Anyone Notice: High Tax States = Reduced Value For Residents?

[Coffee]

This is a pretty inflammatory thread, but I'll try to give you a reason why people live and work in those states:

• Jobs
• Quality of Life

Ok, you can joke all you want about California traffic, but where else in the world can a good software engineer pull down $150,000 a year or more and still be within 2 hours driving distance of both the beach and Lake Tahoe?

High income taxes?  Sure, they suck, but which would you rather have?

• Make $150,000 a year and pay 4% more in taxes
• Live in the middle of nowhere, make $60,000 a year

I'll take the higher taxes and higher income any day.  Save an extra 30-40% of your income and retire early to the house in the no income tax, low cost of living state.

Personally, 2x income beats an extra 3-4% tax any day.  You can even do what I do and live in Connecticut, which is a fairly low tax state, yet work near NYC and get NYC salaries.  Best of both worlds.

What's not to love about California? You've got: Mudslides, riots, fires, earthquakes, gangs, a broken and bankrupt state government, high unemployment, out of control cost of living, and poor gun laws. LOL.

Cost of living (especially real estate) is so much higher in California, when you consider that you can get a comparable software job in Austin, Texas, make the same money, have no state income tax and buy the same house for 1/7th the price.

[moda0306]

I still stand by the fact that the spots I've visited in Cali are amazing, and the much smaller abode at the same price of your Austin home that you're forced to stay in since it's 100 degrees all summer and humid is worth it.

Huntington Beach was awesome.  No mudslides there that I know of.  San Diego as well.  Clean, diverse yet harmonious, beautiful weather and surroundings, and the ocean at your doorstep. In no way did I feel unsafe or in a dirty, poorly-kept area.

It's expensive because people fall in love with it over living in Texas where the weather is miserable half the year (to some).

Austin is probably the only place in Texas I'd consider, and I'd take San Diego or Huntington Beach in a heartbeat before Austin.  There are other absolutely gorgeous areas of Cali as well.  I'll be clear though... I wouldn't want to run a business there.

Poor gun laws?  I'll live in a low-crime area and limit my urge to carry a gun around with me (which I'd never do anyway) and hope the beautiful beach I'm sitting on is the last place someone would get pissed enough to want to kill someone.

[moda0306]

Also, the term "cost of 'living'" is a bit misleading.

Some people consider living in a big home with a big yard in an average yet miserably hot city and a pool in the backyard living.

Some people would rather live in a small apartment, pay high taxes, but be within earshot of a clean beach full of decent people of all races and almost textbook perfect weather year-round.

My definition of "living" means being close to family, though, and our lakes and summers in Minnesota are pretty great.  The people are great, and the taxes are worth it.

[Storm]

Your cost of living is very much up to you.  The guy that runs the Early Retirement Extreme website lives in California and he lives on less than $7,000 a year.

California has a lot to offer.  Just because you hear about an earthquake in Japan, do you automatically think all of Japan is a terrible place to live?  Does a mudslide in one neighborhood in California make all of Cali an inhabitable wasteland?

[TripleB]

Does a mudslide in one neighborhood in California make all of Cali an inhabitable wasteland?

The gun laws make Cali an uninhabitable wasteland in my mind.

[Coffee]

Your cost of living is very much up to you.  The guy that runs the Early Retirement Extreme website lives in California and he lives on less than $7,000 a year.

California has a lot to offer.  Just because you hear about an earthquake in Japan, do you automatically think all of Japan is a terrible place to live?  Does a mudslide in one neighborhood in California make all of Cali an inhabitable wasteland?

No. Californians make California uninhabitable. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzQBz3h5gnc

[moda0306]

TripleB,

Can you own a gun in your home in Cali?  Can you carry a gun in public?  If not the latter, are you seriously telling me that not being able to carry a gun in public make society an uninhabitable wasteland?

The violent crime rate in Texas & Cali are almost identical.  I'm willing to bet, out in public, a violent crime is most likely to get MORE violent if the victim pulls out a weapon.

