Terrorism, Crime: How Does Poverty Factor In?

Terrorists are criminals, but not all criminals are terrorists. Terrorists are politically motivated, and common criminals are motivated by personal gain. Of course, the purity of motives greatest at the extremes. A terrorist who robs a bank is both making a political statement, and anticipating enjoyment of ill-gotten gains. I've known many common criminals who when caught and questioned insist that they were only striking back at an unfair system. Yep.

It is a cliché that of two sons born of crushing poverty one will turn to crime, and the other the Church. Cagney and O'Brien built movie careers out of it. Why does one person, faced with challenge persevere, struggle and strive to better himself, while another surrenders to despair and fall into substance abuse problems and crime? What makes one person morally strong, and another weak? Surely the difference isn't relative wealth. The number of rich scoundrels that history has produced argues otherwise. Criminals, in my experience, do have a number of common traits.

Criminals often have poor impulse control. They act without thinking, and never believe that they will be caught. "I saw it. I wanted it. I took it. The man resisted, and I hit him in self-defense. He died? Serves him right." These sorts are not deep thinkers, and they are governed by their emotions. Asked why did you hold-up the liquor store after being questioned by the police just 10 minutes earlier on the opposite street corner, we're told that "I didn't think they'd remember me". I once had a burglar tell me that he had only been caught five times, but had committed over 5,000 burglaries. Of course, he may have been lying to build up his status.

Criminals almost always blame others for their own failings. "My parents were too strict." "My parents were to lenient." "The schools never taught me anything useful." "Society is stacked against people like me, and I only took what I deserved." "No one would give me a job that paid a decent wage." "The boss fired me just because I was late three days in a row, but I had a good excuse." "I didn't know Bobby going to hold-up the bank; I was just keeping the car running outside the door while Bobby ran in to cash a check." "I never would have become a drug addict, if it weren't for the CIA." After a single year in criminal justice, one hears a million different variations on this single theme … I ain't to blame.

Criminals almost never really profit from their crimes. Easy come; easy go. Stolen property is seldom fenced for more than ten cents on the dollar, so a haul worth $1000 actually only nets the thief about $100. Criminals often have problems with money. They have substance abuse problems, and like to gamble, flash a big roll in nightspots, and pretend they're big shots. Actually, most live in squalor and are constantly dodging the people they owe money to. Criminals live a transient life, and see little reason to put anything aside for a rainy day. They are grasshoppers never believing that winter will come. Old thieves have burned down all the family and friends they ever had, and can never trust their criminal companions. No social security for a thief.

Criminals often are self-centered. No one counts for much when the criminal's self-interest is in the balance. Selfishness is common, and betrayal is as natural to the professional criminal as breathing. They will steal from their mothers, and sell their sisters for the smallest amounts. They regard the rest of the world as suckers for working hard and trying to build a better life. They expect everyone to be as deceitful and dishonest as they are themselves. They have no sympathy for the victims of their acts, and frequently get turned on by hurting others in one-way or another.

Criminals really dislike authority. Their egos aren't generally strong enough to accept rules and regulations. They believe that they should be free of all restraints that come from outside themselves. Policemen, priests, military officers, anyone in authority is despised and "deserves" to be "taken down a peg" by the outlaw. They hate the Law, and anyone who promotes it, as an unjust imposition on the criminals "freedom". They will fight among themselves, if one tries to "boss" the other.

I don't think poverty, itself, has much bearing on whether a young person turns to crime. More important in the determination are factors like, whether the person has ever developed a good self-image, self-discipline, and empathy for others.

Well, you're consistent, I must admit! <smiles>



Exactly. I am not saying that the poor will necessarily take up terrorism as a way to make a conscious protest against their poverty - if that were the case, they'd have become radical socialists instead of Islamists. What I was saying (ad infinitum) was that the desperate are more likely to be succesfully preyed on by those "peddlers of hate".

Use the term "breeding ground" or not - I mean, that's just discussing semantics then, because this is what I was talking about (and I would hazard a guess people like Dean too). The desperation that comes forth from poverty-plus-fear makes people more likely (note: "more likely", not "predestined") to be lured into the false alternative extremists seemingly offer them. Like all situations of social shock and vulnerability do, whether social or personal.

