Begging should be banned (first world countries)

[Sir Adrian]

I second that warning for the most part. Yes there are gypsies who genuinely need to beg to live however most of them, especially those of Central and Eastern European origin, are actually victims of human trafficking rings since childhood. You will do them a far greater service by calling your country's child protection and anti-abuse services (do not call the cops or immigration, they only make things worse for everyone)

1) In the first world, nobody needs to beg. There is a social safety net consisting of primarily the state institutions, but also privately run charities by churches and other individuals that prevents essentially everyone from starving or freezing to death.
In other words, there is no good or understandable reason for begging (as in, not letting people die on the streets). The reasons begging exists in the western world are different:

• begging gangs --> making serious cash off it
• needing money for expensive and dangerous "hobbies" that the state won't finance (primarily drugs)
• unwillingness or laziness to apply for state benefits

None of these reasons are in any way compelling, i.e. there is not a single good reason to allow begging. But there are several good reasons for banning it on top of that.



2) The more successful begging is, the more work is discouraged. If someone can live fairly comfortably off begging this means a net loss of (potential) profits for the economy as a whole stemming from that individual contributing to the market. This is a fairly straightforward and cold, rational point. However, even the beggars themselves would ultimately benefit from banning begging:

3) As outlined above, begging usually tends to finance bad habits, i.e. it encourages taking and staying addicted to drugs. By banning begging, unemployed people will instead have to seek help in organised institutions which make it much easier to control addictions and ultimately help the beggars get their lives back on track.

4) It is no secret that by now, most beggars in western Europe are part of organised gangs with each individual having to give most of his "profits" to the bosses. In other words, by giving money to beggars, the 'kind-hearted' individual in fact encourages organised begging, i.e. indirectly supports many people getting abused by the bosses as poorly-paid professional beggars.

5) Many of those gangs have connections to or are part of organised crime. Giving money to beggars thus often adds to the cashflow of organised crime.

6) Money given to beggars should (if it is supposed to have a real social benefit) instead be given to trustworthy organisations that use it more effectively in places where it is actually needed. Starving is an actual problem. Not being able to afford that bottle of vodka today -- is not.


However, unfortunately, begging will not be banned in most countries. People don't really care about the truth about begging and beggars. It simply doesn't matter to them. What matters is that giving a few euros to that 'poor sod' at the corner over there makes you feel all good and fuzzy inside. Perhaps the girl you fancy finds out about it, too, and respects you more for it.

You really must be a great person, supporting organised begging gangs, organised crime and the drug habit of people who might otherwise get help more easily. Good job spending that money where it is actually needed. I mean, who cares about Africa? Gotta take care of those poor bastards sitting on the corner with the sign written in poor English first! He says he hasn't eaten in 3 days! And he has a little puppy too. Or a child. Poor bloke, I simply have to help him. Not.

Thoughts?


PS: In all of my knowing memory, I have not given a single cent to a single beggar, ever. And counting. Proud of it.

You main mistakes here are that
a. you put those who beg out of desperation in the same pot as the criminals even the differences between them are pretty to spot at a glance to anyone interested in looking.
Yes there are people who live out of begging and net tens of thousands of euros per day but many more beg because they have no alternative left. In the western world people it is almost impossible for a homeless man to find a job. It's even worse for someone who was unemployed for more than 6 months - 1 year, their marketability is gone, nobody will ever give those people a job without favors from a 3rd party.
b. you overestimate the efficiency of what is at best as highly flawed and dysfunctional social security system. Those safety nets are designed to function as a supplement to a low income, you cannot live off of them for even the shortest period of time.
c. you overestimate the honesty and efficiency of "organizations". 90% of the charitable organizations out there exist to make someone a profit either via tax cuts or direct stipends, not to do good. Giving them money is equal to giving money to the organized gangs

[frozenprince]

This thread screams to me that a lot of people are still really out of touch with the fact of "real" homelessness. Are there beggars who don't have any financial burden whatsoever and just do so because they have no conscious and play on peoples sympathy for a few dollars of spending money? Of course, there are crappy people like that everywhere. But as someone who has spent a portion of his life in complete and constant flux, moving from town to town, city to city simply so he could find a bed for a few nights or temporary transitory housing, I know for a fact that the social security net you speak of is filled with holes and frayed from every end.

