4 ms·
I think it makes it worse, because of the physical endangerment involved. But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving
by duncan_bayne 11y ago
I think it makes it worse, because of the physical endangerment involved.
But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him.
If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.
- alextgordon 11y agoConsider that if this hypothetical thief were to be put under house arrest instead of in prison, the state could save enough money to buy you a new phone.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoExcept that the taxpayers would then be forced to pay reparations for the criminal behaviour of another. A.k.a. moral hazard. Why not do both? Put him under house arrest, and compel him to buy me a new phone.
- newjersey 11y agoHow about we start with no jail time for victimless crimes? If you don't endanger anyone but yourself, we don't pursue criminal charges. I'm thinking drug users and people who drink unpasteurized milk.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoI'm 100% in agreement with you there. The entire idea of a 'victimless crime' is without merit.
- newjersey 11y agoWe can then extend the logic to ridiculous cases where the law is clearly "wrong". http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-music-industry-it-is-illegal-to-make-private-copies-of-music-again/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-mus...