From the perspective of the poor, it seems obvious that the benefits would outweigh the costs. The benefits to poor people of no longer being poor would be enormous. Their intake of protein and other nutrition would increase their choice of housing and the quality of the housing they select would improve. Crimes related to poverty(that the poor generally commit against each other)—murder, rape, robbery, burglary, child abuse, spouse abuse, and drug related crimes—would probably decrease. Apart from these specific improvements, the poor would benefit by an increase in the control over their own lives. Increased purchasing power represents a part of this. More money to spend not only permits the purchase of additional goods and services but greatly widens the choice of goods and services that potentially could be purchased. The poor, if no longer poor, would also gain greater control of various non-fiscal aspects of their lives. As their economic stake in society increases, their political stake is likely to increase as well. They will note more, and thus exercise a greater influence in municipal, local, state, and federal elections. As a result, elected officials will respond to them more effectively. Agencies of government—police, fire, sanitation, streets, parks, and so forth—will also respond more promptly and effectively. Public school systems in particular will be more responsive. The former poor who dislike the education their children are getting in public schools will have an increased ability to 'vote with the dollars' by enrolling their children in previously unaffordable private schools or moving to living quarters in previously unaffordable communities. Responding to the former poor will become a matter of survival for the teachers and administrators who depend for their livelihood on the public schools. While the benefits to the poor of enjoying a right not to be poor may for the most part be obvious, some potential disadvantages—to them—should also be considered. First, will not the creation of a right not to be poor reduce the motivation of the poor to exert themselves to get out of poverty? It is arguable that to the extent that self-help is rendered unnecessary to achieve a minimum living standard, many of the poor will refrain from enrolling in the schools, undertaking the enterprises, and in general taking the risks that today elevate many of them not only above the poverty line but into the middle class and beyond. The establishment of a right not to be poor could result, arguably, in the poor as a whole—or at least a substantial percentage of them—ending up economically worse off in the long run. Second, to the extent that a guarantee of non-poverty reduces the poors incentive to exert themselves, will there not be a parallel reduction in their innovative contributions to the economic well-being of our entire society—including the well-being of the former poor along with the well-being of the rest of us? In other words, a guarantee of non-poverty may arguably induce the poor child—whose deprivation would otherwise have spurred the child to graduate from high school, finish college, get a Ph.D. in physics, and win the Nobel Prize for devising a way to produce cheaper energy—to refrain, because of the security offered by the guarantee, from embarking on a course that would greatly benefit all former poor people as well as society as a whole. Which one of the following is usually viewed as a crime related to poverty?