Yes, it does save some people, some even right away, but for the most part the system is a patchwork held together by ever decreasing budgets and private donations and clinics that are rarely, if ever, accommodating to even 20% of all homeless or transitory families and individuals.

[Denny Crane!]

I would think that if you really wanted to reduce the homeless problem (and thus reduce begging) then it would be prudent to assess why in this day and age it can take weeks but more likely months for the social safety net to activate. There is actually no particularly good reason beyond bureaucratic crap. Other departments similarly staffed manage to cope with the strain, and in the UK as an example, this delay was present even during the boom time of rising government budgets and increasing staff.

I had to use the social safety net lately as I moved from career back to retraining last year and it took 10 weeks to process a simple application with no complicating factors.

[frozenprince]

It's the same reason (at least in the US) that it takes 8 months to process a simple VA request.

As you said, it's a bureaucratic hell, and there is 0 incentive to change it. At least as far as the privatization of aid is concerned, a majority of that money never sees anybody that it's "intended" to see. Most goes to organizational costs instead of the organization's stated goal of providing social services itself. The main issue in the US is that the public aid sectors are the first things to be trimmed in budgetary cutting. Florida has all but dismantled it's entire aid program for homeless and transient folks because they have other needs to attend to in their budget that they don't feel is worth expanding their aid. The other main issue is that, despite all the money that people pump into private charities, there is very little, if any, major oversight of them. As such it's not entirely uncommon for a single shelter to schedule the same bed or room to 4 or more people in the same time frame simply because 4 different workers didn't coordinate with one another and set things beyond their own capacity.

There is no quick fix, there isn't anything to really be done about it unless people start to seriously get over the stigma we've attached to accepting government aid. I had food stamps, I had them for a year because my budget was stretched to it's limits and all of my money went to expenses beyond a food budget. But whenever I went anywhere and tried to pay with my food stamps, I was stared down and could tell in an instant what they were thinking. A reasonably dressed, shaved and clean cut young adult? He's obviously just taking advantage of a system that everybody takes advantage of. It's something that we have as a root aspect of our culture at this point. And I honestly do not know the solution to changing that as long as our politicians continue to harp from their gilded towers down to we unwashed masses about it.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'll give money to strangers if they ask for it reasonably but I can't stand beggars hollering at every person who walks by from sunrise to sunset day after day.

[Phier]

The very name "safety net" implies its a way to catch you when you fall.

Something bad happens it saves you from being truely starving etc. This is a wonderful thing.

The problem is that its not used as a net, but a foundation for millions, who use and abuse these systems. As long as the two are not differentiated it will be a slow, ponderous, and vilified system.

[Sir Adrian]

And if someone calls a rat Megan Fox, would you date it. Names are moot. Let's not forget that shell-shock is called PTSD nowadays or cripples are called physically challenged. Just because it is called safety net doesn't meant it will do the job its name implies. Modern english is full of terms meant to beautify .

[Symphony]

I would think that if you really wanted to reduce the homeless problem (and thus reduce begging) then it would be prudent to assess why in this day and age it can take weeks but more likely months for the social safety net to activate. There is actually no particularly good reason beyond bureaucratic crap. Other departments similarly staffed manage to cope with the strain, and in the UK as an example, this delay was present even during the boom time of rising government budgets and increasing staff.

I had to use the social safety net lately as I moved from career back to retraining last year and it took 10 weeks to process a simple application with no complicating factors.

