"Disruptive change" is a funny euphemism for theft. I'll have to remember that one.

My argument was that uniformity of behaviour can have different consequences simultaneously. A positive one can be trust (lack of street crime). A negative consequence of uniformity of behaviour can be lack of disruption.

I don't understand how uniformity of behavior is inherently anti-theft. These still seem like unrelated things.

Uniformity of behavior may not be inherently anti-theft in all circumstances. What I see this happening in japan though is that, to a larger extent than I have seen elsewhere, people are consistently, almost uniformly, pro-social. Group consideration tends to trump individual opportunity. Consider the different value of cost/benefit to society and to the criminal of a criminal act. I am arguing that Japanese will tend to see the social cost more than the individual benefit, even when they themselves may be the beneficiary. And on the other side of this coin, as we have been discussing; the same social consideration tends to make people more reluctant to force unwanted (disruptive) changes on others who might be hurt in the short term.

That may or may not make sense, but I was just cracking a joke.