punishment and reward.
I see this as a false dichotomy. It's the old mind/body duality again. Your assertion about chemicals is not wrong, but you'll run into trouble if you act as if it negates the subjective perspective.
The distribution is already highly skewed anyway.
There is no fiscally responsible or sustainable way to do the former without doing the latter as well.
Then, I lived in Tokyo for a few years. People leave belongings unattended in coffee shops and restaurants all the time. It's a common occurrence to see someone put down their belongings at a table, leave them there, then go order food or drinks where their belongings are out of sight.
Sure, there is still theft in Japan. But it was a really eye opening and nice experience to see that there are places where distrust of others in this context isn't the default state.