11 ms·

Fixing this is a two part issue. One, we cannot get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property. Two,

Fixing this is a two part issue. One, we cannot get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property. Two, the way to prevent crime from happening is to make people feel in the heart and soul that crime is morally wrong and destructive for the community around them. This is not instinctual human behavior. For those who learn this and live this, great. For those who don't, see option #1.

kqr 5y ago
> everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property. To be clear, this is a political ideal of the Roman Empire that has influenced much of modern civlisation, it's not an inevitable state of humanity.
- snowgrove 5y ago
  The right to protect oneself and one’s property goes at least as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Every ancient civilization from Babylon to Tenochtitlan had some variation of this idea. It is practically the definition of civilization itself.
  - zorpner 5y ago
    The idea that an individual has "[the] right to protect oneself and one’s property" is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of slavery throughout most of humanity's history.
    - snowgrove 5y ago
      Obviously, but that isn’t what the GP comment asserted and it isn’t the statement I replied to.
    - kqr 5y ago
      It's not, though. The Roman idea of protecting oneself and one's property extended to one's slaves (which counted as property).
  - kqr 5y ago
    But unless I've misunderstood Graeber, the idea entered modern jurisprudence and took its recogniseable form from the Roman Empire. In other words, it either looked considerably different in civilisations like Babylon and Tenochtitian, or there's a historic gap of weaker property enforcement between those civilisations and ours.
    - snowgrove 5y ago
      I haven’t read any of David Graeber’s books. Your comment doesn’t make his thesis clear, but I do know what’s written in the Code of Hammurabi: “If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.” https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_translation) https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_trans... Likewise in pre-Columbian Mexico, as per the Florentine Codex: “It was a crime to light a fire in the woods without permission, to cut down trees, to move boundary-markers, to take game from another man’s hunting trap and to steal crops from the fields. All these were crimes that could be punished by death.” https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-the-most-common-crimes-among-the-aztecs https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-t...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
DanHulton 5y ago
You want to know why I don't steal? It's because I don't have to. I have sufficient security of income and opportunity that it's not necessary. I'm not bragging, though, what I'm getting at is that you're missing a huge part of why people steal - maybe even the largest part: because they feel they have to survive, or because it's okay because society is stacked against them. This is what above was talking about when talking about fixing root causes. If you can ensure that people have shelter, food, safety, security, and belonging, you'll generally find that you don't need to _morally re-educate_ them, they won't have the impetus to steal.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  Are you under the impression that white collar crime doesn’t exist and there’s never been anyone above the poverty line to commit theft or fraud? One doesn’t need to be impoverished to steal. Some subset of individuals will always be driven to obtain “more”, even if through illicit means.
- hyperman1 5y ago
  What you're saying is, if the crooks have their basic necessities fulfilled, they would become politicians and CEO's instead of thieves? Only half joking. You're right that you can fix 90% of crimes your way. But there is a group of people that, for some reason, just want to see the world burn or feel the power to make others miserable. We need to deal with them somehow.
  - mtsr 5y ago
    Sure, but the US probably doesn’t need to have (one of the?) highest prison populations per capita in the world.
- gonehome 5y ago
  There are a lot of poor people who are not thieves. I’ve always felt this framing condescends to them. Sure, there’s certainly more incentive to steal at the academic extremes (bread for your starving family), but people raiding trains for packages is something else. There should be police response to this, and people doing it should get charged.
Shacklz 5y ago
> get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property. This kind of individual-first-thinking is probably one of the main reasons why we see pictures like in OP in the first place.
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
  What do you propose should happen if someone breaks into your house with a baseball bat? Call the police and wait for them to arrive? Speak politely to the intruder? I'm not saying everyone has the right to bomb Times Square. But I am saying that the "individual", which some people are asserting to be a taboo idea, can use force to have a chance at preserving their life within their private residence.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kqr 5y ago

> everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property. To be clear, this is a political ideal of the Roman Empire that has influenced much of modern civlisation, it's not an inevitable state of humanity.

snowgrove 5y ago
The right to protect oneself and one’s property goes at least as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Every ancient civilization from Babylon to Tenochtitlan had some variation of this idea. It is practically the definition of civilization itself.
- zorpner 5y ago
  The idea that an individual has "[the] right to protect oneself and one’s property" is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of slavery throughout most of humanity's history.
  - snowgrove 5y ago
    Obviously, but that isn’t what the GP comment asserted and it isn’t the statement I replied to.
  - kqr 5y ago
    It's not, though. The Roman idea of protecting oneself and one's property extended to one's slaves (which counted as property).
- kqr 5y ago
  But unless I've misunderstood Graeber, the idea entered modern jurisprudence and took its recogniseable form from the Roman Empire. In other words, it either looked considerably different in civilisations like Babylon and Tenochtitian, or there's a historic gap of weaker property enforcement between those civilisations and ours.
  - snowgrove 5y ago
    I haven’t read any of David Graeber’s books. Your comment doesn’t make his thesis clear, but I do know what’s written in the Code of Hammurabi: “If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.” https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_translation) https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_trans... Likewise in pre-Columbian Mexico, as per the Florentine Codex: “It was a crime to light a fire in the woods without permission, to cut down trees, to move boundary-markers, to take game from another man’s hunting trap and to steal crops from the fields. All these were crimes that could be punished by death.” https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-the-most-common-crimes-among-the-aztecs https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-t...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

DanHulton 5y ago

You want to know why I don't steal? It's because I don't have to. I have sufficient security of income and opportunity that it's not necessary. I'm not bragging, though, what I'm getting at is that you're missing a huge part of why people steal - maybe even the largest part: because they feel they have to survive, or because it's okay because society is stacked against them. This is what above was talking about when talking about fixing root causes. If you can ensure that people have shelter, food, safety, security, and belonging, you'll generally find that you don't need to _morally re-educate_ them, they won't have the impetus to steal.

bart_spoon 5y ago
Are you under the impression that white collar crime doesn’t exist and there’s never been anyone above the poverty line to commit theft or fraud? One doesn’t need to be impoverished to steal. Some subset of individuals will always be driven to obtain “more”, even if through illicit means.
hyperman1 5y ago
What you're saying is, if the crooks have their basic necessities fulfilled, they would become politicians and CEO's instead of thieves? Only half joking. You're right that you can fix 90% of crimes your way. But there is a group of people that, for some reason, just want to see the world burn or feel the power to make others miserable. We need to deal with them somehow.
- mtsr 5y ago
  Sure, but the US probably doesn’t need to have (one of the?) highest prison populations per capita in the world.
gonehome 5y ago
There are a lot of poor people who are not thieves. I’ve always felt this framing condescends to them. Sure, there’s certainly more incentive to steal at the academic extremes (bread for your starving family), but people raiding trains for packages is something else. There should be police response to this, and people doing it should get charged.

Shacklz 5y ago

> get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property. This kind of individual-first-thinking is probably one of the main reasons why we see pictures like in OP in the first place.

jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
What do you propose should happen if someone breaks into your house with a baseball bat? Call the police and wait for them to arrive? Speak politely to the intruder? I'm not saying everyone has the right to bomb Times Square. But I am saying that the "individual", which some people are asserting to be a taboo idea, can use force to have a chance at preserving their life within their private residence.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]