Pennies in your pocket is still preferable over dollars in someone else's when your kids haven't eaten in a week, which is the reality in a lot of these situations.
In Detroit thieves stripped all the wire and plumbing from abandoned houses, even furnaces were carted off. When the supply of houses ran thin they started stripping factories.
When the freeways of Detroit flooded they found the pumping stations that were supposed to get rid of the excess water had been stripped.
Several years ago someone stole copper from outside a local food bank; the impact was tens of thousands of dollars of spoiled food when they broke the refrigeration.
There have been studies that show a causal relationship between poverty and crime such as petty theft and robbery.
It seems intuitive to me. Sure, some people will always just be opportunists and steal because they can, but I can see how there could be a much larger subset of people to whom stealing would become an option when the other option is skipping meals or being homeless.
I mean to add to your comment, the biggest thievery happens at the very top. A lot of countries' populations would be a lot more well-off if it wasn't for the massive tax evasion schemes employed by companies. Hundreds of billions of tax income - which can be spent on socialist policies like health care, housing, benefits, etc - is carted off to tax havens and just sits there. Bernie Madoff scammed people for nearly $65 billion. The US government pumped trillions into the military, which in the end did not have much return on investment. They spent all that money while their own country's people work three underpaid jobs and go bankrupt over student debt and medical bills.
I mean I wouldn't even mind so much if the rich just kept buying ridiculous fancy cars, because at least that way the money moves around.
> The US government pumped trillions into the military, which in the end did not have much return on investment
Arguably it is one of the more successful socialist policies - certain parts of US would be economically devastated if not for the military related production.
Defense pork type projects aside military also provides trade school to a heck of a lot of the people in it. If you're not an infantry or security type MOS you are almost always leaving with training in a skill that you can roll into a better than entry level job in that field. The people who's specialized job training is almost exclusively combat related can roll that into a career in law enforcement but it is harder than (for example) a mechanic switching from tanks to combines. You could argue that the military is not an efficient way to equip these people with these skills and that's true but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people who enter as 18yos with only general labor type jobs on their resume leave as 20-somethings with a marketable skill.
You'll still need police, prisons, etc. But you could reduce their size as less people will require the attention of those state organs. People usually know that what they are doing is wrong, and would rather avoid doing it. Of course some are reckless, but that's what you still have police for.
Middle class people don't need to steal copper because other forms of theft are available to them.
I'm not saying "most drug addicts steal". I'm saying "a small number of addicts can create huge amounts of crime".
When we look at acquisitive crime we see an over-representation of people with addiction - to substances or gambling - who are stealing money to feed their addiction. For some people that's theft of copper, for others it's defrauding the company they work for.
This is a problem that many systems find hard to fix, especially with current drug laws.
Bread and circuses. AND circuses; you can't just give people houses, food and money, you need to keep them busy and / or entertained as well. I think instead of just giving people money, you should give them work and purpose in life instead.
The goal should be well-paid jobs at up to 40 hours / week, so that people can get job satisfaction, don't have to stress about money, and still have time left to have a balanced life.
This sounds a like an argument that social programs are extortion, which everyone should support. I don't think that's a good argument to make in favor of any government program.
No, it's an argument that social programs are smart, and prevent pain in the future. Long-term benefits are not extortion.
Is eating healthy and exercising extortion? Is investing in education to get a better job extortion? Is saving money to take advantage of compound interest extortion? No, it's all just long-term decision making.
Only if the people getting the pennies demanded them in exchange for not cutting internet cables. Countries in the early 20th Century that did not have social programs, Russia, Germany after WW1, found large masses of discontented and starving people were fertile ground for populist messages. If those people had been well fed history might have taken a different course.
>This sounds a like an argument that social programs are extortion
I think the point is that human behavior at scale is not really that different from natural disasters. Not protecting against poverty in your surroundings would be comparable to building in a flood zone. Fixing that problem is not extortion anymore than building dams is paying protection money to the sea - there's no poor people shouting "cover my basic needs or else", but we know enough about our own race to know the issues that emerge with poverty.
The solution is to get the country out of poverty. Using modern technology in the food industry, so that children can go to school instead of working the fields. And improving the child safety and health-care. The sad truths is that people get a lot of children because half will die. So by stopping over-population, you make it so that more people can survive.
To solve this problem we have to give up some of our wealth. We will however git it back once they are out of poverty as we will get increased demand for modern services.
