A logical problem that is:
But the liberals will not resile from this stance, even though it involves, as usual, a philosophical paradox, a contradiction. They will argue, simultaneously, that the poor are not more inclined to criminality than the rich and that the poor are driven to crime as a consequence of the predations of the rich.
It’s not illogical to say that people are not inclined to crime but are driven to it. It makes sense – I am not a thief but I would steal food if I were starving.
I don’t agree that people are starving or thus driven yet, I’m just disputing the suggestion of illogicality.
I agree with Interested, there appears to be no illogicality in the statement. The rich and poor could quite possibly be equal in propensity to crime when they have their basic needs met, but if the rich then push the poor into poverty and inability to feed/clothe/house themselves then yes that would push them towards crime.
I’m old enough to remember when the danger was supposedly overzealous fascist cops dispensing street justice Judge Dredd style. Not The Filth being turned into effete social workers who slyly ignore theft, burglary and paedophile rape gangs when the perpetrators are stunningly diverse, but turn into cyborg-Javert if you do something serious such as misgender a tranny on social media:
When asked how policing could avoid being seen as the arm of an uncaring state, he said forces across England and Wales were skilled in dealing with the tensions and dynamics of their communities.
insha’Allah, innit?
Interested – in California they’ve effectively made it legal for blacks to rob stores, as long as they steal less than $950. The result is:
Google “Shoplifting in San Francisco” and you will find more than 100,000 hits. And you will find lots of YouTube videos, where you can watch a single thief, or an entire gang, walk into an SF Walgreens or CVS and empty the shelves. Most walk in, go about their pilfering, and then walk out, though at least one thief rode their bike into the store and departed the same way, carefully navigating their two-wheeler down a narrow aisle.
We probably shouldn’t call it shoplifting anymore, since that term connotes the idea of a person trying to conceal their crime. In San Francisco, there is no attempt to conceal theft, and there is almost never any effort by store employees, including security personnel, to confront the thieves. The most they do is record the thefts with their cell phones.
I say blacks because, well, it’s the blacks. If you do Google “shoplifting in San Francisco”, which is a stunningly diverse city, you won’t find whites, Hispanics, South Asians or Orientals blatantly looting shops in broad daylight, unless they’re cunningly disguised in black makeup and an Afro wig (which probably *would* get you arrested, for a hate crime).
The reason for this brilliant approach to crime and non-punishment is social justice, naturally. Plod is already suffering from social justice palsy – the chief inspector of constabulary is indicating he hopes to make the disease terminal. Perhaps their new uniforms will come with built-in kneepads for when they encounter black criminals, and a flashing rainbow LED light for when they’re mincing at Pride.
None of the LA thieves look scrawny or malnourished, mind – they’re big, handy bastards. But no doubt poverty and racism have forced them to steal painkillers and designer brand trainers.
No paradox there, philosophical or otherwise. It’s perfectly feasible that the poor commit no more crimes than the rich (they commit different types of crimes because their circumstances are different) and that the crimes they commit are caused by structural poverty and the need to survive, rather than a desire to give themselves a higher level of comfort or status. Once you remove personal autonomy and responsibility, “the system” can be claimed to generate different crimes at different levels of society.
What Liddle might be referring to here is the Liberal and Marxist claim that no groups are inherently or innately more likely to commit crimes.
Surely culture has a role here? I can easily imagine two groups suffing similar hardship, one thinking it ok to take up banditry, the other not.
The illogicality is, ‘are not inclined to crime’ but then under certain circumstances they are.
I’d agree with you about culture RlJ. But I’d also argue that in the long term, a culture that can hold together and avoid being shattered by banditry can smash one that can’t.
Thus there’s a tendency for the culture to select for those who conform to its norms. But of course the ratbags then seize power and say this decency should apply to those who wish to plunder you.
So instead of highly disciplined armies marching on the plunderers and killing every man, woman and child of them, they treat them nicely. And are thus robbed and enslaved.
@John B
“The illogicality is, ‘are not inclined to crime’ but then under certain circumstances they are.”
Under certain circumstances we all are. It’s just a question of what circumstances, and who.
It’s a fatuous argument on its face from all sides, anyway – there’s no homogeneous group ‘the poor’ for them to be inclined to do anything.
Plenty of poor people are extremely generous with their widow’s mite, and entirely disinclined to steal from anyone; on the other hand, there are plenty of rich people who steal quite happily but I don’t think we can make sweeping statements about ‘the rich’ either.
If I were starving, I wouldn’t steal. I’d just go shopping.
@Steve: ’When asked how policing could avoid being seen as the arm of an uncaring state, he said forces across England and Wales were skilled in dealing with the tensions and dynamics of their communities.’
By running away, turning a blind eye and taking the knee?
Similar to Tim’s it makes more sense you’re poor because you’re unwell, rather than t’other way round, there’s also the truism that crime doesn’t pay. i.e. you can well be poor or much poorer because you commit crime. It seems certain morons have had a eureka moment and want to address that link by not enforcing the law and not prosecuting crime.
It’s possible to argue that people poor because they steal. High trust societies tend to be wealthier than low trust societies. If you’d ever had to operate in a low trust society you’d know that. It takes much greater effort to achieve the same results. Lower productivity.
Are the pour driven to crime by the predations of the rich?
Sounds a tad specific.
But good to know there’s just the one cause, eh?
There are tons of poor people who don’t steal. That whole “poverty causes crime” argument is pretty weak. Tim has mentioned at one time or another the difference between abject poverty and relative poverty. The latter is where most Western media likely gets the idea of the “poverty to prison pipeline.” So it’s not due to actual starvation and desperation, but usually a mindset of entitlement and envy. Basically, “It’s not fair that other people have more shit than me, so I’m going to take some of their shit for myself.”
That’s why most of these tend to occur in inner cities with stark differences between the upper and lower socioeconomic classes, even though the lower classes have TVs, microwaves, refrigerators and much of the same modern conveniences as their counterparts. In areas that have a strong middle class, the crime rate is likely to be lower. Jordan Peterson has talked compared this to the Kulaks in tsarist Russia, in which the struggling poor were encouraged by the government to resent anyone with so much as a cow and an acre of land.
That’s also why criminality in the West tends to involve things like drugs, jewelry, TVs and Air Jordans, rather than bread and milk as AOC often claims.
Poverty doesn’t make people steal, however stupidity, laziness and fecklessness does. Stupidity, laziness and fecklessness also leads to poverty.
oadjfoadjf
May 22, 2022 at 6:57 pm
+1000%
@ MC
Nail, head!