6 ms·

Yes it is. Just like stealing 1000 dollars from a billionaire is more defensible then stealing 1000 dollars from someone on welfare. The damage done on the form

Yes it is. Just like stealing 1000 dollars from a billionaire is more defensible then stealing 1000 dollars from someone on welfare. The damage done on the former is nigh unnoticeable while the damage on the later would probably include starving without help.

merpnderp 7y ago
If the law doesn’t protect everyone equally, then people start gaining a strong incentive to not follow the law. We can see the results of this currently all around the world with countries rioting and on fire.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  Huh? Why do you bring the law into it? No one ever said anything about that.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  In many cases protecting people equitably makes more sense. For example, some countries assess fines based on one’s income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Classic quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
  - macinjosh 7y ago
    Equity is, in effect, code for treating some people different than other people due to immutable facts about reality. That's wrong. Equality is right. Enforcing equity is illegitimate use of the government and is an out right attack on everyone's personal liberties. I don't care if someone is rich, poor, white, brown, gay, straight, etc. The government treating someone differently (in anyway) due to who they are is wrong. End of story.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      A strict view of equality can actually lead to the law treating people differently due to who they are. Consider a flat fine for speeding: pragmatically, that means that someone living paycheck to paycheck has to obey speed limits whilst a millionaire does not. That is wrong.
      - merpnderp 7y ago
        You have a strange definition of "differently". A millionaire doesn't get to speed, that's just ridiculous. They'll be stopped, inconvenienced, and have points on their license, and eventually lose the legal right to drive. Treating people differently through some arbitrary definition of difference is wrong. Either we're all equal in front of the law or some animals are more equal than others. And the kind of justice you're peddling is what has set countries across the world on fire recently; the uneven application of the law. [Edit] I don't think I was clear. Everywhere we see special cutouts in the law, all that happens is that the more capable less scrupulous people capture those cutouts. The best we can hope to do is to treat everyone exactly the same in front of the law.
        TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        This is exactly wrong. Someone sufficiently rich will simply pay a team of lawyers to challenge any points on technicalities. And they'll probably have a foreign licence, which makes a ban harder to enforce. "Equal in front of the law" actually means that financial penalties should be progressive in the same way taxes should be. Some countries actually do this, and they're not on fire.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        The point is that by ignoring people’s circumstances, we are creating special cutouts. In the speeding example, the “more capable less scrupulous people” capturing the cutout are those who can afford to not care about the fine.
        7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tedivm 7y ago
  No one here was talking about the law, as legality and morality are two distinct things.
macinjosh 7y ago
You're disgusting. Stealing is stealing.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say either of those cases isn't stealing.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post personal attacks, regardless of how wrong the other person is or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Turing_Machine 7y ago
You're seeing "the bank" as a faceless entity, when in fact "the bank" (not sure about this particular bank, but in general) is owned by shareholders, some of whom are almost certainly disabled old ladies whose dead husband put their retirement savings in bank stocks because those were considered to be a safe investment. If enough people steal from "the bank" under your theory, the old blind lady winds up eating cat food and not being able to pay her rent because the bank is no longer profitable. That doesn't sound quite as "defensible", now, does it? Note that things like banks and insurance companies (another favorite whipping boy) do tend to have their stocks owned by things like retirement funds, precisely because they are considered low-risk investments with a safe (albeit small) yield.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. My point about the comparison with two people should clue you in on that. Your theory about if enough people steal from "the bank" doesn't hold any water since if that happens it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened in the 2008 financial crisis. That's not even to say the vast options banks have to detect stealing if it would become such a huge problem. A person on welfare has little option. It's simple to me. a single person stealing from a bank incurs a lot less suffering then a single person stealing from a welfare recipient. The damage done is simply not even comparable.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Turing_Machine 7y ago
    > I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. Yes, you absolutely are. > it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened And you're also apparently seeing "the government" as a faceless entity with an unlimited amount of cash. When the government "swoops in", it's at the expense of every single taxpayer. I'm boggled that people are incapable of understanding this, or are in such denial about it that they feel the need to mod me down rather than debating the point.
lscotte 7y ago
This is simply wrong. $1000 is $1000. Period.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Obviously untrue. Money has diminishing marginal utility. That doesn’t necessarily justify a theft but $1000 isn’t identical utility to all.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. Of course $1000 is $1000 dollars. That doesn't mean the relative value of $1000 is the same for all people.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  For the law. Ethically I do not think this is true.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

merpnderp 7y ago

If the law doesn’t protect everyone equally, then people start gaining a strong incentive to not follow the law. We can see the results of this currently all around the world with countries rioting and on fire.

