Steven Levitt at Freakonomics began a discussion on the possibilities that nutrition has implications on crime rates. An interesting read but rightly being presented with kit gloves as the implications just seem overwhelmingly counterintuitive.
On a seperate but related issue Doug MacKenzie at Mises.org takes qualm against Landburg’s proposal to tax security devices which skirt the effects of crime onto third parties rather than promote social value for everyone. I would tend to agree with MacKenzie’s reluctance against Landsburg’s tax proposal, but not necessarily his particular logical arguments. In my mind Landsburg is more unfounded and unecessary than anything. The process that he deems as the spread of externalities is in fact an tendency of the market to lead to more abundant provision of security, a good commonly asserted to suffer from public good sub-optimal provision.