Pandering to Predation

Within Western societies, there persist subcultures that treat institutions as resources to be harvested while simultaneously scorning the normative order those institutions sustain.

The ideal of a democratic polity rests upon a fragile consensus: that citizens will, by and large, restrain immediate appetite in favor of reciprocal forbearance, that private property will be treated as more than a provisional convenience, and that elected officials will refuse to dignify predation as justice. While rule of law and a free press are necessary conditions for such restraint, they are not sufficient.

Civil society’s everyday virtues -- queueing, mutual non-interference, the tacit assumption that shops will open tomorrow -- are routinely taken as natural rather than as hard-won and easily eroded. Within Western societies, there persist subcultures that treat institutions as resources to be harvested while simultaneously scorning the normative order those institutions sustain. When elected representatives cynically pander to these attitudes, they accelerate the corrosion.

In August 2026, New York State Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher, a democratic socialist from Brooklyn, offered a textbook illustration. After her group monitored 360 arraignments over four days outside a Manhattan courthouse, she declared that more than half the cases were low-level misdemeanors and that the theft of soap and toothpaste constituted a “crime of poverty” driven by “biological need.” Society, she insisted, should not prioritize the protection of billion-dollar pharmacy chains over the survival of the destitute; diversion into treatment rather than prosecution was the proper response.

Gallagher’s remarks spread rapidly. Legal analysts observed that poverty may explain theft without licensing it. Retail observers noted the practical consequence: chains already lock everyday goods behind plastic barriers or close stores altogether. Organized rings, not starving individuals, account for a substantial share of contemporary retail loss. Gallagher’s framing nevertheless supplied moral cover for an attitude that is simultaneously parasitic

First off, thinking objectively and philosophically, it doesn't matter whether government subsidizes goods for the poor or if the condone the theft of it from the private sector, the effect is probably similar, and equates to a tax or a transfer of wealth, because the later type will cause higher prices for everyone.

Of course, government is a bureaucratic mess of bloat, inefficiency, and corruption, so welfare is probably going to cost citizens more than simply condoning theft will.

My real problem with this whole idea of justifying it because "poverty" is that it's just a false justification.

~~~~~
"...cases were low-level misdemeanors and that the theft of soap and toothpaste constituted a “crime of poverty” driven by “biological need.”"
~~~

Toothpaste and soap?
If you tried to spin something any harder, you'd win the gold in Olympic skating.
Aside from the fact that most anyone below the poverty line should be able to qualify for food subsidies, I call ******** on the idea that it's really toothpaste and soap that all these misdemeanors are for.

Socialism is still socialism.
In the end, it's still re-distribution of wealth, and the net effect of it is to reward a lack of positive productivity out of large segments of your population.

Great article providing clarity about where we are.

The writer doesn’t offer suggestions on how to fix the mess, but fixing starts with identifying and admitting the problem. That’s the hopeful version, the one with fixing in it. Otherwise, it’s like a crew member treading water with other crew members, watching the ship sink, and saying, “It’s that dang hole near the bow that nobody was worried about enough to fix.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.