> The problem here is you just re-invented the term "deserving poor". You're citing this as if the concept of "deserving poor" isn't something that's already e

> The problem here is you just re-invented the term "deserving poor". You're citing this as if the concept of "deserving poor" isn't something that's already enshrined in public policy. For the vast majority of American voters segmenting the deserving from the undeserving poor is a feature not a bug. That's the reason we don't have unconditional UBI, and instead have a welfare system that's based on life circumstances. When we're more generous with children, the infirm, and the elderly than able-bodied adults who eschew work (or even worse commit crime), that is the concept of the deserving poor. And frankly I agree with that class distinction. > the violent drug addict with mental health problems - well (s)he deserved our help about ten or fifteen years previously And yet the very same criticism can be said about permanent criminal records or sex offender registries. Yet the vast majority of people in our society accept that committing a violent crime is "crossing the rubicon". Once you've done so, you'll always be a second-class citizen at best. This isn't something controversial, policies based on this belief are nearly universally supported by voters. Regardless of prior personal circumstances, American society always lays the blame primarily at the perpetrator himself.