I'm not arguing for gun laws here, but simply stating that people carrying guns in public, to me, is unlikely to help crime much vs not allowing conceal-carry.  I know this is an emotional issue, but if you take the "rights" piece of this out and simply look at crime statistics and situational logic I think you'd see you're not any better off by packing heat most of the time.

[TripleB]

I know this is an emotional issue, but if you take the "rights" piece of this out and simply look at crime statistics and situational logic I think you'd see you're not any better off by packing heat most of the time.

If you take the "rights" piece out, then let the government do whatever they want to terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay. Statistically speaking, the chances that a native born American citizen will get caught up in it is very small.

If you take the "rights" piece out, then let the government censor websites without due process and shut them down at their whim (as they currently can). Statistically speaking, the chances that your website will get shut down is almost none.

I read a news article today about a robber on drugs who attempted to steal a stroller with a baby in it. The mother pulled out a handgun and shot the potential kidnapper. That happened today. Do you think she would have felt "ok" about it if Florida (her state of residence) banned CCW and she wasn't carrying, and her baby was kidnapped and killed/sold because the chances that she could have done anything with her gun are so small, that it probably wasn't going to help her?

I completely agree that the chances a firearm will help me are very small, primarily because the chances I'll ever be robbed/attacked are small. However, for the government to forbid me to protect myself against violent criminals is unconscionable.

If you look at another potential stat - the chances of me doing something to protect myself given the guarantee that I am attacked, then I'd put my odds at 80%+ to survive the encounter, if I am sufficiently armed.

As far as the argument that me defending myself will only escalate the situation, I'd argue that lack of defense escalates the quantity of attacks. In a world where no one defends themselves, more attacks occur because the risk to the attacker is low.

What if I didn't defend myself, and my assailant decides to attack someone else the next day and winds up raping/killing someone? How could I live with myself? (yes it's the Spiderman Origin story, but it could be real).

[Gumby]

If you look at another potential stat - the chances of me doing something to protect myself given the guarantee that I am attacked, then I'd put my odds at 80%+ to survive the encounter, if I am sufficiently armed.

As far as the argument that me defending myself will only escalate the situation, I'd argue that lack of defense escalates the quantity of attacks. In a world where no one defends themselves, more attacks occur because the risk to the attacker is low.

You could argue those positions, but you'd probably be wrong. The data tells a very different story:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121512.htm

Epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

...

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low.

The article goes on to explain how researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting.

In other words, carrying a gun increases your odds of being shot by 450% during an assault.

[moda0306]

TripleB,

I can't really disagree with you that people should be able to defend themselves, especially in their homes but even carrying in public. We may disagree more on what the actual affect on crime that right has, but no gun law or lack thereof is really going to increase my comfort even close to the degree that low crime in the first place would.  Neither Texas nor California have very good crime statistics, but neither is so bad to actually factor much into my decision-making.

If the concern is safety, you're much better off picking a safe community in a safe state than packing heat in Houston or Compton.  So all this hyperbole about Cali crime is a bit much.  Their gun laws are probably barely contributing one way or another on crime.

I also am still unclear as to what exactly the gun laws are in the state.  Could you clarify?  Do they not have conceal-carry permits?

[TripleB]

I also am still unclear as to what exactly the gun laws are in the state.  Could you clarify?  Do they not have conceal-carry permits?

Cali has CCWs but they are not shall-issue. Meaning there is discretion on the part of the local police to decide whom to issue a permit to. Most "free" state have shall-issue permits, meaning that if you are a non-felon of appropriate age and meet the criteria, the state cannot deny you a CCW permit.

Los Angeles will not issue permits. Neither will the other big cities. You need to live in rural Cali to get a signoff on a permit.

Cali also has their own assault weapons ban. The federal one expired in 2004. Cali has a state-level one. I won't argue the merits of why I "need" an "Assault Weapon" but I do.

Cali has the worst gun laws in the entire nation. Close ties are NY and NJ.

[TripleB]

You could argue those positions, but you'd probably be wrong. The data tells a very different story:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121512.htm

Gumby,

Thanks for sharing the link. I read the review of the study, and I have one possible criticism which maybe you can clear up if you read the actual study (since this was just a news article about the study).

