This is the type of idealistic thinking that ends up destroying society. Crime and poverty are correlated, not causated. You can never totally eliminate crime without necessarily excluding certain demographics of people.
People have an overly simplistic view, which basically amounts to “I don’t understand why people commit crime, because I would never commit crime. Therefore, there must be some external factor driving people to commit crime! I’ll just eliminate this factor (in this case, poverty), and crime will disappear!”
Obviously this is not the case. There are many factors that are relevant to inducing crime, not least of which is personal choice and a lack of accountability. Culture (arguably the biggest), mental health, IQ, worldview, weak penalties/enforcement, and many others all contribute to crime.
The most immediate and effective way to deal with crime is to have clear policies, steep penalties, and strict enforcement. There are many ways to help treat the underlying issues, which can and should be pursued, without compromising on the laws and their enforcement.
Here's a fast set of things that will reduce crimes of desperation by a large degree: Create a system where people aren't one missed paycheck from being homeless and hungry. Allow people to have easy, guaranteed access to healthcare, so that the stress of being ill isn't compounded by having to fight to actually receive treatment, and face bankruptcy if a profit-taking entity decides they "don't need it".
Yes, because they live in poorer societies. A person's ability to improve their life through crime is only relevant in societies with large wealth inequalities.
There ARE still prescriptions for getting ahead: do well in school and become an MD is a sure fire way of pulling down $250K a year. The poorer one is, the less it costs to become an MD, ya just have to study one's ass off for a decade.
Crime is just an immediate method of getting ahead right now. And street crime has a very poor long term payback status. Paper crime has a much better payoff, but again has a longer investment time....which few wish to do.
It is better to look at as a democratic but winner take all "tournament" in richer countries.
The barriers to competing for an equal chance at wealth is very close to zero and very democratic.
Example:
anybody can post to YouTube*, be a sensation, and be a multi-millionaire somewhat overnight. The odds are low, but they are as EQUAL as life can possibly get.
anybody can upload their music to Spotify* and become a millionaire overnight.
anybody can go run in the park and try and beat Usain's record and also become a millionaire overnight.
Or play video game competitions (mostly free) and become fairly rich and fameuos.
There are teenagers that have become millionaires never leaving their bedroom. There are so many ways to get rich nowadays, Everybody can compete, but there are few winners...
This was never possible when I was a kid, I had to go work at McDonalds just to eat on a daily basis. The odds of getting rich in ones bedroom prior to the 2000's was plain zero.
A lot of things "lessen crime" it may not be cost effective at all.
We could blanket an area with police or with a harsh curfew and that too would "lessen crime". Probably not worth that either.
We could put put everybody under surveillance (better version of Flock Cameras where any criminal is likely to be immediately caught) and that TOO would "lessen crime", heck that might even crush crime to miniscule levels. FYI, there isn't a lot of crime in North Korea or Saudi Arabia as well.
Looking locally is "relative poverty" and that cannot be solved in a democratic country.
So in democratic countries povery can only get worse, not better? What you mean is in countries in which wealth redistribution (which is an entirely democratic measure) is not possible. It's 2026 your anti-scientific free-market radicalism is out dated and impressing no one.
I am a problem solver. A problem CANNOT be solved unless it is well defined.
Currently whatever definition of "poverty" you are using is "I'll know it when I see it", which is nice but won't solve the problem.
To solve poverty it needs to be solved in *absolute* terms. Which nobody seems to want to do... (including you).
We do need public housing that provides a certain amount of space, at a certain temperature, provide a certain amount of calories, entertainment, and education (online).
Which sounds like the management of a prison dystopia, but I can't see any other *definable* solution.
Realistically, I’m talking mostly about IQ, but there’s many categories of demographics that correlate strongly with crime - specifically the bottom ~20%
> “I don’t understand why people commit crime, because I would never commit crime. Therefore, there must be some external factor driving people to commit crime! I’ll just eliminate this factor (in this case, poverty), and crime will disappear!”
This is super simplified, because you also need to have a unified society in it's values. If you have equality but one culture thinks he should be allowed to rape your girlfriend, you'll never have a stable crime free society.
You’re missing the point. You can’t just eliminate poverty, especially with programs paid for by tax dollars. We’ve been “at war” with poverty for decades, and it’s done virtually nothing.
“Free” healthcare and housing are actually some of the most expensive ways to provide these services to people, because the gov sucks at doing it. Just look at what it did to the price of college, ever since student loans became guaranteed.
The best way to get these results is to get the gov out of it entirely, and remove all the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense that stifles these projects from getting off the ground. There’s plenty of builders and entrepreneurs who would make these services affordable and accessible, but are stymied by a myriad of rules and regulations
We’ve been “at war” with poverty for decades, and it’s done virtually nothing.
