Charles: what an interesting post. I’ve always (well, since about 1955) worried about immigrants who are not prepared to accept the values of the receiving country. Lots of food for thought in your comments.

One tiny quibble: it’s just possible that SF’s climate is a bit more encouraging of homeless people than is Oslo’s. But you’re right, the larger issues are ones of culture and of incentives.

Of the two, I think the social/cultural issues are far greater, though the economic and business community are wont to look to incentives first.

Consider the recent Harvard study about how much stronger the trust and community bonds were within very non-diverse communities (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html
; bad news for those of us rooting for diverse communities. But not all that surprising.

Inhabitants of Norway are a pretty homogeneous lot; as a distinct culture, it goes back centuries. Look, by contrast, at Italy, a country whose cultural and linguistic history is even more fragmented and disconnected than its political history. As someone once suggested to me, the fact that the Catholic church is known for politics and intrigue may have something to do with the See being located in Rome. Suppose it had been in Berlin?

For an even stronger case, look at Iraq, a “culture” or “nation” or “country” that has never been unified except under extreme threat of force. Tax compliance without the threat of a gun, I would suspect, would be worse than Italy; which in turn would be worse than San Francisco; which in turn would be worse than Norway.

Tax compliance is a fascinating indicator of social trust. Ethnic homogeneity is certainly a big driver of social trust, but, as you point out, not the only one. The blogosphere has some interesting aspects of a trusting community, though I’d suggest only within very narrow boundaries.

As corporations evolve in a connected society, what we’re seeing is the triumph of values and culture over hierarchy and incentives. When times are stable and people are similar, management tools like command and control and pay for performance work tolerably well. But when things are in flux, having a shared set of values is far more flexible.

People who follow a set of values will not only adhere to them, but will see adherence to those values as a sign of good faith to members of their community. The refusal to pay taxes is, ultimately, an act of opting out, a vote of mistrust in the culture, whether it is cast by a conscientious objector to war, a fiddler in the UK, or a conniving corporation “domiciled” in tax havens.

Effective taxation ultimately depends on the granting of moral legitimacy to the taxing authority by those who submit to being taxed.

So you’re right in principle. But very slightly wrong in practice.

Now, if the NCC *would* like me to advise it on community, I’d be only too delighted.