Remember, it's not just the few guys who actually blow themselves up - the extremists must win a thousand sympathisers before they find one who actually is prepared to give his life. The response therefore is not just a question of taking a few lunatics out, either - that part the neo-cons have understood.



Well, of course it is a flaw of perception! Death is not really the answer to their desperation, and neither is some return to newly invented Islamist purity. Question is: in which circumstances are people more likely to fall prey to such flaws of perception? Shock, fear, vulnerability and desperation help.

Not a one on one relation to poverty in that poverty would necessarily equate with a lurch to the drastic - I already suggested above that a stable level of hopeless poverty, for example, breeds resignation rather than extremism. But shock, fear and desperation, though they can occur in everyone's life, are a lot more wide-spread when looming impoverishment and frustrated aspirations push entire population groups into social pressure cookers of insecuritisation. ("Looming impoverishment and frustrated aspirations" = not simply poverty, but poverty-plus-fear).

That word does not exist in English, I think - "insecuritisation" - it's from German, Verunsicherung; which is a pity, because it's a key concept here I think.



I think the second plank is being neglected, outside of Iraq - or it needs much more attention, in any case. Hence my "bottom-up Marshall Plan" plea up there. And that's a pity - for if you don't act on the second plank, the first one becomes a Sisyphus-job, neverending - "mopping with the tap turned open", as we say.

I agree with nimh's bright responses.
I also think differences in this discussion are more subtle than the participants acknowledge.

"The people are like water, and the army is like a fish", wrote Chairman Mao about his guerrilla war.
To achieve this, in the case of terrorism, is to have the terrorist cadres feel at ease, protected by people.
Not sheer poverty, but ignorance, anger and hopelessness, is what fuels that kind of base support.

Now let us consider the relationship between poverty, revolution and terrorism.

Terrorism is a tactic, or strategy, that is employed by those who are unable to effectively gain political supremacy by other means. Before going further, we should ask, "what is it that impels individuals and groups to assert their need for political supremacy?" The simple answer is Schopenhauer's Will to Power. Some folks just need to be in charge of things, and if they aren't they have to find a way to climb into the driver's seat. Politicians need to feel that they are loved, even worshiped by the rest of society. It is a heady experience to make outrageous demands, and have a corps of devotee's jump to the task; and the girls, ooo-la-la. Actually, not all political aspirants fall into the simple need for self-aggrandizement. Far more sinister are those who feel the messianic need to save the world by imposing some ideology. The ideologue feels that any means is justified to change the world into what they believe will be a finer and better place. The world to the zealot is divided into two opposing camps, black and white, good and evil. The reigning political group is evil, and all means are justified in changing the order of things. The greater the disparity of power between those in control of things and those whose ideology is powerless to command, the greater is the need to make drastic change.

Even the most radical revolutionaries prefer taking power legitimately. Hitler went to great lengths to become the Leader through the legitimate ballet. Communist elections weren't held for fun, even if they were a bad joke to the rest of the world. It is always better to appear popular than despotic. Radical environmentalists, and anti-abortionist extremists, have been unable to move the American public to adopt their ideological positions by gaining political representation, so they turn instead to terrorist acts. Murdering doctors and spiking trees so that a union logger will be injured are justified as necessary for the greater good. You think the Federal Government is some sort of conspiracy to enslave American's, then blow up a Federal building in Omaha. Why? Because the Republicans manipulated the votes counted in Florida, the ballot is no longer a legitimate means of political expression.

What if the power that the ideologue wishes to overturn is that of a foreign nation? First, they acquire local power within a "legitimate" government of a sovereign state. That in itself can be seen as "proof" of the rightness of their cause. With a national power base, the ideologue has the means and legitimacy to call for revolution on a wider scale. The Nazi's had their Quislings and Fifth Columnists who prepared the way for invading military forces. The Soviet Union spread it's agents widely around the world to undermine and weaken governments to make Communist takeovers possible. Stalin and Mao supported Kim's attempt to capture South Korea. Ho Chi-men first supported Charley, and then through regular NVA troops into the struggle. The Arab World, acting together, has tried several times to drive the Jews from the Middle East by the use of direct military force.

