3 ms·

> "That is certainly true, but that doesn't make it any less harmful." I didn't say it makes it less harmful. I said it makes the defense tonally aware. Th

> "That is certainly true, but that doesn't make it any less harmful." I didn't say it makes it less harmful. I said it makes the defense tonally aware. The people using the defense are aware of the psychological bias people have when harm is spread thin. Besides inflation, you also have the costs of a city wide manhunt and FBI bank robbery investigation. The taxpayers are paying for those as well, and they'll likely be more expensive than anything in the vault. But the bank robbers are tonally aware; they know they can suppress vigilantism by pointing out that the government will spread the harm thin.

lisper 8y ago
> I said it makes the defense tonally aware. Yeah, I know that's what you said. I'm saying you're wrong. Specifically, this bit: > you're not gonna lose a dime You will lose a dime. You will lose it in extra taxes or in reduced purchasing power of the insurance settlement you receive. And so will your friends and neighbors and strangers you have never heard of. And that's just the loss you will suffer from this one robbery. You will also lose a dime from the next robbery that the robbers get away with because people bought into this argument, and the next one and the next, until your cumulative losses will be large enough for you to feel the pain and decide to do something about it. And by the time we get to that point, it won't be just you feeling the pain, it will be everyone.
- mikeash 8y ago
  With $12.2 million stolen in the fictional heist, the per-capita loss would be quite a bit less than one dime.
  - lisper 8y ago
    There are 138 million taxpayers in the U.S. [1] so the per-taxpayer loss would almost exactly a dime. Not that this matters. The net loss of allowing someone to steal $12.2 million is exactly $12.2 million. Quibbling over the details of how this loss is distributed is missing the point rather badly. [1] https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpayers-d77a9265390f4bdb https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpa...
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Oh look, yet another article that acts as if the federal income tax is the only tax that exists. Sigh. In any case, I believe this sort of thing would be covered by insurance or, in the worst case, the FDIC. Everyone with a bank account helps pay for those. Agreed about missing the point. I just took the “dime” figure and ran with it.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > I'm saying you're wrong. Specifically, this bit: "you're not gonna lose a dime" You will lose a dime. You're still missing the point. The intention of that character isn't to make a factually correct statement about how the FDIC system works; his intention is to suppress vigilantism. Pointing out that the people witnessing the robbery actually are paying for it is tone deaf.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > The intention of that character isn't to make a factually correct statement about how the FDIC system works; his intention is to suppress vigilantism. Of course I understand that. But the success of the argument depends entirely on the people in the bank being short-sighted and considering only the short-term consequences to themselves and not the long-term consequences to society.

lisper 8y ago

> I said it makes the defense tonally aware. Yeah, I know that's what you said. I'm saying you're wrong. Specifically, this bit: > you're not gonna lose a dime You will lose a dime. You will lose it in extra taxes or in reduced purchasing power of the insurance settlement you receive. And so will your friends and neighbors and strangers you have never heard of. And that's just the loss you will suffer from this one robbery. You will also lose a dime from the next robbery that the robbers get away with because people bought into this argument, and the next one and the next, until your cumulative losses will be large enough for you to feel the pain and decide to do something about it. And by the time we get to that point, it won't be just you feeling the pain, it will be everyone.

mikeash 8y ago
With $12.2 million stolen in the fictional heist, the per-capita loss would be quite a bit less than one dime.
- lisper 8y ago
  There are 138 million taxpayers in the U.S. [1] so the per-taxpayer loss would almost exactly a dime. Not that this matters. The net loss of allowing someone to steal $12.2 million is exactly $12.2 million. Quibbling over the details of how this loss is distributed is missing the point rather badly. [1] https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpayers-d77a9265390f4bdb https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpa...
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Oh look, yet another article that acts as if the federal income tax is the only tax that exists. Sigh. In any case, I believe this sort of thing would be covered by insurance or, in the worst case, the FDIC. Everyone with a bank account helps pay for those. Agreed about missing the point. I just took the “dime” figure and ran with it.
darkpuma 8y ago
> I'm saying you're wrong. Specifically, this bit: "you're not gonna lose a dime" You will lose a dime. You're still missing the point. The intention of that character isn't to make a factually correct statement about how the FDIC system works; his intention is to suppress vigilantism. Pointing out that the people witnessing the robbery actually are paying for it is tone deaf.
- lisper 8y ago
  > The intention of that character isn't to make a factually correct statement about how the FDIC system works; his intention is to suppress vigilantism. Of course I understand that. But the success of the argument depends entirely on the people in the bank being short-sighted and considering only the short-term consequences to themselves and not the long-term consequences to society.