rowanG077 7y ago
Huh? Why do you bring the law into it? No one ever said anything about that.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
In many cases protecting people equitably makes more sense. For example, some countries assess fines based on one’s income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Classic quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
- macinjosh 7y ago
  Equity is, in effect, code for treating some people different than other people due to immutable facts about reality. That's wrong. Equality is right. Enforcing equity is illegitimate use of the government and is an out right attack on everyone's personal liberties. I don't care if someone is rich, poor, white, brown, gay, straight, etc. The government treating someone differently (in anyway) due to who they are is wrong. End of story.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    A strict view of equality can actually lead to the law treating people differently due to who they are. Consider a flat fine for speeding: pragmatically, that means that someone living paycheck to paycheck has to obey speed limits whilst a millionaire does not. That is wrong.
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      You have a strange definition of "differently". A millionaire doesn't get to speed, that's just ridiculous. They'll be stopped, inconvenienced, and have points on their license, and eventually lose the legal right to drive. Treating people differently through some arbitrary definition of difference is wrong. Either we're all equal in front of the law or some animals are more equal than others. And the kind of justice you're peddling is what has set countries across the world on fire recently; the uneven application of the law. [Edit] I don't think I was clear. Everywhere we see special cutouts in the law, all that happens is that the more capable less scrupulous people capture those cutouts. The best we can hope to do is to treat everyone exactly the same in front of the law.
      - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        This is exactly wrong. Someone sufficiently rich will simply pay a team of lawyers to challenge any points on technicalities. And they'll probably have a foreign licence, which makes a ban harder to enforce. "Equal in front of the law" actually means that financial penalties should be progressive in the same way taxes should be. Some countries actually do this, and they're not on fire.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        The point is that by ignoring people’s circumstances, we are creating special cutouts. In the speeding example, the “more capable less scrupulous people” capturing the cutout are those who can afford to not care about the fine.
        7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tedivm 7y ago
No one here was talking about the law, as legality and morality are two distinct things.

macinjosh 7y ago

You're disgusting. Stealing is stealing.

rowanG077 7y ago
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say either of those cases isn't stealing.
dang 7y ago
Please don't post personal attacks, regardless of how wrong the other person is or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Turing_Machine 7y ago

You're seeing "the bank" as a faceless entity, when in fact "the bank" (not sure about this particular bank, but in general) is owned by shareholders, some of whom are almost certainly disabled old ladies whose dead husband put their retirement savings in bank stocks because those were considered to be a safe investment. If enough people steal from "the bank" under your theory, the old blind lady winds up eating cat food and not being able to pay her rent because the bank is no longer profitable. That doesn't sound quite as "defensible", now, does it? Note that things like banks and insurance companies (another favorite whipping boy) do tend to have their stocks owned by things like retirement funds, precisely because they are considered low-risk investments with a safe (albeit small) yield.

rowanG077 7y ago
I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. My point about the comparison with two people should clue you in on that. Your theory about if enough people steal from "the bank" doesn't hold any water since if that happens it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened in the 2008 financial crisis. That's not even to say the vast options banks have to detect stealing if it would become such a huge problem. A person on welfare has little option. It's simple to me. a single person stealing from a bank incurs a lot less suffering then a single person stealing from a welfare recipient. The damage done is simply not even comparable.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 7y ago
  > I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. Yes, you absolutely are. > it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened And you're also apparently seeing "the government" as a faceless entity with an unlimited amount of cash. When the government "swoops in", it's at the expense of every single taxpayer. I'm boggled that people are incapable of understanding this, or are in such denial about it that they feel the need to mod me down rather than debating the point.

lscotte 7y ago

This is simply wrong. $1000 is $1000. Period.

scarejunba 7y ago
Obviously untrue. Money has diminishing marginal utility. That doesn’t necessarily justify a theft but $1000 isn’t identical utility to all.
rowanG077 7y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. Of course $1000 is $1000 dollars. That doesn't mean the relative value of $1000 is the same for all people.
Aeolun 7y ago
For the law. Ethically I do not think this is true.

dang 7y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html