4 ms·

This is a regressive and defeatist attitude. We actually don't have to tolerate this in a society- those engaging in it should be punished and forcibly removed

This is a regressive and defeatist attitude. We actually don't have to tolerate this in a society- those engaging in it should be punished and forcibly removed if they aren't able to change.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
Evidence has shown that punitive penalties for crime do not affect crime rates.
- senderista 2y ago
  Studies have shown that reality conforms to my prejudices.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Recent events show that not prosecuting crimes leads to crime waves.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  "those engaging in it should be punished" isn't a call for harsher penalties, it's a call for consistent penalties, which is a good idea.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cwmma 2y ago
You misunderstand, the optimal amount of "loss" both internal and external, from Apple's perspective, is greater then zero. They know they could do straight forward things to reduce it, like put everything in the back room so you have to ask for it, or hire security guards to physically prevent theft. But they decided that would be worse for business to prevent all theft then to simply have a few people steal stuff. It being easy for people to grab thousands of dollars worth of stuff and run out of the store is a choice they made intentionally.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That's the relative optimal loss given the alternatives presented. The absolute optimum is zero. >It being easy for people to grab thousands of dollars worth of stuff and run out of the store is a choice they made intentionally. Risking rape or death when I leave my house is a choice I make intentionally. That doesn't mean that murder is optimal or should be tolerated. There are straight forward ways crime could be reduced if the public chooses.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    The optimum is never zero. Not because we like murder and rape as a society, but because we don't know how to make it zero and broad attempts to bring it closer to zero significantly limit our freedoms and worsen our society. Of course it sounds horrible if you're the victim of a rape (and I guess it would be terrible as a murder victim if you weren't, well, dead) that we accept a baseline level of crime as optimal but the fact is that the best way to get rid of rape is to prevent people from having sex. This is an extremely unpopular proposition and it is actually unlikely to be effective anyways, because wanting to have sex is far more desirable than wanting to rape people, and making crimes illegal doesn't actually prevent them from happening. There are a number of less extreme suggestions that you actually probably hold (more policing, stronger sentencing, etc.) that people actually do support and are not obviously dead in the water but they have the same tradeoffs on a smaller scale. Do we accept, as a society, less crime that also makes it more likely that you will be mistakenly identified as a criminal? Should we funnel more money towards crime prevention instead of, say, healthcare? Going "we cannot tolerate any crime" sounds great but the optimal amount of crime will always be nonzero.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      You are torturing the word optimal so I think it is meaningless to discuss that feature. I also reject your view that everything is social tradeoffs. I think it is a extremely narrow perspective that completely ignores culture, norms, and behavior.
scotty79 2y ago
Doesn't make it false. Reality doesn't change just because you are sad about it.

This is a regressive and defeatist attitude. We actually don't have to tolerate this in a society- those engaging in it should be punished and forcibly removed if they aren't able to change.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

Evidence has shown that punitive penalties for crime do not affect crime rates.

senderista 2y ago
Studies have shown that reality conforms to my prejudices.
WalterBright 2y ago
Recent events show that not prosecuting crimes leads to crime waves.
Dylan16807 2y ago
"those engaging in it should be punished" isn't a call for harsher penalties, it's a call for consistent penalties, which is a good idea.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cwmma 2y ago

You misunderstand, the optimal amount of "loss" both internal and external, from Apple's perspective, is greater then zero. They know they could do straight forward things to reduce it, like put everything in the back room so you have to ask for it, or hire security guards to physically prevent theft. But they decided that would be worse for business to prevent all theft then to simply have a few people steal stuff. It being easy for people to grab thousands of dollars worth of stuff and run out of the store is a choice they made intentionally.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That's the relative optimal loss given the alternatives presented. The absolute optimum is zero. >It being easy for people to grab thousands of dollars worth of stuff and run out of the store is a choice they made intentionally. Risking rape or death when I leave my house is a choice I make intentionally. That doesn't mean that murder is optimal or should be tolerated. There are straight forward ways crime could be reduced if the public chooses.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  The optimum is never zero. Not because we like murder and rape as a society, but because we don't know how to make it zero and broad attempts to bring it closer to zero significantly limit our freedoms and worsen our society. Of course it sounds horrible if you're the victim of a rape (and I guess it would be terrible as a murder victim if you weren't, well, dead) that we accept a baseline level of crime as optimal but the fact is that the best way to get rid of rape is to prevent people from having sex. This is an extremely unpopular proposition and it is actually unlikely to be effective anyways, because wanting to have sex is far more desirable than wanting to rape people, and making crimes illegal doesn't actually prevent them from happening. There are a number of less extreme suggestions that you actually probably hold (more policing, stronger sentencing, etc.) that people actually do support and are not obviously dead in the water but they have the same tradeoffs on a smaller scale. Do we accept, as a society, less crime that also makes it more likely that you will be mistakenly identified as a criminal? Should we funnel more money towards crime prevention instead of, say, healthcare? Going "we cannot tolerate any crime" sounds great but the optimal amount of crime will always be nonzero.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    You are torturing the word optimal so I think it is meaningless to discuss that feature. I also reject your view that everything is social tradeoffs. I think it is a extremely narrow perspective that completely ignores culture, norms, and behavior.

scotty79 2y ago

Doesn't make it false. Reality doesn't change just because you are sad about it.