Comment by pdkl95 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdkl95 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Mark Blyth (prof. of political economy at Brown) has advice for anyone with this attitude: "The Hamptons is not a defensible position"[1]. What are you going to do when a large fraction of the population starts getting hungry and they decide taking what they need from you (and everyone else with wealth/resources)? Do you really think that the police will simply arrest them? What about when someone starts shooting and the protests turn into a mob burning down the city and the streets becoming a war zone?

Contrary to what other comments have suggested, welfare isn't about being a nice civilized society that doesn't leave people behind. Welfare is a bribe. It's a tribute ("danegeld"[2]) we pay to the poor so they don't burn down the city or murder anyone between them and food/shelter. Arresting that class of people would be more expensive as it still pays for their food and shelter.

Do you really want to give up the cheapest and safest option for defending yourself against the bottom ~quarter of the population? Recent events at Ferguson and Baltimor are warning. Ignoring them is not recommended if you value maintaining your current standard of living.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl4B3mrKQE

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld

[3] Exact amount and the scope of what is mean by "national defense" is off topic.

It's both, actually. At the base level it is about protection, but at a higher level, if you've ever been in a society with a welfare state, things are so much nicer. People are calmer, more relaxed and even more polite (they might be colder or more distant due to cultural characteristics, though).

For me, personally, a random town in Germany is more pleasant from the social aspect than San Francisco with all its riches and its hobos.

That speaks more to police being incompetent, understaffed and/or underfunded (and to civilian concealed-weapons-permit-holders being too few and too-far-between) than to anything else.

(n.b. incarcerating a criminal costs tens of thousands of dollars per year; whereas the summary execution of a deadly threat during a riot, costs at most $10 of ammunition per criminal)

Ah yes, a competent police force is a death squad for the poor.

If you're going to advocate for murdering the poor why not go whole hog and just herd them into camps for eradication? That would presumably be a lot more efficient since you're centralizing everything

Not doable whatsoever, as that would actually constitute mass murder rather than self-defense of each officer. Lawful and moral use of deadly force against any individual requires that that specific person first present deadly force themselves.

So, to be clear, my overall point here is that bribing people from threatening deadly violence, is not as good as directly responding to such threats when and as they are made.

Come to think of it, I'm not even quite sure why you made the leap that "allow riots to occur then respond to them appropriately" means "murder all the poor people".

Interesting response, thanks. To parent's comment:

If >it's not OK to force everyone else to provide for them.

Along the same lines of thinking:

it's not OK to force everyone else to defend your assets/property/lifestyle

Or at least it's unlikely you will succeed in that effort

> it's not OK to force everyone else to defend your assets/property/lifestyle

No need for such a thing; that is the job we expect of the police in exchange for paying our taxes, is it not?

It is, this was a poorly thought out comment on my part, and after re reading it, it's a bad/illogical argument.

In the long term isn't it economically better to get people out of this welfare culture so they can provide for themselves? Gangs aren't formed to feed starving people, they form because the culture is broken. In the long term, placating gangs with welfare money will backfire. Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown in the first place by destroying economic and social structure.

> Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown in the first place by destroying economic and social structure.

A cursory examination of the level of violent crime (particularly against property holders) in states where there is little or no welfare state compared with those in which there is a pretty comprehensive welfare state would suggest this isn't a very good argument...

Can you link to this information? Americans came from extremely hard conditions, much harder than anyone today experiences and there was not the level of violence and crime we see today. Perhaps you can pay off the violent criminals in the short term but in the long term the criminals will cause social breakdown. People always want more, and if violence and the threat of violence is how they get more that is what they will continue to do.

What "culture"? What "gangs"? I'm talking about the mobs that form when enough people lose basic necessities like food and shelter. When enough people have to choose between starving to death or joining the mob that's taking food by any means necessary, most choose the latter. Given the options, that's a rational choice. Nobody wants to be part of a mob starting a food riot, but that's what human s do when you they are out of options.

> they form because the culture is broken

Have you ever actually met many poor people? "Culture" isn't the problem, and they are some of the hardest working people in the country. They are also some of the nicest people I've ever met and by far the most generous.

If you want to actually fix the problem so welfare isn't necessary, fix the things that are currently denying them the opportunity to improving their situation such as the prison-industrial complex, racist crap like "redlining", various predatory business practices, and regressive taxes. Find ways to increase labor's power such as unions or guilds, with the goal of increasing both available jobs and job stability.

> Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown

That is pure nonsense. Seriously, try actually living[1] below the poverty line for a while, or talk to people that have had to live through a lifetime of denied opportunities.

[1] Due to an unfortunate medical situation, I currently live on less than $1500/month.

The people rioting in Baltimore are gangs, not starving, hard working poor people you talk about. The hard working poor people are having their shops vandalized by the rioting gangs.

>In the long term isn't it economically better to get people out of this welfare culture so they can provide for themselves? Gangs aren't formed to feed starving people, they form because the culture is broken.

Then it's the culture that needs fixing, not the welfare.

>Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown in the first place by destroying economic and social structure.

Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, et al. have excellent welfare, but no "gangs" of that style. So it's not the welfare that causes that phenomena.

In contrast, most developing world hellholes have little to no welfare, and huge gangs, violence and destroyed economic structures issues.

In fact the "have the community provide for itself" is how you get support structures like the mafia, the cartels, etc, substituting a state that doesn't help its people.

Welfare encourages a culture of dependency. Before welfare the social structure formed by religious and civic groups took care of charity and required more accountability and a change in mindset to go along with material aid.

Do you think these people don't have extensive private security? The elite could easily take on a whole city of rioters with the resources at their disposal. When the gloves come off and it starts being about survival it won't be bodyguards pushing people out of the way, it will be mercenaries with helicopters and full-auto weapons. The middle class that can't afford such protection will of course be the losers, as usual, and will be scapegoated after all the Richie Rich types have escaped to their private islands/bunkers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com