The study claims the presence of a firearm on the victim of an attack made it more likely to have the attack be more violent.

Is it possible that the correlation is actually not that, but the presence of a firearm on a victim, made it more likely that person would be violently attacked. For example, Joe Citizen is out walking his dog. He votes democrat and does yoga on weekends. He doesn't carry a gun. He gets mugged. Mugger takes his wallet and leaves.

Another case: Mike Shitburg is a drug dealer. He is carrying a gun because he knows other drug dealers want to kill him. Mike is assaulted by another drug dealer. The assault is motivated not by pure theft, but to actually physically harm Mike for "business" reasons.

In this case, you could argue that it wasn't the gun that made the assault more violent. It was the confounding factor that the person who carried the gun is more likely to be up to crime (especially in a city like Philly) than the person who does not carry a gun, and thus the factors of the assault against them are different.

That said, I will agree with the article, that the presence of a firearm does not deter crime. It's not a magical talisman. If you have piss-poor situational awareness and someone gets the drop on you, you're done. If you're fat, out of shape, have terrible vision, and shoot your gun once every 6 months, you probably won't be doing too much with it to protect yourself, and the attacker could see the gun on you as a threat and turn a simple mugging into a murder.

The answer could then be to not carry a gun, so it just stays as a mugging. But how can you guarantee that the person only wants to mug me and leave? What if he wants to beat the shit out of me just for fun because he is a sociopath? What if he thinks I look like someone that owes him money and wants to break my legs? What if... etc.

There's a chance the gun could do more harm than good. There's a chance the gun can also save your life if you are properly trained. There are cases everyday around the country of law abiding citizens using firearms to protect themselves from criminals.

[Gumby]

Is it possible that the correlation is actually not that, but the presence of a firearm on a victim, made it more likely that person would be violently attacked. For example, Joe Citizen is out walking his dog. He votes democrat and does yoga on weekends. He doesn't carry a gun. He gets mugged. Mugger takes his wallet and leaves.

Another case: Mike Shitburg is a drug dealer. He is carrying a gun because he knows other drug dealers want to kill him. Mike is assaulted by another drug dealer. The assault is motivated not by pure theft, but to actually physically harm Mike for "business" reasons.

In this case, you could argue that it wasn't the gun that made the assault more violent. It was the confounding factor that the person who carried the gun is more likely to be up to crime (especially in a city like Philly) than the person who does not carry a gun, and thus the factors of the assault against them are different.

I highly doubt it. This wasn't just a quick look at general statistics. The study was done very carefully to avoid the pigeonholing you describe:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

What the study tells us is that if Joe Citizen pulled out a gun — instead of reaching for the sky — he'd be 450% more likely to be shot. And to be honest, that makes a lot of sense, because the mugger suddenly has more incentive to defend himself from being shot.

That said, I will agree with the article, that the presence of a firearm does not deter crime. It's not a magical talisman. If you have piss-poor situational awareness and someone gets the drop on you, you're done. If you're fat, out of shape, have terrible vision, and shoot your gun once every 6 months, you probably won't be doing too much with it to protect yourself, and the attacker could see the gun on you as a threat and turn a simple mugging into a murder.

It sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that you have excellent marksmanship and cat-like reflexes. I find it surprising that you wouldn't assume that a mugger wouldn't also have the same marksmanship and cat-like reflexes.

Let's not forget that the study says that you're 450% more likely to be shot just by having a gun in your possession. 450% more likely! That's not a statistical anomaly. That's not a problem of being fat and having slow reflexes. That's a huge statistical disadvantage. Huge.

The answer could then be to not carry a gun, so it just stays as a mugging. But how can you guarantee that the person only wants to mug me and leave? What if he wants to beat the shit out of me just for fun because he is a sociopath? What if he thinks I look like someone that owes him money and wants to break my legs? What if... etc.

You can't guarantee it. But statistically, that doesn't happen. If you carry a gun, you're far more likely to die during an assault. That's what the data tells us.

There's a chance the gun could do more harm than good. There's a chance the gun can also save your life if you are properly trained. There are cases everyday around the country of law abiding citizens using firearms to protect themselves from criminals.