I totally agree that the first step is to make the net more emergent; eliminate the overhead involved with getting into the system. Unfortunately, the fact that the system can be and does get abused is the biggest impediment to reducing that overhead.

Don't get me wrong...like any large agency, I'm certain there's waste that can be removed or procedures that can be improved. But the amount of governance required to ensure that already-overstrained funds actually get to the people who do in fact need it means you can only shorten that period so far.

[Symphony]

But whenever I went anywhere and tried to pay with my food stamps, I was stared down and could tell in an instant what they were thinking. A reasonably dressed, shaved and clean cut young adult? He's obviously just taking advantage of a system that everybody takes advantage of. It's something that we have as a root aspect of our culture at this point. And I honestly do not know the solution to changing that as long as our politicians continue to harp from their gilded towers down to we unwashed masses about it.

...and so long as we say things like begging should be criminalized?

[Denny Crane!]

I totally agree that the first step is to make the net more emergent; eliminate the overhead involved with getting into the system. Unfortunately, the fact that the system can be and does get abused is the biggest impediment to reducing that overhead.

Don't get me wrong...like any large agency, I'm certain there's waste that can be removed or procedures that can be improved. But the amount of governance required to ensure that already-overstrained funds actually get to the people who do in fact need it means you can only shorten that period so far.

Oh I think it is somewhat more simple than that. The things that are required to reduce the time are simple efficiency actions, the things needed to stop the abuse (and there must be an acceptable threshold because you will never root it all out) is a separate action. In the UK they have already reduced benefits down particularly for the under 35's where you are expected to live with your parents and you are ed if you are under 25. Healthchecks are strict, many arguments to say to strict to cut the amount claiming disability and you continue with routine enforcement.

I mean realistically, and evidentially before the system was changed I saw that as long as all requried proofs were there that it can be examined checked and signed off in minutes in person. I'd be interested to know just what causes the delay.

[Symphony]

Oh I think it is somewhat more simple than that. The things that are required to reduce the time are simple efficiency actions, the things needed to stop the abuse (and there must be an acceptable threshold because you will never root it all out) is a separate action. In the UK they have already reduced benefits down particularly for the under 35's where you are expected to live with your parents and you are ed if you are under 25. Healthchecks are strict, many arguments to say to strict to cut the amount claiming disability and you continue with routine enforcement.

I mean realistically, and evidentially before the system was changed I saw that as long as all requried proofs were there that it can be examined checked and signed off in minutes in person. I'd be interested to know just what causes the delay.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I believe you may be right.

My thinking is, do the validation on the back end. Do an initial document validation, but issue the assistance immediately while the remainder of the verification progresses. If it turns out to be a fraudulent case, then you stop the funding, recoup what you can, and prosecute where appropriate. Yes, you'll incur some additional costs in investigation, and not all funds will be recoverable (not every fraudulent applicant will have a garnishable income or other state/federal payments that can be levied), but at the same time, you'll also save money on the backend; in my anecdotal case, timely assistance would have kept us in the place we already were, would have stopped the downward spiral before it built up too much momentum, and would have made for a much shallower pit to dig ourselves back out of....our total time on assistance would have been decreased.

I'm nowhere near conversant enough with those total costs to say this with any certainty, but from 10,000 feet, it strikes me that it could either be a net-zero or even a net gain in terms of cost.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

I am sorry, but if someone feels pity for a guy begging in the streets and can spare a few coins, what right has the government or anybody else to declare a voluntary and consensual arrangement between two people illegal?

[Sir Adrian]

I totally agree that the first step is to make the net more emergent; eliminate the overhead involved with getting into the system. Unfortunately, the fact that the system can be and does get abused is the biggest impediment to reducing that overhead.

Don't get me wrong...like any large agency, I'm certain there's waste that can be removed or procedures that can be improved. But the amount of governance required to ensure that already-overstrained funds actually get to the people who do in fact need it means you can only shorten that period so far.