Yes, because nothing about the "war on poverty" is in line with what anything about this post. Either you are grossly misinformed or being very disingenuous.
The best way to get these results is to get the gov out of it entirely, and remove all the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense that stifles these projects from getting off the ground.
This is some brain dead/libertarian woo. “Yeah all the greedy bastards will just stop being greedy once the only thing holding them back stops holding them back! Free market!”
Also, I love paying for health “insurance” that can just decide to not cover stuff willy-nilly. So much better than pay less through the government for the same care! Gotta make those insurance companies even richer, right?!
What you’re describing is the direct result of over-regulation. The reason the US’ medical system is so screwy is because of the giant monopolies that have formed and a lack of transparency.
When the gov stops stifling competition, insurance companies won’t be able to get away with all their bs, because they’ll actually have to compete for customers.
Regulation is a good (and necessary) thing, when implemented correctly. It should be used to solve specific problems, uphold safety standards, and above all, promote healthy competition. The current system accomplishes none of these, and only serves to make unnecessary barriers to entry- which is how you get unmitigated disasters
The problem with modern libertarians is they’ll look at what you’ve outlined and go “Well, guess we can just remove all the red tape and it’ll work out!” Nope. The rich will just monopolize it overnight and push out any competition, because that’s what always happens.
Like just think for a second how a less-regulated hospital would operate. Less safety? Lower quality? Data leaks? I’m not saying what we have is even close to ideal or even functional, but modern “competition in the Free Market” would just be a battle to see who can slash quality and kill the least amount of people before rebranding, because that’s what we’ve always seen in the past.
The sheer cost of starting up in most industries is a huge barrier that hinders competition and getting rid of regulations would only result in worse products/services.
Lol, 4 of the things you pointed out - "Culture (arguably the biggest), mental health, IQ, worldview" are all impacted by socioeconomic status, therefore impacted by poverty.
You're simply arguing these things are personal choice, which has a degree of truth - but completely ignoring external factors, which is inherently dishonest. It's quite clearly a combination of both, as personal choices are limited to the opportunity present in your community. Less choice, worse options - more crime. You improve the options available to people, crime becomes a lot less appealing.
This isn't even heavily contested in academic circles.
Ok so aside from everyone else dunking on you I’ll say this. Your IQ is a bigger factor in crime than poverty claim is flawed in more ways than one. For example lead poisoning is more common in places where people have less ability to have it removed from their homes. Lead poisoning is linked to lower IQ and an increase in specifically violent crime. Both have gotten better with government programs, albeit clearly not as comprehensive as they should be, that remove lead from homes. So presto one of your claims is now one in favor of poverty causing crime.
Culture is another that can be explained by poverty. Poverty is more often than not generational, that comes with a certain culture that would necessarily be changed by changing economic status.
Just say you’re racist dude it makes it easier to discount your nonsense
This is racist AF. How can you say that certain cultures commit more crime especially since I know damn well you aren’t considering “white” ppl a culture. 🙄🙄🙄
What is typically referred to as crime is literally called poverty related crime by criminologists. The correlations are so strong that poverty is considered causation. It is by far the main cause.
"Tough on crime" practices are an abject failure. We've been there, done that. It only makes things worse. The US locks more people in cages than the next four highest incarcerators combined- China, Brazil, India, and Turkey- who make up half the world's population compared to 4% in the US. Anyone pushing law and order rhetoric is truly lost.
If you actually want to address poverty related crime, then addressing poverty is the answer. If you actually want to address crime, then you should be focused on corporate and white collar crime, which results in a much greater cost to society and creates the poverty conditions that cause poverty related crime.
But didn't you hear about El Salvador? All we have to do is eliminate human rights, build death camps, and then trust the numbers produced by fascist cunts!
•
u/GuitarsAndFitness 3d ago
This is the type of idealistic thinking that ends up destroying society. Crime and poverty are correlated, not causated. You can never totally eliminate crime without necessarily excluding certain demographics of people.
People have an overly simplistic view, which basically amounts to “I don’t understand why people commit crime, because I would never commit crime. Therefore, there must be some external factor driving people to commit crime! I’ll just eliminate this factor (in this case, poverty), and crime will disappear!”
Obviously this is not the case. There are many factors that are relevant to inducing crime, not least of which is personal choice and a lack of accountability. Culture (arguably the biggest), mental health, IQ, worldview, weak penalties/enforcement, and many others all contribute to crime.
The most immediate and effective way to deal with crime is to have clear policies, steep penalties, and strict enforcement. There are many ways to help treat the underlying issues, which can and should be pursued, without compromising on the laws and their enforcement.