Based on conventional altruistic, or Judeo-Christian, or what I call religio-socialist morality, today's criminal really is, in many senses, practical and wise, while non-criminals are genuinely fools and suckers. Crooks think they have insights into Western society's false and evil moral code, while the law-abiding basically deserve to be exploited. This is true and fine, as far as it goes.

But the problem with a career of beating and robbing your fellow man is that it's genuinely, objectively socially immoral in that "crime doesn't pay." A mostly self-protective society, which is relatively-competently armed with the police, sees to that. Thus, the would-be criminal can almost always make more money honestly earning it, rather than fraudulently stealing it. Moreover, when you commit crimes against others they tend to use gov't to counter-attack brutally and successfully. So despite what seems to be true on the surface, crooks aren't "practical and wise" after all, nor are their opposite numbers really "fools and suckers".

Much more importantly, in choosing the lifestyle of an attacker and thief, you convert yourself from a noble, respectable, happiness-worthy human being to a contemptible, loathsome insect and parasite. So you're genuinely, objectively personally immoral as well. You're surrendering things which are priceless and irreplaceable, namely your honor, self-esteem, good name, and even peace of mind. Your personal happiness, the only thing which counts, gets devastated.

This last argument is something our conventional altruistic, or Judeo-Christian, or religio-socialist world doesn't make, even tho' it seems immensely simple and persuasive. If used in public education it could bring down the crime rate immensely, while similarly enhancing social and personal happiness.