4 ms·

Right, because all these brazen thieves have a right to do that because housing is expensive.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
No. They don't have any such right. But if you design a world where it's more punishing to play by the rules than to break them, some people will break them. That's just reality.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Thus, punishing breakage of the rules more severely would lead to fewer people breaking the rules. As per your reasoning, to reduce crime we have to make breaking the rules more punishing than abiding by them.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    If you go far enough down that path, you get a world where people break them anyway and get better at covering up and more people look the other way. Prohibition did not put a stop to people drinking. It just helped make organized crime rich and powerful as ordinary people continued to drink, didn't want to die from bathtub gin being poisonous and crime lords were the only reliable source of safe alcohol.
    - frumper 3y ago
      Buying alcohol illegally didn't cause your neighbor hundreds of dollars in property damage, unless you count drunk driving.
      - DoreenMichele 3y ago
        They prohibited alcohol on the theory that men would stop beating their wives. Furthermore, giving enormous amounts of money and power to organized crime had knock-on effects, none of which were good.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Prohibition created a black market, off of which criminals stood to profit. By comparison, locking people up who break into cars or serially shoplift does not create a black market. And on a pedantic note, during prohibition drinking dropped to about 30% of it's pre-prohibition levels. Even after the repeal of prohibition was around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels [1]. 1. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675...
      - DoreenMichele 3y ago
        The world currently has some serious problems that aren't going to be fixed by punishing people hardest hit by that fact. White collar criminals often hurt more people and to a greater degree and tend to be coddled in comparison. There is an element of classism here to which I object. I'm well aware some people just like hurting others and will do so on any excuse. I did say "and/or" and every single reply here sounds like no one heard that, as if I started my comment with something like "You meanie face! Instead of punishing people who are clearly victims of the system, we should help them!" That framing doesn't exist and I think it's a waste of my time to continue to engage people who seem to be misreading my initial comment. Thank you for the pedantic note. I didn't previously know that. (It doesn't impact my point, for the record.)

No. They don't have any such right. But if you design a world where it's more punishing to play by the rules than to break them, some people will break them. That's just reality.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Thus, punishing breakage of the rules more severely would lead to fewer people breaking the rules. As per your reasoning, to reduce crime we have to make breaking the rules more punishing than abiding by them.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  If you go far enough down that path, you get a world where people break them anyway and get better at covering up and more people look the other way. Prohibition did not put a stop to people drinking. It just helped make organized crime rich and powerful as ordinary people continued to drink, didn't want to die from bathtub gin being poisonous and crime lords were the only reliable source of safe alcohol.
  - frumper 3y ago
    Buying alcohol illegally didn't cause your neighbor hundreds of dollars in property damage, unless you count drunk driving.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      They prohibited alcohol on the theory that men would stop beating their wives. Furthermore, giving enormous amounts of money and power to organized crime had knock-on effects, none of which were good.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Prohibition created a black market, off of which criminals stood to profit. By comparison, locking people up who break into cars or serially shoplift does not create a black market. And on a pedantic note, during prohibition drinking dropped to about 30% of it's pre-prohibition levels. Even after the repeal of prohibition was around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels [1]. 1. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675...
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      The world currently has some serious problems that aren't going to be fixed by punishing people hardest hit by that fact. White collar criminals often hurt more people and to a greater degree and tend to be coddled in comparison. There is an element of classism here to which I object. I'm well aware some people just like hurting others and will do so on any excuse. I did say "and/or" and every single reply here sounds like no one heard that, as if I started my comment with something like "You meanie face! Instead of punishing people who are clearly victims of the system, we should help them!" That framing doesn't exist and I think it's a waste of my time to continue to engage people who seem to be misreading my initial comment. Thank you for the pedantic note. I didn't previously know that. (It doesn't impact my point, for the record.)