Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackinthebochs | Hacker News Reader

>I'm not going to turn to robbery if I lose my job.

I honestly don't buy this, but even if you would personally starve to death rather than steal to obtain food, the vast majority of people would not. Crime rates increase as legitimate ways to make money dry up; the statistical trend is real and the implications for human nature cannot be ignored. Wishful thinking about human nature and just teaching people not to be bad will get you nowhere.

It is a politicians job to see things at an aggregate level and address public health issues at that level. Discussing the lack of jobs and legitimate avenues for making money is exactly the appropriate response that a politician should have. If people need a moral kick-in-the-pants, perhaps their pastor should provide it.

View on HN

I honestly don't buy this, but even if you would personally starve to death rather than steal to obtain food, the vast majority of people would not.

Nobody in Oakland, or the U.S. generally, needs to steal to obtain food. This is not Dickensian England. Government social programs and private charities may not be perfect, but they are more than enough to be sure anyone capable exercising a minimum amount of effort and self-control will not be in danger of starving to death. Obviously there are continuing problems with the mentally ill, but those are not particularly relevant unless you think they're disproportionally committing crimes.

Of course, my point was that he is not different from those in Oakland perpetrating these crimes in kind, but only a matter of degrees; there is a point where he too would commit unethical acts if he became desperate enough.

And that is the ultimate point here, we are all capable of committing crimes if we became desperate enough. This is a property of humanity, not just of a group of morally depraved oaklanders. Thus it makes sense to address the issue in a systemic fashion, i.e. jobs and opportunity.

And that is the ultimate point here, we are all capable of committing crimes if we became desperate enough.

We are? I can imagine committing a violent crime if I were not in control of my faculties, or if I were being blackmailed in some horrible (and manifestly illegal) way. But there are many, many poor people who do not commit crime when sound of mind and body, and it's rather disrespectful to the important notions of free will and human dignity to assume that they just haven't been ground down to their limit yet.

Well I'm not a big believer of the layman's usage of "free will" to begin with (in fact I believe it to be self-contradictory), so I'm sure we could have a long discussion on the subject.

But from a different perspective, I always find it laughable when people like to claim that they or us in modern times are (or should be) so far above certain types of behavior, violent or otherwise. Human history is a trail of tragedy perpetrated by regular people no different from you and me. To think that you are somehow different than all those that came before is pure egoism.

Human history is a trail of tragedy perpetrated by regular people no different from you and me. To think that you are somehow different than all those that came before is pure egoism.

This is sophistry. Of course some people are different from others. Only a tiny minority of people living in the U.S. will commit violent crimes over the course of their lives, despite a much larger minority living in poverty or facing other hardships. Those who commit violent crimes are different by choice. If you don't think those of sound mind are responsible for their own actions, it's hard to see how you can think of democratic society as anything but a doomed experiment.

>Only a tiny minority of people living in the U.S. will commit violent crimes over the course of their lives

And this is a result of the society we live in (welfare state, etc), not a fundamental property of us as a people. Take all those things away and you will see a very large increase in violent crime. My point is that the difference between those who commit crimes now and those that don't is simply a matter of degrees. Nothing you've said contradicts that.

Of course people are responsible for their own actions; what people are not are analytical machines that consider all possible scenarios independent of emotions and drives. It is the drives and emotions that strongly bias our internal scoring system for various decisions. So in this sense we are prone to acting irrational when it is in our best interest (from the perspective of our primitive brain). Society is constructed to allow us to provide for our basic needs so that we can suppress our basic instincts and make the best rational decisions collectively. Democracy does not crumble in the face of partially irrational actors.

If you don't think those of sound mind are responsible for their own actions,

Pretty big assumption here, don't you think? Poverty can drive a person crazy, and when national economic policies proscribe mandatory unemployment so that oligarchs will stop crying about wage prices, bad things can be seen as being designed into the system. There are no rational actors, just self-interested ones.

Crime shouldn't be justified due to poverty.

And explanation for X is not a justification of X, it is simply pointing out a cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com