If you cannot win political supremacy by legitimate means, or open military force, what is left? Struggle by unconventional means, guerilla war, irregular operations, and etcetera. The weak against the strong use a number of tactics, among them terrorism. Remember, the goal is to gain political supremacy.

Why terrorism? First, it's comparatively cheap. The cost of a bit of explosives, and a low-tech delivery system doesn't cost much. Give an AK-47 with a full magazine to a 12 year old, and turn him loose on your enemy. Provide a few dollars and a hand grenade to a disaffected loser and point to a target. In some places, like Southwest Asia the cost of committing terrorist acts is not much more than a hundred dollars for each event.

Second, terrorism is an effective means of getting media attention. Media attention is essential for the terrorist to succeed. Terrorist acts are seldom effective in physically hurting those the terrorists want to defeat. A few dozen killed, a slight delay in the delivery of services; inconvenience is more common than real damage. By getting time in the news media, the terrorist act is magnified and given importance. Some in the audience will be frightened, and will demand that their government remove the threat and danger. Reacting to the terrorist act, governments are "forced" to change priorities. That makes it seem that the terrorist is more powerful by his ability to manipulate the opposition. Think of how much America has been forced to change in response to 9-11. We could not, not respond in a big way. Failure to respond to such an act would be tantamount to inviting an endless series of terrorist attacks on the nation and its citizens. Some would argue that our failure to react to the many terrorist acts that preceded 9-11, was itself partially to blame for that terrible day. Big media equals big response, and a big response legitimizes the terrorist and his ideology. If the media can be manipulated into making the cost of response seem too high, the enemy public may not want to pay the price, and the terrorist wins. If the response can be made to seem unjust and unpopular, the effort to destroy the terrorist can be disoriented and ineffective. Properly played, the media is the irregular strategists best weapon. A single news story can be more effective than the destruction of a regiment.

Other disaffected persons will be encouraged and vitalized to commit their own terrorist acts. Make the terrorist act seem fashionable, patriotic, and pleasing to God, and volunteers will spring up everywhere. No one can watch everyone, all the time. A brooding young person, for the young are the most susceptible to ideological persuasion, may step up of their own accord and kill innocent people in the name of the Cause. The unknown can become famous by dying while murdering. What is life, when one's death might "destroy" the evil enemy who keeps Perfection from the world?

There are at least three levels that we need to be aware of. First, is the leadership. These are the few who stand at the top of an organization. A charismatic leader who is readily identifiable is a handy catalyst. Often these guys are only nominally in charge. The inner circle is made up of practical types who are skillful at manipulating. The head of operations is a very important post. Where and how operations are conducted needs to be coordinated and directed to get the best results. Though terrorist operations are inexpensive, they do cost and require that the terrorist organization have a sophisticated means of raising and disbursing funds. Media specialists have to find the best and most effective means of publicizing the group's activities. Security is also an essential part of the inner circle. Without good counter-intelligence, the opposition will soon find and destroy the inner-circle and place the whole enterprise in danger. These and other positions require officers with skills and subtle understanding to plan and carry out the operations believed to achieving the organizational goals.

At the second level, ideological commitment is greater. This is the cell level where dedication to the ideal is necessary and discipline is required. Cell members are the cadres that get the things done that were conceived of by the top leadership. They often raise money, buy arms and munitions, reconnoiter the targets and handle the logistics of operations. The cell leader may know a few other cell leaders, but most in a terrorist cell don't know anyone that they can betray later. Ignorance of the organization, its plans and resources is a plus, so long as the cell members do what they are told willingly. Cell leaders are trained, and are responsible for training their own small piece of the overall organization. Cell members are often well educated, members of the middle-classes, employed, and fervent believers in the ideology of the movement. The organization seldom "pay" these people, but expect them to find the financial means to carry on independently. The concept is you can't buy loyalty and dedication, and those are the only persons you want inside a terrorist cell. Getting inside a terrorist cell is really, really tough. The cell leaders vet individual members, and strangers are excluded. Use of modern communications technology makes "remote" intelligence gathering difficult, though the US has awesome, but limited capability.

