> If nobody needs to turn to crime to eat and live, then they don't Are you implying that the majority of the crime committed in the US is due to the perpetrat

> If nobody needs to turn to crime to eat and live, then they don't Are you implying that the majority of the crime committed in the US is due to the perpetrator starving otherwise? Note that this excludes criminal acts intended to procure money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes. If that is what you mean, then that sounds extremely implausible. What makes you think so? What about sexual violence, domestic violence, other crimes where no goods or money change owners, criminal behavior in traffic, tax evasion?