Thanks. I'll take my chances without a gun. Statistically speaking, I'm far better off.

See also: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

[TripleB]

Thanks. I'll take my chances without a gun. Statistically speaking, I'm far better off.

I respect your decision not to carry a firearm.

Hypothetical questions:

1) Suppose you are unarmed and Joe CCW sees you getting mugged. Do you want Joe to use his gun to help you?

2) Suppose you are unarmed and you are getting kidnapped. Do you want Joe CCW to use his gun to help you if he witnesses it?

3) Suppose your daughter/wife is getting raped at gunpoint. Do you want Joe CCW to help?

It probably sounds like I'm being an asshole, but I'd genuinely like to like where the cutoff if, for a CCW civilian to assist you against a criminal. I'd assume you would prefer if he didn't try to stop a routine mugging, but would prefer if he did try to stop a rape. Just curious.

[Gumby]

Hypothetical questions:

1) Suppose you are unarmed and Joe CCW sees you getting mugged. Do you want Joe to use his gun to help you?

Sure. But, statistically speaking, Joe CCW is 450% more likely to be shot than I am. If he really wants to be a hero, he's doing it at his own risk.

2) Suppose you are unarmed and you are getting kidnapped. Do you want Joe CCW to use his gun to help you if he witnesses it?

Kidnapped? Seriously? Ok, I'll bite.

Once again, statistically speaking, Joe CCW is 450% more likely to be shot than I am. If he really wants to be a hero, he's doing it at his own risk. My chances of surviving a kidnapping are far more likely if I don't have a gun.

3) Suppose your daughter/wife is getting raped at gunpoint. Do you want Joe CCW to help?

I'd want a police office to help. If both the rapist and Joe CCW have guns, I sure as heck wouldn't want my daughter/wife anywhere near their mutual shootout. Once again, Joe CCW is 450% more likely to be shot in the situation you've described.

It probably sounds like I'm being an asshole, but I'd genuinely like to like where the cutoff if, for a CCW civilian to assist you against a criminal. I'd assume you would prefer if he didn't try to stop a routine mugging, but would prefer if he did try to stop a rape. Just curious.

Heh. I don't think you're being an a-hole. I just think that you have too much faith in guns. If you look at the statistics, the United States has the highest gun-related death rate of any industrialized country in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

This extremely high fire-arm death rate is directly caused by the second amendment. In terms of safety, I'd much rather live in a country without guns. The statistics show this over and over again:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

[Gumby]

TripleB,

Now I just have two quick questions for you...

1) Do you believe that by carrying a gun you're going to successfully stop crime in its tracks where ever you go?

2) If in fact you were 450% more likely to be shot during an encounter with an armed criminal — even with your gun training — would you still want to carry a gun in that situation?

By the way, I love this forum. How many other places do people get to calmly discuss hot-button issues like this?!

[TripleB]

TripleB,

Now I just have two quick questions for you...

1) Do you believe that by carrying a gun you're going to successfully stop crime in its tracks where ever you go?

No. I do not believe a gun is a magical talisman. I do believe it gives me a fighting chance. To quote one firearms trainer, the goal is to "die less often" because nothing is 100%.

2) If in fact you were 450% more likely to be shot during an encounter with an armed criminal — even with your gun training — would you still want to carry a gun in that situation?

If that fact were true, then if I were alone, I would not want to carry a gun. If I were with a loved one/family member then I would want to carry a gun, because I will do my best to neutralize the threat, at my own peril to save the life of my loved one/family member.

You're leaving off the other side of the situation. Suppose there was a 90% chance I'd be shot in the situation if I had a gun and only a 20% chance I'd be shot without a gun.  However, without the gun, my family member has a 1% chance to get raped/killed because maybe it's not a routine mugging. I'd take a 90% chance of me getting shot than a 1% chance of my sister getting raped.

For those not familiar with gun shot wounds, they are not like the movies. I can be shot, and still shoot the criminal several times before I fall over. And it works both ways. The criminal can also shoot me several times after I shoot him. FBI stats suggest knife wounds are substantially more fatal than gun shot wounds. Maybe we can live in a country without guns, but can we find one without knives? In England, where it's difficult to get a handgun, criminals just use knives instead. I'd rather face a gun than a knife, but that's my personal feeling.

