0 votes

What Is The Fundamental Cause Of Crime?

Jan Helfeld tries to lead representative Engel to objective conclusions regarding the causes of crime. Helfeld refutes pseudo-causes of crime expounded by representative Engel. WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF CRIME?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

define crime

define crime


The more "laws", the more "crime" you get.



"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.


Ignorance is the root of all crime, and in fact the root of all evil.

1 Timothy 6:10

The love of money is the root of all evil

"Pride" is either a close second, or tied so closely with the first that they are indistinguishable.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

Inequality is by far the biggest cause of crime

Otherwise good people will only break their morals for purposes of money. Whether it's to survive if they are in the poor classes or it's to maintain ground if they are better off, almost every non-mental illness related crime can be boiled down to a person not having as much money as they feel they're entitled to.

This aspect of society was exacerbated by commercialism early last century because we were all 'trained' into equating our position on the social ladder with our personal wealth. This effectively made it a contest that no one could avoid to keep up with the Jones's. And the result of that was that it became virtually impossible to never compromise your principles at least some times. ...if you wanted to survive, that is.

If we use your statement as

an hypothesis

Inequality is the biggest cause of crime,

The null hypothesis would be

Inequality is not the biggest cause of crime.

It would make an interesting study. The objective would be to prove the hypothesis is correct, thereby eliminating the null hypothesis.


To do so, I would suggest listing as many types of crime as rationally possible and then tracking the effect of inequality (as seen by the criminal in his/her situation) on each scenario. I haven't done this formally, but ever since I learned of this hypothesis, I have tried to tie the crimes I hear about to it and had much success.

IOW, I can't think of a crime that can't be tied back to the social oppression that is caused by the current inequality. That's not to say they don't exist but rather than it is a highly common occurrence.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Do you agree with the Congressman?

Do you agree with the Congressman?

Jan Helfeld

Yes and no.

The Congressman is very short-sighted in explaining HOW poverty causes crime. As such, he can't equate it accurately and then caves on his stand.

So, yes, I believe the financial inequality (what others call poverty) causes crime. I just don't leave it so short. It's a driver because when the divide between the rich and the poor is so large and so visible, then you get the result. If everyone had a much lower standard of living (as in the interviewer's setup question) there would not be so much crime because the relative inequality is less than it is now.

Re-read the social ladder part again. It's key.

Jan Helfeld's picture

mistaken values

mistaken values

Jan Helfeld

Laws are the fundamental cause of crime

Bad laws make bad people.

This debate with Jan Helfeld is a perfect example of the state blaming people, for poverty, for self medication (drugs) and establishing bad laws that do not help people, but help the state profit off people's misery.

Isn't it Obvious?

The fundamental causess of crime are the same as the fundamentals which cause "governments" to form.
Greed, laziness, the desire to steal, the desire to hurt people.
Crime and government are synonymous, one term is used to refer to disorganized individual unlawful acts, the other term refers to organized mass theft and murder.

Tiny penises.

Those that can't "man-up" and do the right thing...like help people instead of take advantage...perhaps it's genetics. Those who are born into a family where violence is common continue it and don't see that it's wrong. Our parents teach us our life's values, and we grow up viewing those behaviors as "normal". Perhaps it's a learned behavior. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree, you know.

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry


I think the plural of "penis" is "peni". Like the plural of "cactus" is "cacti"...right?

Yeah, I watch too much Big Bang Theory.


The major cause of all crime IS cowardice.

It's easier to steal than produce or it's easier to kill than talk out a problem, and many in poorer situations have the idea stuck in their head they are not strong enough or good enough to do it the right way.

It all stems from those who are not willing to take the extra step to do what is necessary. This is why entitlements do not work, the more people getting free stuff, the more you morally break down those who are good but have to work for it, it becomes easier to just accept free things, everyone eventually becomes lazy or pissed off for taking the majority of the workload, and nothing gets done.

Very few people do actually get a head rush from committing crimes, but that usually stops when they get a bullet through the brain. The fear of being caught is one thing for kids, but the fear of death is entirely another, something we have lost as a nation.

A certain level of fear is desirable, that's why things like the death penalty are required in any civilized society, not because they are necessary for use, but because the fear of it creates a deterrence. Jail is supposed to be a deterrence itself, but that's become a laughing point in many small communities, who have it better in jail than at home.

The idea of a "civilized" people, always destroys the actual concept of being civilized, a civilized people would say "we must take care of those in jail, it would be inhumane to not do so" but by doing so, you remove the purpose of jail in the first place.




Where power shifts to cause a condition of defenselessness in a potential victim the crime power increases in a relative measure.

So the single answer is powerlessness.

Powerlessness is the fundamental cause of crime.

I see a need to either rewrite the sentences above or clarify the intended message.

One, and only one, fundamental cause of crime is not an single individual perspective, since the concept of crime involves more than one human being, therefore there is by that definition of crime a relationship, or a connection, whereby one human being willfully targets, and then perpetrates a crime upon another unwilling human being.

The fundamental cause, being one thing, and not two things, is therefore that condition of power imbalance as the criminal gains the power to perpetrate a crime upon the powerless victim.

By definition a crime cannot be a crime if the victim has the power to avoid, defend, nullify, and render the crime powerless to be a crime. A powerful target does not become a victim if the powerful target disconnects from the criminal attempting to perpetrate the crime.

The criminal perspective shares the perspective of power imbalance with the victim, albeit from opposite viewpoints. It is a power imbalance. The criminal commands more power, power over the victim, and the victim commands less power, insufficient power, powerlessness at the hands of the criminal.

The fundamental, single, common denominator, is therefore power.

Power to perpetrate crime is no power at all when victims are powerful enough to defend against crime.

