[Hoi Polloi]

Some would argue that "pure capitalism" would simply be institutionalized theft by the rich from the poor, so in such a system the poor would have to steal some back. You're probably better off trying the calculate the break-even point vis-a-vis gain by theft versus loss due to prison time, etc. The laws are written by the powerful to reproduce the conditions of their power, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
If you accept the premise that society is better off in the long run if everyone is trying to selfishly maximize their own gain, what argument can you make against criminal behavior, to those who are in situations where the "trickle down" effect does not figure to reach them in the forseeable future?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a gross simplification of Smith's invisible hand along with a conflation of the supposed secondary benefit of so-called supply-side economics. Remember Smith was very clear that the only free market is a well regulated market. An unregulated market will not remain free for very long. So, we could say that the invisible hand does not come into effect until a well-regulated free market is established at which point single-minded pursuit of one's own interests produces the paradoxical result of benefitting all. If you mean by "pure capitalism" Smith's vision of the preconditions of free markets then you're much closer in my view to the kind of society, namely a market-regulating one, that might tip the scales in the poor man's calculation of his own best interest toward foreswearing criminality.

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way, it seems to me that there are two reasons why poor people should not steal even if they are sure they will not get caught. One is that they are in a system that will have a good chance of elevating them to a greater degree than another system would. So they shouldn't be a party to disrupting it. The other would be if the system frowns on people who live in lavish luxury and do nothing to help the downtrodden.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding reason 1: Is there really ever a "system" without some theft? Some lawlessness? Why would a society need laws if there was no lawlessness?

Regarding reason 2: this is not a reason why someone would choose not to use outlawed means for attaining benefit.

[ QUOTE ]
But say you are in a miserable situation (especially if it is due to little fault of your own) and the architects of your economy say there is nothing wrong with someone owning diamond toilet seats if they can afford it. And go on to justify this stance with the explanation that most poor people will do better in such a system. Then if you are not likely to be one of the poor people who benefit, why not steal from the guy with the toilet seat if you can get away with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the game theory chestnut that if everyone else is following the rules you will benefit by breaking them, but if everyone breaks the rules you're better off when everyone including you follow the rules?