One broken window theory, and one fallacy

January 6, 2021. How many people have heard of -- and understood -- the broken window theory? There are actually two versions of this theory. One works, the other one makes no sense at all other than to people eager to pursue a 'We had to destroy the village to save it," approach. One, the first and reasonable one, takes the position that 'the small stuff matters.' As the linked video notes, "If a broken window is left unattended, crime increases in that area. Why? People assume no one cares about that area so they can do whatever." This is a crime prevention strategy: Take care of the little problems before they signal and create much larger problems. This concept can also be applied to business problems: Stop a problem before a small one snowballs into a large one.

But there is a second, much darker, 'broken window' theory, better labeled the 'broken window fallacy.' In this case, breaking a window supposedly has a positive economic effect. That is, break a window and the window repair shop has more business. This seems to be an increase in economic activity, a positive thing, and making things better -- or at least back to the way they were before the window was broken. This is the approach of many 'non-violent' protestors, who will even say to a shop owner, "You have insurance, right? If we break the window we can loot your store and insurance will pay you back for all of your loss!" But as Bastiat asserted: Destruction does not produce prosperity. Wealth is destroyed rather than created.

The insanity of the second theory is apparent after even the slightest second thought, just as the first theory's effectiveness is apparent from its practice. But don't tell that to protestors. Their theories of crime and economics are as misguided as Marx's theory of capital, land and labor. And don't expect to hear the first theory taught in school; and expect the second one to be offered at workshops and teach-ins led by social justice warriors.

Ironically, in the pandemic and social justice madness of 2020, those on the left, those who claim to be seeking justice for the poor and marginalized, are only making the rich-poor, high income-low income gap worse, much worse. The rich have grown richer. The poor have lost their jobs, their incomes and whatever wealth they had -- all in the name of 'justice.' All those broken windows are not really benefitting anyone, nor will they serve to achieve any form of true justice or positive peace.

The second irony is that when the progressive left mob was boring Washington (both the state and the district) this past summer, the protestors claimed, "No justice, no peace." The elite media applauded them, fanned the flames, bailed the people out of jail, and spoke in support of defusing the police. But when the capitol was protested earlier this month, People, seeking justice, instead found a very large number of well-armed, well-funded police, actually willing and able to shoot and kill an unarmed protestor. It all depends on your personal definition of justice.

I find this akin to the 'white privilege' argument. I once attended a workshop where I expressed my doubt about the very concept. The response from the 'woke' leader was that my denial was proof of its existence, that since I -- a white person in denial -- don't see it, I have proven the assertion. Those protesting the November presidential election could make the same claim about voter fraud. Those who benefited from the fraud deny it happened which, by woke logic, is proof that it exists, because those who benefited from the fraud are denying that it happened.

This is like being accused of being a 'denier' when it comes to climate change when, in fact, no one is denying the climate is changing but unless you accept the conventional wisdom -- a lot of it based on a totally disingenuous claim of 97% agreement among 'climate scientists' -- you must be a denier. Again, follow the science, not the 'scientists' or the set-serving policiticians who support this unsubstantiated theory for their own benefit and virtue signaling.