The third level, are those who are utilized consciously, or not, in carrying out the organization's plans. At this level, education and socio-economic status are often lower. These are those "with nothing to lose", those who hate without reservation those tagged "enemy". Poverty and powerlessness make good fodder for recruiters looking for a patsy to murder and die in a public way. Not all foot soldiers of the terrorist armies come from such deprived backgrounds, some are just young and easily led to believe dying in the act of committing mass murder is a cool thing to do. A person who hates really well and deeply doesn't have to be poor to be persuaded to commit the most heinous acts.
**********
I'd edit this out to make it read better, but I'm tired and want to eat my supper. LOL

Inspired by nimh and asherman's use of the word hate - is it possible that hate itself is as much a driving as poverty and ideology? You know, if you can get two other people to hate along with you, you are no longer alone. You are a part of something greater than yourself.

It sounds silly, but I present the idea seriously.

Sure it is.

And about hating in common, do you remember Big Brother's "Hate Week"?

... and What about soccer hooligans? Team hatred is sacred for many, and has led to criminal actions.

I guess it's time to read 1984 again. It's on the shelf anyway.

We seem to agree that may be the case. I'll even concede to you that trying to do something about poverty and despair is unlikely to make terrorism or crime worse, but that's assuming you do the right things about it; namely offering everyone greater economic opportunities born of greater freedom and taking from each only so much as the government needs to perform its Constitutionally mandated functions.

Dean's idea of tackling poverty (the liberal notion) amounts to forcing the successful sailor with a well-maintained craft to spend half his day bailing the water out of a boat belonging to another guy whose boat would otherwise sink in a week. The successful sailor's craft suffers, because so much of his time is taken up bailing for the guy with the leaky tub. The guy with the leaky tub has no reason to wake up and plug the holes in his hull, because--due to the labor stolen from another--his boat never does sink.

And so it goes.

The thing that Howard Dean ought to think about (but won't) is how many more jobs there would be in this country if business owners paid less in taxes the government takes to help the guy who hasn't got a job because the business owner can't afford to hire him because of the taxes the government takes to help the guy... (Get it?)

===========

I want to add a note echoing someone else's comment above: I genuinely appreciate the thought you have put into your responses, and find much of value, even if I don't agree with it all. If I tend to respond with what I dislike, it doesn't mean I found nothing of value. (If anything, I need to read your responses more carefully than I have. In going back over a few passages I realize I inferred a bit too much and really misconstrued your meaning. I wrote something to Fedral recently about not realizing our bias at times. I need to work at not letting my bias tell me what you mean, and just let your words do it.

Regards,
Scrat

Well, its probably my fault for slipping Howard Dean in there. Thats bound to work like a red flag, and the instantaneous reaction then distracts from the rest of one's post. Course it was provocative to slip that in there - and I did slip it in there to make some aside about how conservatives might have more in common with even him than is generally accepted (if not when talking solutions, then at least in signalling the problems) - but American politics are probably just too polarised to do something like that without shipwrecking much of the rest of your argument. So a smart move it wasn't ...

I was thinking along another line, as well. I know I'm kind of widening the subject a little bit, away from exclusively the folks who actually go out and blow themselves (or others) up, to the bigger group of people who are driven to support the kind of extremists who tend to sometimes do that kind of thing. Why do people end up turning to this extremism, in such collective numbers - and why is this extremism coloured so anti-Western? If next up I end up talking nonsense, with all my speculative generalisations, warn me, please. I was just thinking.

I re-read this line in Kaplan's Ends of the Earth, where he writes about the southern Turkish, tourism-infested coast, and generalises, observing a cab driver, about his kind: "He apes the West, is frustrated by it, and often winds up hating it." And I was thinking , again, about the role of frustrated expectations. I already wrote above about how I believe that not misery itself causes radicalisation, but the awareness that things could be better, or that things might quickly get worse - but there's nothing, as it turns out, you seem to be able to do about it, either way - though the need to try seems so acute. Frustration about having eyed a better vista, but not being given the possibilities to get there (because of whatever cocktail of totalitarianism, bureaucracy, corruption, economic depression) causes anger, in a way that plodding through in the only way of life one knows, no matter how poor, doesn't.