I'm not sure about other countries but in Britain abuses would 80% be eliminated if the people working in the system just did their job more attentively, nothing more is required. For the Balkans all you need is to throw a few hundred employees and abusers in jail for corruption and misappropriation of funds. Of course none of that will happen because if there is one constant in every country on the planet is people's love for cushy government jobs and the desire to keep those jobs as cushy as possible.

[sumskilz]

nowadays or cripples are called physically challenged.

Please, differently-abled.

[Symphony]

I'm not sure about other countries but in Britain abuses would 80% be eliminated if the people working in the system just did their job more attentively, nothing more is required. For the Balkans all you need is to throw a few hundred employees and abusers in jail for corruption and misappropriation of funds. Of course none of that will happen because if there is one constant in every country on the planet is people's love for cushy government jobs and the desire to keep those jobs as cushy as possible.

Yeah, I won't pretend to be conversant with what would actually be required to clean house in a relevant fashion in the U.S...I've just never examined it closely from that side of the desk (I'm very familiar with that kind of waste/fraud reduction in the private sector, but that's an entirely different critter), and I suspect the influence of local government structures (state especially) is much more pervasive here. I do agree with both you and Denny that there's such a thing as an acceptable threshold of fraud reduction....80/20 is probably a good place to start.

[Ace_General]

Since a thread about begging is opened I`ll take this opportunity to worn all EU citizens.Don`t ever give a single dime to gipsies, unlike other ethnic group they have created a culture around begging and don`t take pity if you see some of them with broken hands or legs that grew in a strange way.They were tortured when they were young so they can be sent to gather money via begging.

You really want to help them? Give your support to a programme that will get their children through school and another programme that will give them chances to actually getting a job.They can assimilate, in my city we have gipsies and some assimilated.They don`t even want to be identified with the gypsy ethnic group.


As for the theme of the thread.I am not really sure what to say, maybe there are some cases in which people are too desperate and have lost their entire wealth due to some unforeseen events.

Funny thing, during the holocaust the nazis went after the Gypsies too, but you never see any memorials too them, and a fair number of Eastern Europeans and Russians actually agreed with getting rid of the Gypsies, go figure.

And if you europeans cut down on your wealthfare state and government overhead, things wouldn't be so terrible for young people and they would probably be less beggars. I mean, theres a reason people I know in their 20s in Europe either want to work in Poland or Russia instead of Germany or Sweden, or stay in school until they are like 30

On the issue of the US, most corruption happens at the city/local level, espeically in Democrat run areas with long established Party Machine and minority majority districts. Living 30 minutes from Chicago, and going to school in one of the type of areas, I see it every day. Just google the South Side of Chicago, or Gary, Indiana. Republicans are generally better then democrats at just outright corruption, but they have alot of pork projects and kickbacks(I.E. Overpaying defense contractors, reducing tax rates for politically connected corporations, building elaborate courthouses and roads in sparsely populated, heavily republican districts)

[Phier]

And if someone calls a rat Megan Fox, would you date it. Names are moot. Let's not forget that shell-shock is called PTSD nowadays or cripples are called physically challenged. Just because it is called safety net doesn't meant it will do the job its name implies. Modern english is full of terms meant to beautify .

"Safety net" was never meant to be synonymous with "permanent welfare class". This isn't a language issue.

[Astaroth]

I am sorry, but if someone feels pity for a guy begging in the streets and can spare a few coins, what right has the government or anybody else to declare a voluntary and consensual arrangement between two people illegal?

Oh please, spare us the libertarian BS. The "government" has the same "right" to declare that illegal as it can (in theory) declare most things illegal. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, but the 'it's a voluntary and consensual arrangement so the govt shouldn't get involved' argument is a very poor point to make. There are plenty of perfectly "consensual" arrangements that the government rightfully prevents. If I 'voluntarily' sold myself into slavery, that 'consensual arrangement' would naturally be invalid.

