I was watching a documentary which was showing the lengths at which Romanian gypsies try to claim benefits from the UK welfare system, and how they send money back to their families which still reside in Romania, even though only say, one of them is active in the UK, the programme was skewed in a way to show indignation at the people scamming the system, however, coming from another angle, it got me thinking, why would I want to prevent immigrants on a whole, claiming benefits/free healthcare in the UK, wouldn’t this push up crime, as they are more desperate to survive?
Which lead me to think about a much bigger question, is the Welfare state not so much about helping people as it is ‘bribing’ them to not commit crime because they have all their basic needs met to a certain extent? (If we think Maslows hierarchy of needs, shelter and food are basic necessities) Or is it something else?
Crime was a major part of the economy in 17th - 19th century Britain — particularly in London, to which people drifted if unable to make any living at home *. One only has to look at the descriptions of various criminalities, then multiply them by the extensive penalties the bourgeoisie provided.
Economic structures can only support a number of livable jobs ( and it’s not like people can go without food or shelter for a month or so when trade is down ) so for most the alternative is some petty crime to continue existence: survival is the primary instinct. Welfare is a smaller price to pay than crime.
Of course it doesn’t eliminate the major crimes of banking or contractors…
Not just London, naturally: there were a lot of bandit gangs from South Europe to China in the last 1000 years ( not many of which were political ) who couldn’t make a pleasant living on the land; and seeing some photos of Old New York in the 1970s, I was surprised at much of the poverty and shabbiness in one of the richest eras of the richest country on earth. Not early 20th century tenements poverty, but still misery inducing. Crime is way down in New York, and while there are many reasons, the lack of deep poverty seems one. DIRTY, DANGEROUS & DESTITUTE | NEW YORK IN THE 70s – ALLAN TANNENBAUM
I think it is a given that welfare reduces crimes committed out of desperation. But even if that weren’t the case, it is hard to ignore the evidence showing that providing poor children with food improves their chances of being productive, non-criminal adults.
In another thread I advanced the theory that the prime purpose of welfare is to eliminate pauper labor; to set a salary floor below which people would rather be on welfare than work.
IMO welfare lessens crime in the short run, as people who would otherwise need to turn to crime can get by with welfare instead. In the long run it probably increases it, as it encourages the devellopment of the “permanent underclass” who are deincentivized to move out of that class by the enormous effective marginal “tax” rates - this class as a whole has a relatively high crime rate.
Welfare isn’t going to do a thing to reduce crime by drug addicts, since the price of drugs is far beyond what welfare pays. Not to mention various crimes of violence committed while high.
This is a false dichotomy. The goal of reducing welfare is not to increase crime, but rather to force impoverished criminals to get jobs (or just get out of the country, as in the case of gypsies).
The purpose of the welfare state is bribery, but not in terms of crime. Rather, it’s largely the Left bribing poor people to vote liberal politicians into power using other people’s money as an incentive. It’s not sustainable in the long run to bribe people not to commit crime, because the poor breed like rats and will eventually just resort to increasing extreme hostage taking. The only sustainable long term solution is to brutally force poor people to get jobs or physically remove them from your lands and let them ruin someone else’s country.
ALL government is basically a set of incentives (which you charmingly call bribes) to behave in a way that is conducive to having a society.
There is nothing natural about, say, property rights. In nature creatures can control an area, but only so long as they can immediately defend it. We’ve, however, set a system of property laws that allow me to go on a two week vacation and expect to find my house waiting for me. I go along with it because it’s nice to not have to fight over a place to sleep every night.
Welfare does a number of things. Most U.S. welfare is focused on children, and trying to make it so children of poor parents have some protection against stunting, exploitation, and other common problems that globally and historically keep the children of the poor for reaching their full potential.
And… farmers have long been given grants to facilitate efficient farming; higher education is generally reliant on state support — the higher education for a majority as since the 1960s whereas before it was for a small, richer, minority; opera is subsidized to preserve high culture; electricity is cheaper per unit for large commercial users; parks and nature are protected by government money; and the list goes on and on: all these things are ‘welfare’ and involve the compulsory transference of monies and services to support whichever group is needy and unsafe.
And by cutting down on need unmet by the open market, civilization is kept going and crime reduced.
Given the fact that Welfare is responsible in large part for the dissolution of the black family, and the greater likelihood of criminality coming from kids raised in single-family households, I’d say it increases crime, dramatically.
Well, it seems so obvious: black families ( and no doubt white ) were given the opportunity to live high off the state instead of diligently working, paying their own way from honest labour, therefore the men scarpered in the knowledge that their ex-wives and children would live in the lap of luxury without them.
Plus something something about self-respect.