5 ms·
It's hard for a sheltered prince like Larry Page to imagine a $100 piece of property having any value at all but that's food for a month if you're poor. People
by staunch 9y ago
It's hard for a sheltered prince like Larry Page to imagine a $100 piece of property having any value at all but that's food for a month if you're poor. People rightly recognize the arrogance those bikes represent and it makes them feel entitled to take them.
I fully support a needy person that takes what a rich person considers to disposable enough to leave on the street unsecured.
In my judgement, Google has implicitly granted permission for the needy to take their bikes and anyone to borrow them.
- monksy 9y agoIt's absurd to justify theft, even if it's unsecured. If those people need food, there are organizations and charities that are out there to provide for that. I'm not sure how you can fully support the idea that you should take from the rich. With that concept, I should introduce someone poorer than you and have them take from your wallet. (It demeans how they, "the rich", got there, it demean's society's valuation on their work)
- staunch 9y agoNo one is stealing from anyone's wallet. If Larry Page starts watering his lawn with $100 bills, and they fly all over the city, would you judge a hungry person to be a thief for picking one up and using it to buy food? In my judgement, he's implicitly granting anyone permission to pick up those loose $100s he can't even be bothered to secure.
- havetocharge 9y agoWhat if these fly into Larry Page's house? Is it still ok to pick them up there?
- staunch 9y agoOf course not, this is about property that is knowingly left unsecured in public.
- rescripting 9y agoMy car unlocked on the street with the keys in the ignition is still my car. It's grand theft auto if you get in it and drive off.
- staunch 9y agoThe law distinguishes between petty theft and grand theft for very good reasons. There's an obvious and huge ethical difference between taking one person's very expensive mode of transportation and taking a megacorp's bicycle-shaped trash off a public sidewalk. I'd call it sub-petty theft, and not even worthy of punishment.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoThese are taken from the megacorp's private parking lots and left as trash by the thieves on public sidewalks and waterways. It's an eyesore and a nuisance. GEM cars also fall below the amount request to be called grand theft. Would you steal those as well?
- TulliusCicero 9y agoHow does it feel to have no moral compass?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dang 9y agoWe've banned this account for violating the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. (Edit: done and unbanned.)
- gt_ 9y ago>There are organizations and charities out there to provide that. It’s absurd to use the compassion of others to justify the lack of your own. EDIT: The one soup kitchen in my neighborhood (with massive homeless problems) just closed because the building was bought by a hotel developer These places don’t just exist. They sometimes exist, but not reliably, and they depend on people’s willfulness to act and defend them. The problem is further complicated when compounding child custody concerns and substance abuse. I am not taking sides here, but pointing out how important it is that we not take these efforts for ganted. Once we do, they vanish. I think the above comment exemplifies what it looks like to take them for granted.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoGoogle provides free shuttle service to the city[1]. If they didn't, does that justify hijacking their campus shuttles? [1] https://mvcommunityshuttle.com https://mvcommunityshuttle.com
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- monksy 9y agoYou're attempting to put words in my mouth that I did not say. If you want to show compassion volunteer or donate to those shelters or organizations.
- dang 9y agoThat crosses into personal attack, which is not allowed here. Please remain scrupulously respectful, including when arguing for compassion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jstarfish 9y agoFortification has not been a prerequisite to maintaining property rights for a few hundred years now. It's called progress, and it keeps the knives of the poor away from your throat as much as it does Larry Page's.
- staunch 9y agoThen why can't you leave $100 sitting in public unsecured with a note that says it's yours? Taking reasonable measures to secure your property is required in practice. Not legally but definitely practically and sometimes ethically.
- dyoo1979 9y agoThe bikes literally have an explicit warning sign on them saying not to take them. There's nothing implicit about this. http://www.timboelaars.nl/media/image/resized/7f65959de388483c_w720.jpg http://www.timboelaars.nl/media/image/resized/7f65959de38848... https://farm1.static.flickr.com/293/32393099485_6f16d1bfb6_b.jpg https://farm1.static.flickr.com/293/32393099485_6f16d1bfb6_b...
- staunch 9y agoOddly enough I could argue the opposite. The need for those warnings is an acknowledgement by the owner that they do not intend to properly secure their property, and are instead asking people not to take advantage of that fact. And there's the fact that the owner went through the trouble of creating that sign without bothering to simply secure their property. Another acknowledgement that leaving property unsecured in public is not reasonable.
- TulliusCicero 9y agoLol, now bikes represent arrogance? Crappy bikes, at that? Jesus, you can't make this crap up.