Power to defend against crime is as powerless for any potential criminal for the same reason, since the victims are powerful enough to defend against crime.

This should be abundantly clear to anyone who pauses in life in the effort to gain the power to defend against crime.

This is proven to be a thought process done by all current criminals who currently get away with crimes perpetrated upon their victims, as the step by step process of perpetrating crime has to include the realization that the targets must be rendered powerless in their defense against the crime in progress.

Hence, "gun control," and "censorship," and legal monopoly money power combined with false government in order to render the targets powerless in defense against the criminals with badges.

How about this idea:


Combine that idea with this idea:


"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

When the criminals can convince the victims that paying the criminals to help the victims avoid crimes, then the criminals grow more powerful each second, while the targeted victims grow less powerful each second, in a relative sense.

Like this:


The targeted victim reaches for the people who the victim pays to be there for help. Get this straight, please. The victim pays a portion of earnings to the criminals so that the criminals are there to help the victim in times of need, and then the criminals perpetrate crimes upon the victim, extracting even more power from the victim.

Like this:


Little girl in the church held hostage by the hostage rescue team, and she describes the hell raining down through the roof with a picture drawn in crayon.

Man calls 911 because helicopters are circling the church shooting through the roof of the church, which is full of men, women, children, babies, infants, toddlers, murdering the church goers, so the man calls 911 to seek help against the violent, unprovoked, attack by the gang of criminals.

911 what is your emergency?
They're still attacking.


There's a chopper with more of 'em.


Another chopper with more people--More guns goin' off. Here they come!"

Awright. Wayne Cah (unintelligible)

More firing!


That's not us. That's them!

Those victims paid for that helicopter, those machine gunners, those bullets, that 911 dispatcher.

Power was flowing to those criminals through the Federal Reserve System and Internal Revenue Service of Fraud/Counterfeiting/Money Laundering/Drug Pushing/Pedophile Sex Slavery/Extortion/Serial Killing/Mass Murder, and then that power was then used to keep the victims powerless.

The events at Waco were broadcast over the Monopoly Network POWER to indoctrinate the targeted victims, spreading fear, and inciting further powerlessness, which is a relative transfer of power gained by the criminals perpetrating Legal Crime currently.

Now, the idea of having a Network of potential victims, a Network of targets, hooked up to each other, available for each other, in case of need, is altogether different than Crime made Legal.

Remember this:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

All criminals do that same thing. Power flows from the victims to the criminals, rendering the victims powerless, and by that relative measure the criminals are gaining power relative to the victims.

A Network of defenders rising out of the pool of targeted victims can be called a name, one name, not two, rather than calling a Network of defenders rising out of the pool of targeted victims a new word, an old word might work instead, such as Liberty.

Liberty is a single word.

Those in Liberty are those defenders who manage to be more powerful than any potential criminal.

The process in the link offered goes like this:

Man or woman is currently being attacked by a criminal.

So that is a difficult position to be in.

A church full of people can exemplify the difficult position to be in, as criminals are currently attacking, in a city in Texas, in America, so what do the targeted victims do, when the attackers are circling the church with military helicopters, shooting fully automatic assault machine guns down through the roof, murdering innocent people in the church?

Call the authorities?

Call 911?

Call for help?

Under any circumstance whereby the criminals do not have false badges, false authority, and false moral high ground, under circumstances whereby a non-licensed, or non-UNION, criminal is perpetrating the crime in progress upon the powerless victim, the act of calling the authorities, calling 911, and calling for help with that phone number is warranted, and useful, to the victims being attacked by that type of unlicensed, unauthorized, non-UNION, criminal.

What happens when the 911 Dispatcher is a member of the group doing the attacking?

What happens if the criminal has not merely purchased a costume from a Hollywood wardrobe supplier, a criminal counterfeiting a Highway Patrol Man, a criminal having no license, a criminal stopping innocent people, a criminal who then perpetrates crimes upon those innocent people, what happens if the criminals ARE the authorities, and not just a criminal pretending to be an authority?

What is the process by which the victims gain the power to defend against the false authorities who have taken over the actual POWER of law.

What is due process of Law?

So what is offered in the link, is an emerging process, a process by which potential victims can band together in a Network of defenders, and have available to the defenders a POWER with which to defend against crime perpetrated by the very people who are paid to protect and serve the TAX PAYERS.

So the criminal targets the victim, and the victim stops the car, and the criminal demands obedience, with the obvious, measurable, and accurately measurable intent IS to steal money from the targeted victim.

So...what is the process due to the potential victim in a case where it is the authorities who are perpetrating the crime of highway robbery, or worse, torture and mass murder, as was the case in Waco?


Those criminals, all criminals, gain their power from honest productive people, because the source of power is honest production by people who are honest producers.

It may be a good time to get the answer to this question right, and stop paying the authorities who provide false answers.

As far as the video goes:

Poverty is a function of powerful people using power to render targeted victims powerless.

This should be understood.

Take any case of poverty anywhere and find out exactly who controls the connections between the people in that place and the productive power in that place, then speak about poverty.

Take any example anywhere and know precisely why the people who are powerless, in poverty, are powerless in poverty.

Is access to fertile land restricted in that place?

Is access to potable water restricted in that place?

Is access to oxygen restricted in that place?

Is access to honest money restricted in that place?

Who has the power to restrict access to necessary supplies of power in that place?

If the POWER to restrict access is employed by a few people so as to cause poverty upon the many people, in that place, then that is what that is in that place.

Call it crime, or call it Fried Chicken, and that could exemplify exactly what is the fundamental principle of crime.

When the victims no longer have the power to label the criminals as criminals, because access to the accurate inculpatory information hides the criminals is restricted, kept from the victims, there is, in fact, an example of a crime in progress.


Not Fried Chicken.