By the way, I love this forum. How many other places do people get to calmly discuss hot-button issues like this?!

Calm? I've popped 100 yards of bubble wrap while reading your posts! Just kidding

Clearly since we are so mature, we need to start an abortion thread next. Also, just kidding  ;D

[Odysseusa]

People have the rights to be arms and also have the rights to basic health care. 

[Lone Wolf]

I highly doubt it. This wasn't just a quick look at general statistics. The study was done very carefully to avoid the pigeonholing you describe:

I'm surprised that you are impressed by this study.

Their methodology was to survey 677 people that had been shot in an assault.  Of the 677 people they surveyed that had been shot in an assault, 6% were in possession of a firearm at the time.  That's 40 people.  Whoopity doo.  (That means that 94% of the people that got shot were unarmed.)

Of these 40 people, they made no attempt to control for the factors that Triple B mentioned.  They made no attempt to ensure that the person was legally entitled to carry a handgun, had any form of training or whether they were engaged in a crime \ drug deal \ whatever.  The only factor they considered was whether this person was carrying, whether it be a gangbanger with a sawed-off shotgun or granny with a derringer in her purse.

In their control group, they didn't even bother to exclude people that were asleep at home, compared to those who are out on the street at night!  Does it make any sense at all to compare someone asleep in their bed late at night in a drug-infested neighborhood to someone out on the streets that happens to be involved in a shooting?

Let me say, though, that as underwhelming as I find this study, you are 100% right not to have anything to do with a firearm if they make you uncomfortable.  This is smart.

What the study tells us is that if Joe Citizen pulled out a gun — instead of reaching for the sky — he'd be 450% more likely to be shot. And to be honest, that makes a lot of sense, because the mugger suddenly has more incentive to defend himself from being shot.

I think you're confused about what the study was saying.  The study said that people who victims of shooting assaults are more likely to themselves be carrying than members of the general population.  It did not try to prove that once an assault is underway it is any more or less likely to escalate into you getting shot.

This extremely high fire-arm death rate is directly caused by the second amendment. In terms of safety, I'd much rather live in a country without guns.

Nonsense.  Switzerland has 1 gun for every 2 citizens and an extremely low rate of gun violence.

Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws yet hellish levels of gun violence.

[TripleB]

People have the rights to be arms and also have the rights to basic health care. 

Two separate issues. One is a constitutional right, the other is not. One is an innate right (the right to protect oneself), the other is an entitled right (healthcare given by the government).

Technically, the government cannot grant me the right to bear arms. By default, with no government, I can bear whatever I want. The only thing an government can do with respect to firearm possession is oppress my rights.

The thing about right to bear arms versus "right" to healthcare, is the states that provide the most generous Medicaid benefits are also the states with the most restrictive gun laws. And the states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest Medicaid benefits.

That doesn't surprise me in the least since as defined above, all a government can do is restrict my rights to firearms. Thus the bigger/stronger the government to provide free healthcare, the more that big government restricts my right to firearms.

[TripleB]

Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws yet hellish levels of gun violence.

I love the Mexico gun violence topic  ;D

The democrats say that Mexico's gun violence is due to not having restrictive enough gun laws in the US and so US guns can easily travel across the border to Mexico, and in spite of Mexico's restrictive gun laws, get used for crime.

Of course, because the Drug Cartel with billions of dollars in cash, wouldn't be able to get guns if they couldn't buy them at retail price in the US and drive them over the border.

The republicans say that because there's so much gun violence in Mexico, we need to spend more money on military and border patrol to protect us from it.

Note that both the republicans and the democrats have a solution to the problem that involves bigger and more powerful government.

The libertarians, such as myself, would argue that the solution is less government. If the US government legalized drugs, then the Mexican Cartel wouldn't be able to make billions of dollars from black market drug trade, and there would be no money to fuel violence, and no motivation to do so.