Just thinking aloud here, but I dont think that there is any other civilisation that has succeeded so well in projecting and escalating expectations as the Western civilisation has, ever since the age of modernism started. Its true no matter whether we talk politics or economics.

Our politicians have conquered lands and fought wars to extend our countries' influence - just like leaders from every culture. Internationalist liberals here who attack Western politcians about the hipocrisy of their double standards, power politics and promises not kept, often are rebuked with the reminder that, even if all they are complaining about is true, we still tend to have been more humane than, say, the Chinese emperors, Attila the Hun or, for that matter, Saddam Hussein was ... so why all the indignation at the US, when, say, Syria is so much worse? Well, the main difference between the US and Syria, between republican France and imperial Japan - between, say, the Western modern culture and the Huns - is that the West has claimed the mantle of loft ideals in their conquests like no-one else before. We bring democracy, human rights, prosperity - civilisation! When the Chinese emperors occupied Xinjiang, or when the Russian Tsars occupied Turkestan, they didnt proclaim they were now to "elevate" the newly occupied/liberated peoples - they just told them to put up or shut up. When the Brits, Soviets or Americans came, on the other hand, those subjugated were suddenly told that they were to make a giant step forward, in their own interest.

Now I'm not saying that, in name of fighting hypocrisy, we should just admit that we're doing it all for the national interest and give up on any higher notion - its the idealism implied in the lofty claims that I actually like, deep inside. I'm just saying: the more you promise, the more easily the disappointment of those scorned, when those promises do not materialise, turns against you. Hell hath no fury like a people scorned.

It's not just our politicians' speeches, which will have seemed transparent enough to many, especially those subjugated by them. Our entire popular culture - the culture we are now rapidly exporting through the world-spanning trade of victorious capitalism - is rooted in projecting hope and ambition, and projects promises everywhere, to everyone, of everything, right now. Yes, this car can be yours; yes, with this car, you would get all the ladies. Imagine yourself a richer, better man! These billboards are now everywhere - their message that each of us should strive for instant gratification resounding to the subconscious of people around the world. But what if you see this billboard (or TV ad) everyday, and there is no WAY that you can ever get that car - or even a handcart? What if you start trying, nevertheless, or dreaming about it, at least - and you learn the hard way that it just doesnt work that way for you, not quite yet?

If you accept the notion that Western culture and politics does play a role in rousing demands for more freedom, more democracy, more empowerment, in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, in whatever contradictory way - then imagine the masses of people who have to some extent internalised these latent dreams and ambitions. They pick up the message and dream of opening their own little business, of moving to that Western walhalla themselves, of going into politics to demand democracy or freedom for their people or town. And then they find out that, speeches and advertisements aside, the real deal is not quite that simple.

I mean, sure, anyone would have known that - no-one is that naive. But, for one - you shouldn't underestimate the impact of projecting capitalist dreams onto the un-initiated, either. Millions of Albanians and Romanians bought into so-called "pyramid schemes" immediately after the advent of capitalism - and the collapse of these schemes wiped out their entire savings, and directly contributed to the outbreak of civil war in Albania. That's an extreme example. In political terms, there were the Shi'ites who rose up against Saddam when they believed that the Americans would come to their support, as it had seemed to have promised, during the Gulf War - and who were bombed to pieces, without getting any help, whatsoever.

If you do pick up on those dreams, somewhere - you start to yearn for a better life than the mere virtuous, but hopeless plodding along as a devout peasant in the Yemenite inlands - and then you find out that you will never get that visum for Canada (as the taxi driver in Kaplan's story) ... Or that the US and EU will slam import tariffs on your goods so steep that you can forget about taking part in globalisation with your own new business ... Or that those Western leaders will just as quickly turn around to keep the dictator of your country - the one that will throw you in jail if you go into politics - in place, will tolerate the occupation and repression of your land or people, if it suits their strategic interests ... What happens then? No hand to wave you through passport control at the borders of Fortress Europe - no new business for you, if you dont have the right friends in government - no freedom to take up the cause of your people for you, if you're a Uzbek democrat or Turkish Kurd ... Upon realising all that, those billboards, those speeches, might suddenly make you very bitter indeed, bitterly angry at the way they seem to taunt you. A bitterness that no dulled, cyclical succesion of modest days in poverty would ever have instilled.

