3 ms·

>I think they are being robbed because it's easy to do so, with a low risk for any consequences. Similarly as to why shoplifting in LA is up. Ok, then why aren

by Z0rr0 5y ago

>I think they are being robbed because it's easy to do so, with a low risk for any consequences. Similarly as to why shoplifting in LA is up. Ok, then why aren't you robbing or shoplifting if it's so easy and risk-free? Is it because you have too much to lose if you get caught? My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more effectively than some nut shooting at them

weallknowtheobv 5y ago
sgjohnson 5y ago
> Is it because you have too much to lose if you get caught? Absolutely not, risking a first time shoplifting charge is well within my risk tolerance. I'm not doing it because 1. I find crimes against person or property vile 2. It's not worth it. All things considered, it's probably a pretty abysmal hourly rate. > My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more effectively I agree, however I don't see how it is my fault or why would I have to pay for someone else's minimal standard of living. Teaching a man how to fish vs giving the man a fish.
- Z0rr0 5y ago
  >I find crimes against person or property vile ... >Start shooting at the thieves and see how fast the train robbery trend reverses.
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    see: stand-your-ground law. Pretty sure you'd draw that line somewhere. Perhaps it wouldn't be a train, but I can assure you with absolute certainty that there would be a point where you would value your lawfully possessed property over an attacker's life. Anyway, we kind of went off track (no pun intended), but my initial point was that since you can rob these trains with basically no reprecussions, would it still be true if there was a chance that you might get shot in the process? I'd think not.
bart_spoon 5y ago
Because they prioritize preventing the damage to society over their own personal gain. The point is that the decision to commit a crime boils down to putting the individual benefits over the harm being inflicted on others, which is why it is naive to say this kind of theft only happens because people’s needs aren’t met. Not only does this imply that all poor people are committing crimes (how could they not, when their needs aren’t met!), but it also implies that crimes aren’t committed among the non-impoverished population, both of which are clearly false.

by Z0rr0 5y ago

weallknowtheobv 5y ago

sgjohnson 5y ago

> Is it because you have too much to lose if you get caught? Absolutely not, risking a first time shoplifting charge is well within my risk tolerance. I'm not doing it because 1. I find crimes against person or property vile 2. It's not worth it. All things considered, it's probably a pretty abysmal hourly rate. > My whole point is that if people have a minimal standard of living, the fear of losing it will prevent them from committing crimes much more effectively I agree, however I don't see how it is my fault or why would I have to pay for someone else's minimal standard of living. Teaching a man how to fish vs giving the man a fish.

Z0rr0 5y ago
>I find crimes against person or property vile ... >Start shooting at the thieves and see how fast the train robbery trend reverses.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  see: stand-your-ground law. Pretty sure you'd draw that line somewhere. Perhaps it wouldn't be a train, but I can assure you with absolute certainty that there would be a point where you would value your lawfully possessed property over an attacker's life. Anyway, we kind of went off track (no pun intended), but my initial point was that since you can rob these trains with basically no reprecussions, would it still be true if there was a chance that you might get shot in the process? I'd think not.

bart_spoon 5y ago

Because they prioritize preventing the damage to society over their own personal gain. The point is that the decision to commit a crime boils down to putting the individual benefits over the harm being inflicted on others, which is why it is naive to say this kind of theft only happens because people’s needs aren’t met. Not only does this imply that all poor people are committing crimes (how could they not, when their needs aren’t met!), but it also implies that crimes aren’t committed among the non-impoverished population, both of which are clearly false.