4 ms·

That's a rather privileged take. Businesses are people's livelihoods and even when insured, insurance doesn't necessarily cover all tangible and intangible cost

That's a rather privileged take. Businesses are people's livelihoods and even when insured, insurance doesn't necessarily cover all tangible and intangible costs, if it covers anything at all. Not to mention rate increases. Property is an extension of person, because we spend portions of our finite lives turning effort into tangible goods. The problem with the "human life is worth less than property" attitude is that there is always a contingent of the population which is not hesitant to take advantage of such kindness. Especially when you start mixing cultures. The only deterrent that such people recognize is the threat of violence. This isn't justification for extreme punishment legal punishment, but it is moral justification for deadly violence in immediate response to ongoing theft of the output of one's labor. Otherwise you are sending a message that people are essentially free to take from you and your community, because arrest and prison are not a sufficient deterrent for some groups of people.

stickfigure 5y ago
If you work for an hourly wage, theft of your property in a very real sense is theft of hours of your life. I think you have it exactly right with "privileged take". Salaried with PTO and direct deposit makes it feel like money just magically appears in your bank account.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Your property? It's the owners property. And if you really cared about savings hours of life for people working hourly wage, you'd be in favor of increased crackdowns on white collar crime over theft. More money is stolen from hourly workers in the form of wage theft than from robbery.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? Let them steal as they please? Close down your stores? Ruin what could be a high trust society? When people care so little about your livelihood and your cultural rules, violence becomes an acceptable deterrent. And people who take issue with this perspective seem to act as though thieves have no control over their actions. It's actually very simple: if you don't want to risk being shot at, don't steal from people. The majority of burglary and robbery in the US is emphatically not committed out of desperation over food and/or shelter. Welfare covers that.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? How about a sentence of 20 to life? Even if that's still not enough to be effective as a deterrent, it means you won't have repeat criminals, since they'll still be in jail for their last crime.
      - stickfigure 5y ago
        In practice law enforcement requires tens of minutes to respond. Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result; nobody is afraid of getting caught. You are there, it's your stuff. You should be able to defend it.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        > Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result I've seen those videos, but aren't almost all of them from places where the DA refuses to prosecute even when the thieves do get caught?
      - dspillett 5y ago
        > How about a sentence of 20 to life? A punishment similar to murder for breaking & entering and theft?! Picture this: you catch a group in the act, they now have a choice: 20 to life if they leave you alive and able to report who they are or kidnap/maim/kill you so they have less chance of getting identified (if they are, the punishment is no worse, if they aren't they get away: so the range of possibilities is 50% better).
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Fine, make it 10-20 instead. But clearly the punishments we have now are too lenient to be effective.
        dspillett 5y ago
dspillett 5y ago
That's a very "my shit is more important than your life" take. I might risk myself to save lives, but not to save stuff, even a business. And I certainly wouldn't expect or even want others to risk injury or worse to save my stuff, or even my life for that matter. > Property is an extension of person Property lost can be regained. Life lost saving property or time lost recovering from serious injury trying to save property, not so much so. > The problem with the "human life is worth less than property" What you are suggesting I'm saying is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Human life is not worth risking to save property. Heck, human injury is hardly worth it in most cases.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >The problem with the "human life is worth less than property Sorry, meant to write the opposite >Property lost can be regained The life force (time) spent generating wealth represented as property cannot be regained. >my shit is more important than your life More like "my shit is more important than your life while you are disregarding my right to property and robbing me". Yes, your life is worth less if you're stealing for profit. Just as your life is worth less if you murder someone, though obviously not to the same degree. But I can't stress how easy this is; if the potential thieves know that they may encounter lethal force while thieving, they will be less likely to take the risk of such antisocial behavior and, more importantly, they know what they're risking when they decide to take time and effort from you. This doesn't even get into theft of sentimental property. It doesn't quite matter if the punishment is disproportional to the threat when the laws and social norms are very clear: don't steal from other people. Especially when such threat of violence also acts as the only effective deterrent.
  - dspillett 5y ago
    > such threat of violence also acts as the only effective deterrent People still steal in places where the punishment is losing a hand or being stoned to death. What do you propose that would be a greater deterrent than those?

stickfigure 5y ago

If you work for an hourly wage, theft of your property in a very real sense is theft of hours of your life. I think you have it exactly right with "privileged take". Salaried with PTO and direct deposit makes it feel like money just magically appears in your bank account.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Your property? It's the owners property. And if you really cared about savings hours of life for people working hourly wage, you'd be in favor of increased crackdowns on white collar crime over theft. More money is stolen from hourly workers in the form of wage theft than from robbery.
- twofornone 5y ago
  If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? Let them steal as they please? Close down your stores? Ruin what could be a high trust society? When people care so little about your livelihood and your cultural rules, violence becomes an acceptable deterrent. And people who take issue with this perspective seem to act as though thieves have no control over their actions. It's actually very simple: if you don't want to risk being shot at, don't steal from people. The majority of burglary and robbery in the US is emphatically not committed out of desperation over food and/or shelter. Welfare covers that.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? How about a sentence of 20 to life? Even if that's still not enough to be effective as a deterrent, it means you won't have repeat criminals, since they'll still be in jail for their last crime.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      In practice law enforcement requires tens of minutes to respond. Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result; nobody is afraid of getting caught. You are there, it's your stuff. You should be able to defend it.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result I've seen those videos, but aren't almost all of them from places where the DA refuses to prosecute even when the thieves do get caught?
    - dspillett 5y ago
      > How about a sentence of 20 to life? A punishment similar to murder for breaking & entering and theft?! Picture this: you catch a group in the act, they now have a choice: 20 to life if they leave you alive and able to report who they are or kidnap/maim/kill you so they have less chance of getting identified (if they are, the punishment is no worse, if they aren't they get away: so the range of possibilities is 50% better).
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Fine, make it 10-20 instead. But clearly the punishments we have now are too lenient to be effective.
        dspillett 5y ago

dspillett 5y ago

That's a very "my shit is more important than your life" take. I might risk myself to save lives, but not to save stuff, even a business. And I certainly wouldn't expect or even want others to risk injury or worse to save my stuff, or even my life for that matter. > Property is an extension of person Property lost can be regained. Life lost saving property or time lost recovering from serious injury trying to save property, not so much so. > The problem with the "human life is worth less than property" What you are suggesting I'm saying is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Human life is not worth risking to save property. Heck, human injury is hardly worth it in most cases.

twofornone 5y ago
>The problem with the "human life is worth less than property Sorry, meant to write the opposite >Property lost can be regained The life force (time) spent generating wealth represented as property cannot be regained. >my shit is more important than your life More like "my shit is more important than your life while you are disregarding my right to property and robbing me". Yes, your life is worth less if you're stealing for profit. Just as your life is worth less if you murder someone, though obviously not to the same degree. But I can't stress how easy this is; if the potential thieves know that they may encounter lethal force while thieving, they will be less likely to take the risk of such antisocial behavior and, more importantly, they know what they're risking when they decide to take time and effort from you. This doesn't even get into theft of sentimental property. It doesn't quite matter if the punishment is disproportional to the threat when the laws and social norms are very clear: don't steal from other people. Especially when such threat of violence also acts as the only effective deterrent.
- dspillett 5y ago
  > such threat of violence also acts as the only effective deterrent People still steal in places where the punishment is losing a hand or being stoned to death. What do you propose that would be a greater deterrent than those?