Exposing The Criminal Mind

Watch TV, read the papers, it's all the same - an apparent orgy of criminal behaviour. And I'm talking about real crime here, crimes against people and their property - not driving too fast, smoking dope, paying for sex, or not paying your taxes.

The conservative will say it's all because of a slide in the "moral tone" of society - and usually prescribe a good dose of old-time religion as an antidote.

The liberal will likely mutter something about the "injustice" of the gap between the rich and the poor - as if this explains and justifies criminal behaviour.

Older people will bemoan the lack of respect shown to others, and long for the "good old days", when they could safely leave their home with the door unlocked.

The mob brays for tougher punishments and demands that the state "do something about it". The government's attitude is two-fold. First, they attempt structural societal reforms, in a vain attempt to ameliorate "social injustice" - while at the same time implementing ever more draconion limitations on personal freedom, in the name of fighting crime. And we all know what the ultimate "political" solution to crime is - a dictatorship strong enough to crush it, and your individual freedom with it. Meanwhile, crime continues with abandon and unabated.

Is there a real-world solution that doesn't create a dictatorship in the process?

Well, like any problem, it has to be correctly defined before any solution can be proposed.

So here goes: a crime is the act of violating another person's property - whether their own person, or their possessions.

The solution, therefore, is to create a society where all forms of property are sacrosanct. Of course, you can never eliminate crime completely, but a code of moral conduct which puts people and their property at the pinnacle, would go a long way towards reducing it significantly. Trouble is, such respect for other people's property is impossible in a social culture imbued with the criminal mind.

If the very foundation of the social system is criminal in its essence, then why is it any surprise that individuals within such a system exhibit the same trait? It's like that old saying, "do as I say, not as I do."

The fact is, the modern welfare state is both the logical consequence of, and the perpetrator of, the criminal mind - and here's why. At its core, the welfare state is based on the idea that the initiation of force is justified in order to do "good".

And thus, the only way to attack the root cause of criminal behaviour is to attack its premise - that the use of initiatory force is justified.

However, if you suggest abolishing the welfare state, you are branded as a heartless thug or worse. After all, the welfare state is supposed to be about caring for the powerless, the needy, the poor and downtrodden - and any attempt to undermine or get rid of it is surely akin to the resurrection of Hitler!

That's the propaganda. But it's not the truth.

The fact is, the welfare state is the crucible in which the criminal mind incubates. Its moral premise is that the use of force is justified when doing "good". And once that pandora's box is opened, there is no end in sight of the number of good works needing doing - nor the force required to achieve them.

To get to the root of this issue, consider the following:

One of the questions libertarians get asked most often, when suggesting the abolition of the welfare state, is: "What about those people who receive a welfare benefit because of circum- stances that are no fault of their own. Who looks after them in a libertarian society where there’s no government social welfare?"

My usual answer is that in a free society, where goodwill hasn’t been eroded by the immorality of the welfare state, there will be a flowering of private and corporate charitable organisations.

But the questioner fires another shot. "Yes, but what if nobody voluntarily gives to such organisations - then what?"

The unspoken premise behind all such questions is that somehow the welfare state is compassionate and proof of a caring society. And that wanting to abolish it is a sure sign of barbarity.

Firstly, I would ask - what is compassionate about a society that only helps the unfortunate through compulsion? Are you morally good if forced to do good deeds? Are you compassionate if forced to be compassionate? Is morality achieved at the point of a gun?

Surely, the essence of any sort of morality is that it must be freely chosen. If you only behave honestly and don’t engage in shoplifting - because it’s the law and you don’t want to end up in jail, then you have no personal commitment to the virtue of honesty. Obeying the law is not the same as acting morally.

The welfare state is certainly not built on compassion - but on compulsion.

But there is an even more insidious premise behind this sort of question.

Let’s accept the critics' argument at face value, that people will not voluntarily help those who, through no fault of their own, need help. Then what? The so-called "caring" person says others must be forced to help. Human nature is such, that people must be forced to do what is right - through taxation for example.

The interesting thing, of course, is that the person asking such a question is likely to believe he is generous enough to help the needy voluntarily. But what concerns him is that OTHER people aren't! And his solution to this dilemma, is for others to be forced to do it.

Now we come to the crux of the issue.

If someone is lying in the street, seriously in need of help, should passers-by be forced to help? Should they be forced to empty their wallets, make a room available in their own home, take the clothes off their back, sell their car in order to pay for that person’s hospital care - or do whatever needs to be done? In other words, is the "Good Samaritan" good if he is forced to be good?

Your answer to that question puts you on one side or the other of a great moral divide. Either you agree the use of force in that situation is right - or you do not.

That choice, that decision, sets in motion a set of inevitable consequences.

I believe the essence of the criminal mind - the starting point of all criminal thinking - is the belief in, and the willingness to use such force. The minute you concede that force is justified in some circumstances, you’ve opened the way to use force in a multitude of other circumstances where some sort of need is present.

Criminal thinking starts with the acceptance of the idea that it’s okay to force people to do something, as long as it’s for a good cause. Just as the active criminal can easily justify his own well-being as a cause worthy of enforced support from others.

After all, what essentially is different - in principle - between a person who steals directly from others to fulfil his own needs, and the person who asks the government to do the stealing for him?

Is arms-length theft by government proxy any different, morally, from acting directly on your own behalf? Of course not.

And given that "theft-by-proxy" is morally sanctioned in our society, it should be no surprise that it breeds people who are willing to violate the property of others with impunity.

The welfare state, and all it represents, is the breeding ground of the criminal mind. It's a vicious circle, for not only does it foster criminal behaviour, but in doing so perpetrates the ideology that force is justified to achieve "good" ends.

In contrast, the essence of the libertarian political philosophy is that no single person or group of persons may initiate force against another person or group of persons. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

And if you think otherwise - then check your own premises. And then check your wallet!

Yours in freedom

David MacGregor