Poverty:
Was the USSR crime free? Cuba? Redistribution of wealth via the government sounds a good deal like communism. Even if communism somehow stamped out crime, I'd still not want to live there. To what extent should we strive for being crime free? Is that the paramount goal? How about forcing everyone to stay home and imposing martial law? Limit our liberties all for the proclaimation that we are crime free? With freedom comes the possibility of crime, so I refuse to use crime as a metric of health in society. Sure, lets try to limit crime, but there is a practical limit to how low it will go w/out extreme measures geared towards limiting our freedom or barbaric treatment of criminals.
[Sarcasm] Imagine, all those hard working people who spend their life working hard, getting educated and struggling to succeed. Lets take a good portion of what they earn, and give it to those who did nothing to earn it. They don't deserve to keep what they earned. [\Sarcasm]
Of course, there are extreme circumstances when the government should do something, but I think its alot less than it currently is doing... The problem is that dropping or reducing social programs tends to make politicians unhappy since constituants don't tend to like it. I believe that we should try and help people who want to learn and grow, those who don't desire to stay in poverty. Part of what we are doing is providing free education (k-12) and public universities partly paid at tax payers expense. Thats part of what makes America great, the opportunity to rise and excel. A man is not limited from where he is from or what he looks like, rather where he wants to go and what he can do with the tools he has been blessed with. Is it an easy path? Seldom, but hard work and desire takes you a long way. Its not easy, nor is it impossible. Is throwing money at a man who does not want to work "bolstering" his family? Is he not teaching his family dependancy? My dad worked 60+ hours a week to make sure we were provided for. As a result, I've got that same work ethic. I'll be providing for my family, and don't desire having government officials trying to take over that role.
Family structure:
Government should dictate certain family characteristics? From the same government that took discipline out of public schools? Don't want a beaurocrat trying to enforce any family structure or stability. Thats totally not there job. Not even sure what the government could do to preserve "family structure"! I believe most family structure is inherited, your family is somewhat similiar to what you grow up with. Of course, modifications can be made, but its often the case that many problems are inherited (drunkards often have kids who drink, people abused tend to abuse, though of course this is not a hard and fast rule). Helping deal with those problems might show merit, but they often show up long after the incident. At that point, the damage is mostly done. Combing society at large to identify problem people seems dangerous and starts impinging on freedoms.
The "community" helps raise my children? Are you serious? I'm not sure where everyone lives, but I don't want my "neighbors" to help raise my children (when I have them). There is family and close friends, but I do not consider them "community" or "society at large". Of course, you build relationships and friendships, but its not the role of the world at large to raise my children. Thats my familes responsibility.
Social environment:
Everything they listed as a social cause of crime is related to the individual, and not enforcable, with the possible exception of lack of services. You can't force leadership in the community, support of friends and family, ect.. I suppose you could enforce equality, but I've had horrible experiences with that personally, and I'm not sure I desire enforcement in that area, but thats another topic
Overall:
I don't think throwing money and new programs at problems is the smartest way to change things. if you want to change family structure, you need to inspire families to change. Throwing money at the problems just ensures its dependancy. New programs seldom go away, and find new ways to require more money. We had problems in society before government got big, but the problems were generally dealt with on a local basis. My parents poor or sick? They would come live w/ me. Others in the family would help when possible. Both parents need to work? Kids can stay w/ grandmother, aunt, ect.. Did this require a vast government program taking a large chunk of our tax dollars?
Anyways, as you can probably tell, I'm not the hugest fan of big government hehehe