[Lone Wolf]

The libertarians, such as myself, would argue that the solution is less government. If the US government legalized drugs, then the Mexican Cartel wouldn't be able to make billions of dollars from black market drug trade, and there would be no money to fuel violence, and no motivation to do so.

Bingo.

Personally, I think drug use is a horrible idea but a) I have no interest in making this decision for others and b) have no wish to turn the streets of Mexico and the United States into battlegrounds.

Another thing that would help is if the Administration would stop selling guns directly to cartel members via debacles like Operation Fast and Furious.

[Tortoise]

This extremely high fire-arm death rate is directly caused by the second amendment. In terms of safety, I'd much rather live in a country without guns.

Nonsense.  Switzerland has 1 gun for every 2 citizens and an extremely low rate of gun violence.

Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws yet hellish levels of gun violence.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Gun laws--or lack thereof--have very little to do with the safety of a community. Compton and Beverly Hills are both cities in California and therefore have identical gun laws, but the difference in violent crime rates between the two cities is night and day.

[Gumby]

I'm surprised that you are impressed by this study.

The study has many flaws. It's certainly not perfect. I'm still not convinced that gun ownership makes the average person safer. I'm sure even a study that tries to prove that guns make you safer would have flaws as well. I think the study made sense to me because I would feel less safe with a gun in my hand.

I think you're confused about what the study was saying.  The study said that people who victims of shooting assaults are more likely to themselves be carrying than members of the general population.  It did not try to prove that once an assault is underway it is any more or less likely to escalate into you getting shot.

Yes, you are correct. My mistake.

This extremely high fire-arm death rate is directly caused by the second amendment. In terms of safety, I'd much rather live in a country without guns.

Nonsense.  Switzerland has 1 gun for every 2 citizens and an extremely low rate of gun violence.

I wouldn't say that Switzerland has an "extremely" low rate of gun violence. Switzerland has 6.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Germany has 1.57 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Ireland has 1.21 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Japan has 0.07 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. [Source]

Switzerland's rate of gun-related deaths actually seems quite high compared to those other countries. Also, members of the Swiss Army are required to keep their firearms at home — this raises the numbers of private gun ownership. Despite all this, the US still has twice as many guns per capita than Switzerland.

The number of US gun-related deaths per 100,000 people is 15.22. Something is really messed up about that number. Either we live in a dangerous hell hole, or we are really bad at using guns...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKeJA9a7H3Q

Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws yet hellish levels of gun violence.

Something tells me Mexico doesn't do a very good job of enforcing those laws. When I think of Mexico, capable law enforcement doesn't exactly come to mind.

I think gun ownership is perfectly fine in rural areas, where law enforcement may not be as prevalent or reliable. In a major city, like New York, there are heavily armed and expertly trained police officers everywhere. Most average New Yorkers don't need, or want, to carry guns around with them.

[align=center][/align]

And NYC residents tend to vote for tighter gun restrictions. Irrational or not, tighter gun control makes them feel safer.

It's also worth pointing out that NYC also has the lowest crime rate of any major US city and has an extremely low per-capita crime rate:

Of the U.S.'s 10 largest cities, New York ranked last with 2,680 crimes committed per 100,000 residents. Dallas is the most dangerous, with 8,496 crimes per 100,000 residents. New York City had approximately 8.1 million residents as of 2003, according to figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, while Dallas had about 1.21 million.
Source: Bloomberg: NYC Is Safest City as Crime Rises in U.S., FBI Says

So, personally, I guess I'd rather live in a safer area without a gun, than a dangerous area with a gun.

[stone]

The ultimate gun culture place must be North West Pakistan. I went there on holiday in the early 1990's. They carry around AK47s (I know nothing about guns but that was sort of what they looked like) as though they were wrist watches. People there are happy to pick up hitch hikers who are carrying AK47s!

I have a vague notion that weapons are behind the whole need for and entrenchment of government. Before we had metal, we had no effective weapons and so there was no government. Whenever metal working technology came to a part of the world, small community governance got swept up into large nation states. Nowadays when you have a lack of government (such as in North West Pakistan, Somalia etc) you get war-lord style constant fighting.