A Dialogue on Poverty and Anti-Social Behavior

GBlagg: Good morning.

Sticks and Stones: Yes, good morning. Do you have something on your mind?

GBlagg: Yes, it is what I see as the fallacy accepted by mainstream thought that poverty causes anti-social behavior.

S&S: Alright. First let us define our terms. What is it that you consider ‘anti-social behavior’?

GBlagg: Well, in today’s terms obviously terrorism. But historically, crime has been a major part of the definition. But I would say it goes beyond that. It is instead, ‘any behavior that causes a negative impact on society’.

S&S: And ‘poverty’?

GBlagg: Well, poverty is a range of neediness depending on situation and place, but here let us define it as I believe it is commonly understood...’a state of extreme want wherein the individual can not with his income, meet his basic needs’.

S&S: So, in simple terms, one who can not afford the basic necessities of life?

GBlagg: Yes, fine.

S&S: Well, let us get to the point then. Is it your belief then that poverty does not in fact cause anti-social behavior?

GBlagg: It may to some extent. But the in the broader scope, I in fact, believe the opposite to be true.

S&S: Explain.

GBlagg: Though there is no absolute in human behavior, I feel it is instead anti-social behavior that is in actuality the root cause of poverty.

S&S: So is it your position that one should blame the victim?

GBlagg: Well, let me ask you now to define your terms. What is it you mean by ‘victim’?

S&S: I will play along. How is this definition, ‘One who, through no result of their own actions, is subject to mistreatment’?

GBlagg: That is fine. And with that definition, I would say that I do not choose to’ blame the victim’. This leads to my point perfectly, and it is this...That one cannot be a victim of the result of one’s own actions. Or even the result of a wanton lack of action.

S&S: That’s a lot of words, you’ll will have to explain a little better than that.

GBlagg: If I am an anti-social individual...a terrorist or a criminal, let’s say, then the outcome of my actions does not make me a victim. Let us take the career criminal as an example. He is a man whose personal bad choices frequently land him in jail or prison. Thus, he can not keep a steady job. Even if he tries to gain employment between stints in jail, it is merely temporary and mostly low paying. He ends up living in poverty. Who is to blame for this outcome?

S&S: Of course, it is the individual himself.

GBlagg: And the drunkard or addict. In much the same way as the career criminal, even if he is lucky enough to land a decent job, his odds of keeping it for any length of time are infinitesimal. Between jail stints, absenteeism, and tardiness, his chances of prolonged employment are slim. Who is to blame for this outcome?

S&S: Agreed. But what of the larger percentage of impoverished who do not break the law?

GBlagg: Well, this point needs some clarification. Why is it, do you think, your ‘larger percentage of impoverished’ are impoverished at all?

S&S: I would say it is from a lack of education.

GBlagg: And I would agree. But here is where I differ from most others on this subject. Who has the responsibility to educate the individual?

S&S: The common answers would seem to be, ‘the parent’ or ’the government’.

GBlagg: You said, ‘the common answers’. Is this what you believe?

S&S: No. And I am sure I know where you are headed with this. It is in fact the individual’s sole responsibility. The education opportunities are there, it is his responsibility to employ them.

GBlagg: Yes, ‘responsibility’. But more even than that. It is my opinion that an individual who chooses not to educate himself is himself committing an anti-social behavior.

S&S: Explain.

GBlagg: A society is greatest whose people are educated and intelligent, is this not so? You, yourself stated that a lack of education causes poverty.

S&S: Yes.

GBlagg: And poverty has a negative impact on all of society, not just the impoverished. Through higher taxes, a lower standard of living, and yes..crime. So the individual, who through his own choices has a lack of education, has personally caused himself to be poor. In that choice, he has committed an anti-social behavior. His choice... and yes it is a ‘choice’... not to accept the education offered by his society has doomed him to a life of indigence and at the very same time brought down the quality of life for all society as a whole. He is not a victim. He is a perpetrator. Anti-social behavior is again the cause of poverty.

S&S: Interesting. You spoke earlier of ‘terrorism’. How does this fit with you theory?

GBlagg: Many have offered the premise that it is poverty that causes terrorism. Aside from the fact that many of the terrorists of today are affluent and even rich, I feel there are other arguments against this being true.

S&S: And they are?

GBlagg: Well, if poverty alone caused terrorism, why do we not see terrorist in the American Appalachians? In inner cities? In Mexico?

S&S: Yes, why?

GBlagg: Because it is ideology that causes terrorism, not indigence. I am not saying that the anger felt by the poor is not a breeding ground for terror, but the seed is ideology. Without radicalism, terror likely never develop. In fact, it would seem to me, that the very beliefs that abound in the places that breed terror are the main reasons for impoverishment in those areas in the first place.

S&S: You are speaking of Radical Islam?

GBlagg: Yes. Suicide is an ‘anti-social’ act. Like homicide, through its very action, it takes away a portion of society. It is ‘anti-society’, or ‘anti-social’. That said, there is no act more ‘anti-social’ than the killing of oneself and taking innocents lives at the same time.

S&S: As you say.