There are some very good points to make for banning begging in the streets. There are also some arguments to make for the other side. But using the "evil govt dont get involved with my freedom!!" one is entirely unconvincing.

[Denny Crane!]

Almost every victimless crime that the government gets involved in is either an unmitigated disaster or a waste of time/money when it starts making criminals of a population who are not committing the common law version of crime, create distance between the community and the law with its seemingly arbitrary approach to criminalisation and justice and results in a worse society.

You can't sell yourself into slavery, that much is obvious and no libertarian would assume you could. For a start for it to have any legality it would be a contract right? Well to be a contract you have to be able to breach it. It is a classic fallacy of the stolen concept, using one idea with fundamental foundations (a contract and all that entails) with a slave contract that automatically invalidates a lot of the foundational concepts of the ability to make and maintain a contract. As usual I would suggest that while there are some quite valid criticisms of libertarianism and small gov minarchism lets try and put a bit of effort in! The idea that a crime should have a victim on the other hand isn't a libertarian idea...its one shared in a whole swathe of common law traditions.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

There are plenty of perfectly "consensual" arrangements that the government rightfully prevents.

It may be rightfully according to you, but it is not according to a system of principles that respect individual liberty.
So I ask again, what right does the government have to prevent a voluntary and consensual arrangement between two people?

There are some very good points to make for banning begging in the streets.

Like what? You haven't produced any. The only argument against it I can think of is that it introduces a negative externality if it takes place habitually and en mass in specific areas, but that's usually not the case.





By the way, did I tell you guys that that drinking alcohol should be banned? The not at all childlike argumentation of the OP aroused me intellectually, I gave the matter some thought and here are the main reasons it comes down to:

Drinking alcohol is associated with:

• teens acting under peer pressure
• domestic violence and abuse
• problems in societal behaviour and work ethic
• DUI accidents, which is a leading cause of death in the civilised world

1) In the first world, nobody needs to drink alcohol. That's what we have non-alcoholic beverages for.

2) The more one drinks, the more prone he/she is to developing alcoholic liver deseases and their foregone productivity does not only consitute a net loss on the economy as a whole, but the cost of their medical treatment has very likely to be defrayed out of the public purse, so they impose a direct cost on top of that, not to mention taxation's deadweight.

3) As outlined above, drinking usually tends to be part of a vicious cycle of issues feeding of each other, such as violent behaviour, drug abuse, psychological problems, unemployment and reliance on benefits. By banning drinking unemployed people will instead have to seek help in organised institutions which make it much easier to control addictions and ultimately help them get their lives back on track.

4) It is no secret by now that there are national and international rings of alcohol smugglers and illegitimate supply trains commiting hundreds of thousands of Euros worth of tax-frauds annually, and they are linked to organised crime that also controls human trafficking and drugs. Furthermore, many night clubs act as fronts for their money-laundering activities. By banning drinking we reduce the cashflow to organised crime. And we save the children, the pedestrians and the car-drivers for reasons explained already.

5) Money given to buying alcohol should in fact be donated to medical reasearch on detoxification and on rehabilitation facilities, trustworthy and effective organisations. After all food to cover your your body's needs for vitamins, calories and minerals is essential, drinking vodka is not.

However, unfortunately, drinking will not be banned in most countries. People don't really care about the truth about drinking. It simply doesn't matter to them. What matters is that giving a few euros to buy a cold beer quenches your thirst. Perhaps the girl you fancy finds out about it, too, and respects you more for being a manly man doing manly things.

You really must be a great person, supporting the suffering of people from chronic diseases, organised crime and the drug habit of people who might otherwise get help more easily. Good job spending that money where it is actually needed. I mean, who cares about Africa? There's a match coming up at 21:00 and I need another 6-pack. Not.

Thoughts?


PS: In all of my knowing memory, I have not ever drunk a single Mojito, ever. And counting. Proud of it.