> As someone who grew up poor this type of racist/classist argument is insulting. The poor have morales, values and pride too.

I grew up very poor, as well, around plenty people who sold weed when it was illegal to pay rent because the other option was living on the street. The truth is that if someone is hungry, they aren't going to just curl up, starve and die. Even more so if their kids are hungry. I don't think that makes them bad people at all, and some their choices may even be the most moral actions to take.

I'm not making a moral argument or judgment at all with that statement, I'm just stating the simple fact that theft will happen if people are deprived of the property they need to live. It seems that society has chosen to hire people to beat and imprison others as the solution to theft, instead of choosing to alleviate the deprivation of resources that causes most of it. Truthfully, I think the former option is what's racist and classist.

If you think every hungry person is a thief, and the rich don't have a motive to steal, I'm not sure what to say. Humans in all situations are capable of greed and selfishness.

I would bet dollars to donuts that the proceeds made from these thefts went into drugs, alcohol, and entertainment than proving for any basic needs.

Rich don’t have a need to do petty theft. Most of these laws do target the poor and the problems of the poor, like drug abuse, petty theft, etc. Whether you like to believe it or not incidences of these crimes afflict the poor significantly more than a handful of middle class kleptomaniacs.

Oh, I fully agree that the poor more commonly commit and are victims of petty theft. What I disagree with is that hunger would even be in the top 10 drivers. Greed, addiction, antisocial disposition, lack of opportunity costs, are all far more significant. The idea that your typical thief is usually trying to put bread on the table is some sort of perverted noble savage fantasy.

Hunger is probably here a proxy for "basic needs" on the hierarchy of needs. In a modern day it can be for example a cell phone, computer, or car.

So in you mental model, these train thieves have no phone or car, are seeking an honest 9-5 job, and will put their gains towards that end?

Not everyone has to be a saint to be part of society. There are plenty of people that wouldn't be in a life of petty crime if they had better options. The fact that we have more train thieves than say any other given country is more to do with our lack of opportunities for these people than the fact that we aren't disincentivizing it enough. Plenty of places that have fewer disincentives for crime yet have less crime. Disincentives can work as a brute force method, but if there is an underlying reason why certain minorities or groups of people are inclined to what we have defined as a crime in society, then brute force methods will just push them toward alternatives, and it may not necessarily be finding a good 9-5 job as you suggest.

> If you think every hungry person is a thief, and the rich don't have a motive to steal

Please don't strawman my posts, especially when I've posted this[1] not more than a day ago.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29961052

Sorry of that came off as a straw man, I was trying to cut to what I saw as the core of your position, i.e. "the deprivation of resources that causes most of it" (theft).

Theft, like all of human behavior has many causes. You can look at what differentiates thieves from the working poor with similar lack of resources to determine some of the causes. Alternatively, you can look at what is in common between rich and poor thieves.

I have known far too many honest and hard-working poor people to believe that a lack of resources constitutes either a necessary or sufficient cause of theft.

If your primary point was that a hungry person will steal to feed themselves, I agree but don't think it is relevant to the social problem at hand.

If you were to ask me, I would say that people steal when they have little to lose, including integrity and empathy for their victims.

Crime is not the same as morality. A starving, homeless resident stealing a sandwich from the corner store might be theft. But I think most people wouldn’t say that that particular theft was immoral.

Of course the people stealing from the railroad aren’t necessarily pilfering items to meet an immediate human need. But according to reporting this weekend from the LA Times, some of the thieves do indeed live in camps near the railroad. And who knows why they’re stealing — maybe one needs cash for insulin and another is fueling a drug addiction.

In either case (and this is a hot take) I’d still argue these acts aren’t necessarily immoral. Addiction is a powerful force, perhaps more so than urges of hunger and thirst. And of course no one wants to die of uncontrolled diabetes!

But why doesn't that hungry homeless person go to one of the many charities, community kitchens, etc. that hand out food for free with no strings attached? Most likely because they are in a place selling food, they know there is no punishment if they just take it, so they do.

Off the top of my head, charities might be closed, they might be banned from a given location (perhaps for stealing from the charity’s other clients) or perhaps they’re ignorant of the available resources.

That sounds like rationalising away bad behaviour.

If there are many good options and the person performs the one with maximal negative effects on society, I'm perfectly happy to hit him with punishment. I'm more amenable to necessity, but that's not what you're talking about here.

> A starving, homeless resident stealing a sandwich from the corner store might be theft.

They qualify for CaliFresh, it’s not like they’ll starve unless they can figure out how to trade food for drugs.

> maybe one needs cash for insulin and another is fueling a drug addiction.

One you can get with Medicaid (well, Medi-cal), the other you can’t. Diabetics would definitely qualify if they meet the residency requirement.

He’s Saying we should reduce the wealth gap. Not all criminals are doing it because they were born assholes. Otherwise you’d have to believe America just has some underlying reason why we have a higher asshole per capita ratio?

What about "increased wealth disincentivises petty property crime" is either racist or classist?

> The people robbing these trains are criminals and do not represent the community they live in. Frankly your hurting poor kids by allowing these criminals to be present and act like role models.

No one said anything about criminals being representative, or about them being role models except you.

> The poor have morales, values and pride too.

Lots of rich people don't, they just commit different crimes.

There is a great Italian movie, "The Bicycle Thief".

Your reply is what I find insulting. You speak as though poor life is good just as it is, as though all that’s needed is to “respect” the poor just the way they are. Frankly, when I hear people talk this way, it makes me want to commit a crime myself!