It is no surprise that this surge of international extremism comes at a time of rapid social change, of urbanisation and an incremental increase of education - it means that people get to see, expect and demand more, before they get to get any. And get frustrated, angry and bitter in the process. It was no different at the time of the Industrial Revolution here, when many of the new factory workers turned to revolutionary socialism ... Could this be part of the roots of Islamism and other current extremisms, too? And if so, what does it mean? That they would have been better off had they never been barraged with promises and dreams that trigger ambitions that are only going to be frustrated anyway? Or that we should try to be ever truer to our words, so that fewer of the dreams we export turn into a disappointment that will turn against us - be more consistent in supporting democracy, fostering freedom, upholding free trade, instead of promising it all to them, and then turn right around and frustrate their resulting endeavours when we can make a petty buck out of it?

Boy, I'll say so! Widening the topic a little? Probably about time, yet not widened enough to be worth starting a new topic, so, why not.

My first thought was of Palavi in Iran, who got caught between two wildly differing styles of governing. On the one hand, he had one of the most heavy handed secret police forces in the world, which could have been enough to maintain domestic tranquility, if not domestic contentment. On the other, he tried to modernize education and the whole of society. The two modes were not the least compatible, and expectations were indeed raised, but not satisfied. I may be misreading the Iranian situation a bit, but ever since, I've felt that if you were going to repress a people, you want to do it completely. Whether this is what nimh is working with, I'm not sure. Put it down to another random thought, okay?

Surely, raising false expectations is going to cause bitterness, and it could well be directed to the source of those expectations. How can we avoid it, though? I mean, we are what we are. The advertising industry is what it is, and the first job of a politician is to get himself reelected.

Now, somehow, the violent revolution that popped into my head was directed inward. Nimh is seeing his examples producing either outward directed terrorism, or at least the environment that fosters it. Maybe the only connection is unrealized expections, and I ramble too.

It's a good thesis. Not poverty per se, but being led, however unintentionally, to believe that things can and will become better, when they just aren't, or at least when this isn't going to happen quickly enough.

Re: Terrorism, Crime: How Does Poverty Factor In?

All of this makes sense to me if you're talking about crime, but about terrorism, I'm not so sure. The terrorists of 9/11 tended to be rich Saudi heirs. The Baader/Meinhoff group, a pretty bad German bunch of terrorists in the 70 and 80s, tended to be upper middle class and to come from well respected families. (They were children of judges, priests, professors etc.) I think the Oklahoma bomber was middle-class too, though I'm not sure.

With all that in mind, I don't buy the popular line that poverty breeds terrorism. I wish I'd understand what does breed terrorism someday, but for now I'll just settle for being confused.

Hmm, there's quite some to read up on here in this thread, Thomas - we've sure been around the block on the matter!

And (I hope), we've come to go a little beyond the polarities of is-it-poverty-or-is-it-not that you mention ...

Welcome to the Roundtable, btw! ;-)

Thanks

Sofia - Horse and cart question for you: Is it possible that a sizable percentage of those living in poverty are impoverished precisely because they make poor choices, and that poor choices are more likely to threaten the safety of the individual and others?

This question assumes that there is a linkage, but questions the assumption that poverty pulls the cart of criminality. Perhaps the horse is bad decision making, and poverty and crime are riders sharing the cart.

Oh, and WELCOME THOMAS!

Hmm ...

Problem is, Botswanians, say, are about, say (I'm not looking this up), twelve times as poor as Americans. Furthermore, the gap between rich and poor in Botswana is smaller than in America (reasonable assumption), so even the top 10% doesn't reach anything like above-average American wealth.

Does that mean that all Botswanians make worse decisions than any average American? Or could it be that even hard/working, sensible Botswanians with a good education have nevertheless trouble in acquiring any reasonable prosperity?

Well, do Botswanians constitute a significant percentage of terrorists and criminals to the world, on a per capita basis? If not, Scrat's thesis, while unproven, is not disproven.

