(Ed: I especially like the quote at the end of this piece: "to base an argument on the desire to be seen as virtuous, is not itself virtuous. On the contrary, it is nothing but vanity." Priceless!)
[...] He [Charles Murray] pointed out that the vast majority of crimes of robbery and violence are carried out by young men in deprived areas against others in their local community. "In England," he declared, "your safety is contingent on your income." He's right. The least well-off can not afford to secure their persons by moving around only in private transport, or their homes by elaborate security systems. Dr Dalrymple added the observation that: "If my home is burgled and my visible possessions are stolen, then I have lost about 5 per cent of my wealth. If a poor family's home is ransacked in the same way, then they lose everything they have."
Juliet Lyon countered with the statement that, "This divide between victims and offenders is a false and unhelpful one." I am not sure if she meant by this that many victims may themselves also be offenders, or that those who commit crimes are in a general sense victims of society. Whatever she meant, it was a remark which underlines the way in which the philosophy of so-called "liberals" has become completely detached from ideas of right and wrong, which are still held by the great majority of the general public. Read more