Safest country in history

Besides the occasional detention of American tourists, there has been one South Korean tourist killed in North Korea.

I seriously doubt that North Korea is the safest country. People are taken and sent to prison camps for life. In the prison camps, they’re subjected to all kinds of horror. That’s not safety.

The clear winner here is the Russian Democratic Federative Republic. There are no records of any crimes or civil rights violations being committed in the entire history of the state, making it the safest country ever, both in absolute numbers and in relative terms.

(Of course, it probably bears mentioning that the state formally existed for all of six hours on January 18, 1918.)

But only unsafe people are sent to prison camps … and their parents … and their grandparents …

The big thing North Koreans are safe from is having their own thoughts … safety from oneself … safety from obesity … safety from electrocution … safety from FoxNews … safety from people who post their opinions on the internet … the list goes on …

How are you defining ‘safe’? In terms of just murder, or also thinks like rape, assault, etc.? Are you including domestic violence which in some cultures may not even be considered that serious a crime? And are you considering accidents?

Based on this, Japan and Indonesia look to be the safest major countries in terms of murder rates right now: French Polynesia and Iceland are up there in terms of minor countries. Murder rates can and do fluctuate quite a bit over time though: Mexico had much higher murder rate 5-10 years ago than today, parts of West Africa were very safe in the 1990s and are now much less so, and Poland was a relatively high murder society in the 1990s and is now very safe.

Agreed, I loathe a lot of modernity too, but lower crime rates really are an advantage we have. Not just over premodern New Guinea, but over more advanced premodern societies too. Medieval and early modern Europe for example had a lot more murder than today.

Western Europe and the Persian Gulf states look to be among the safest countries in the world (although the, uh, unusual economic set-up in the Gulf countries makes it difficult to compare to other countries), but Burkina Faso in west Africa is an unusual outlier with very low murder rate as well.

I live about 1.5k from Westminster and Parliament in a multi-cultural area and had no idea I wasn’t safe.

Crime is so low the greatest ‘concern’ I can think of is an online scam.

It may be a subjective term but I think we can agree that when the government commits more violence in order to prevent crimes than the crimes were causing, it’s a net gain in violence. If you execute one murderer to prevent two murders, you come out ahead. If you execute two murders to prevent one murder, you fall behind.

If you’re arguing that preventing a child from wandering unaccompanied across the country, is compromising that child’s safety, I don’t know if our definitions of safety align particularly closely. Certainly I would hope that my own (hypothetical) children would be subjected to such authoritarian cruelty.

I have no data, but I would strongly suspect that there is an inverse correlation between those countries where the state is likely to take such action and those countries where lone children are likely to be murdered.


Probably a good shout in the modern sense although, historically, the gene pool is predominately Scandinavian male and Celtic (Scottish) female - only one of which went willingly.

What a bunch of pussified, Scandinavian beta-males huh??!

Your first sentence says “…by the state or by any individual.” IOW, state interference *is *a safety violation.

The rest of your post goes the other way: state interference is *not *a safety violation.

My bottom line: there’s muddled thinking in there somewhere. What are you really trying to ask: Minimum total violent (or threat of violent) interference? Minimum state? Minimum individual? Some weighted mix of the two? Something totally different?

It’s commonly said that some of the Arab Mideast countries (not those rocked by sectarian violence) are extremely safe from street crime. And that it’s not due to an overwhelming totalitarian police presence, but due to pervasive high levels of observance of a religion containing lots of godly punishment for earthly misdeeds.

To what degree is that threat of believed-in godly violence one we should score?

I dunno about that. In Saudi Arabia they still behead people for alcoholism and adultery.

That would keep me in line too

Most Middle Eastern and North African countries don’t have the death penalty for either offence, and are fairly safe. I think there are deeper factors here than just the severity of punishment.