My personal thought is not that poverty creates terrorists, but that it may provide a sufficiently desparate/hopeless school of little fishies filled with anger. Fishies whose anger is easily manipulated. Suppose our Botswanians (to stay with the example) simply haven't had the exposure needed to become furious over the world's disparity of wealth?

nimh - Inherent in my comments is the notion that we are speaking of those who are measurably impoverished below what is attainable given their circumstances. I would therefor only measure Botswanians against other Botswanians, but believe that my argument would be born out; that you would likely find that in general the poorest Botswanians were those who made bad choices.

The thesis I was challenging was where Scrat wrote,
"a sizable percentage of those living in poverty are impoverished precisely because they make poor choices".

That sounds logical, but yet somehow it isn't.

You seem to be acknowledging that the fact that Botswanians are so much poorer than Americans is not necessarily the consequence of their personal choices - that they are limited by "what is attainable given their circumstances".

What would those circumstances be? Pulling some random examples out of the hat: lack of good schools, their parents weren't educated, either, so transmitted no know-how or encouragement (actually, I think educational level in Boswana is relatively high, but then I chose that country randomly); they don't know the professions that would make one significantly more money, or those jobs are not around where they live; or, hell - jump up a level in abstraction - global economic dynamics are so that Botswanians fall victim to them in terms of what opportunities come their way, in general. No Silicon Valley in Maun, but perhaps some global corporations might send some low-wage manufacturing jobs their way.

Whichever example you pick from the above: apparently, there are circumstances, external circumstances to do with (global) socio-economic patterns and circumstances, that limit the extent to which making the right choices alone can take them much further up.

So why would none of this logic suddenly apply when looking at communities - at rich and poor - within one country?

If, on a global scale, one can acknowledge that, contrary to how libertarian orthodoxy would like things to be, some communities just simply face circumstances that make them less likely to become prosperous, more likely to become impoverished - why wouldn't the same apply to some communities within America? It's a big enough country, with divergent enough "circumstances" ...

Take a random family of white poor in rural Arkansas, or struggling Afro-Americans in Compton. Their universe encompasses a lack of good schools; uneducated parents unaccostumed to encouraging and guiding their children through higher education like y'r average Connecticut latte parent would; a surrounding in which few people constitute an example to follow on, when it comes to going for the professions that would make one significantly more money - or those jobs are simply not around where they live, or they won't half as easily get them because they are not accostumed to all the subtle communication standards (accent, way of talking) that help to get you in; well, I could go on forever.

I could even jump up a level in abstraction and point to national economic dynamics working against their opportunities to climb out of the lowest bracket by sheer, stubborn work. Note that, in 1963, the federal minimum wage was $7.25 an hour in current dollars; the 2004 federal minimum wage is $5.15. The boost of the eighties and nineties were bought with an economic sling-force that, while moving up the nation as a whole, hurled the richest and the poorest in the country ever further apart from each other, the gap between newspaperboy and media magnate doubling, trebling. That alone suggests that the degree of poverty one can get to face is a question of more than good versus bad individual choices - or are the poor now making so much worse choices than they used to, or the rich so much better choices?

When looking at the Botswanians and the role personal choice played in their poverty, you noted that, if one wants to evaluate the effect of their choices, one should only compare them to their peers - other Botswanians; to compare them with Americans would be unfair because there are so many other factors in play when it comes to what is attainable for a Botswanian versus an American. I'd agree, on both, and would argue that what is true on a global scale is at least to some extent true for the national scale, too, especially in a country as big and varied as the States.

If you want to evaluate the personal choices someone from Compton made, you should compare how he did in life with how his brother or neighbour did. And then, if the one made it through high school and got a proper, though low-wage job, while the other ended up in jail, it's indeed probably a case of better versus worse personal choices (though, as a caveat, I would still not want to condemn anyone to life below the poverty line even if he had made bad choices - god knows I made enough). But if, comparing couple after couple like that, even the "good" brother generally does a lot less well than most of even the "worse" brothers from a nicely affluent, encouraging, well-contacted Connecticut family, then apparently, poverty is not all solely a question of individually making the right choices in life, after all.

That brother with the proper, but low-wage job, would still be part of the "poverty" income brackets, even if in comparison with his peers he demonstrably made the better choices - cause, the thing is, he's still, relatively, from the US equivalent of "Botswana".