14 ms·

Does that invalidate that taking it is theft? How many of these non-thefts have to occur before the victim can claim damages? Much financial theft is done on

by bmelton 13y ago

Does that invalidate that taking it is theft? How many of these non-thefts have to occur before the victim can claim damages? Much financial theft is done on the order of fractions of cents, but those fractions of theft add up to real, tangible amounts. If I steal half a penny from a local shop owner, and the police don't/can't/won't stop me, then others might do the same. If 100 others do it, he's lost a nickel. If a thousand people do it, it's 5 bucks. Where is the line before it becomes theft? Why is everybody allowed to take from this hypothetical shop owner and he has no recompense?

001sky 13y ago
A good argument could be made you are stealing more economic value from every reader of HN who reads this comment filled with rhetorical questions. Should we call the police? Probably not, because that would be an ass-hat gesture of bad faith. Similarly, sending every customer a paper bill (that costs $2.00/per) for every incidental economic cost of 1/20th of a cent is not only bad social form, its just dumb economics. The game changes when you opportunistically take advantage of social graces. That I will not debate. The purpose is to do the math and to understand why some things are benevolent "social graces" and others are malevolent behaviours. Theoretical moral relativism (or equivalence) taken out of context is empty logic, tho.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Hacker News has tacitly given permission for the use of this website. In exchange, they get permission for rebroadcast, possibly copyright ownership, etc. The point is that we're not "taking" from them, they're allowing us to do so. Having permission is the difference between theft and use of a good. Even if the resultant outcome is definitively good, it doesn't matter -- you cannot take without permission or it is a crime. If a house is on fire, and that house is situated next to a fire extinguisher plant, the obvious good is to pilfer the extinguishers to douse the fire. That said, it is still theft, despite the beneficial outcome. If the extinguisher plant's owner wishes, he may press charges, demand recompense, or forgive the crime altogether, but whether or not he forgives the crime, it was indeed still a crime. Also, it's worth noting, the school is not a commercial entity. Had he stolen his power from Starbucks, which routinely gives power away as a part of doing business, the school has no incentive to do so, nor compelling reason to practice less than 'dumb economics' because giving away power for them is, in fact, dumb economics.

by bmelton 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

A good argument could be made you are stealing more economic value from every reader of HN who reads this comment filled with rhetorical questions. Should we call the police? Probably not, because that would be an ass-hat gesture of bad faith. Similarly, sending every customer a paper bill (that costs $2.00/per) for every incidental economic cost of 1/20th of a cent is not only bad social form, its just dumb economics. The game changes when you opportunistically take advantage of social graces. That I will not debate. The purpose is to do the math and to understand why some things are benevolent "social graces" and others are malevolent behaviours. Theoretical moral relativism (or equivalence) taken out of context is empty logic, tho.

bmelton 13y ago
Hacker News has tacitly given permission for the use of this website. In exchange, they get permission for rebroadcast, possibly copyright ownership, etc. The point is that we're not "taking" from them, they're allowing us to do so. Having permission is the difference between theft and use of a good. Even if the resultant outcome is definitively good, it doesn't matter -- you cannot take without permission or it is a crime. If a house is on fire, and that house is situated next to a fire extinguisher plant, the obvious good is to pilfer the extinguishers to douse the fire. That said, it is still theft, despite the beneficial outcome. If the extinguisher plant's owner wishes, he may press charges, demand recompense, or forgive the crime altogether, but whether or not he forgives the crime, it was indeed still a crime. Also, it's worth noting, the school is not a commercial entity. Had he stolen his power from Starbucks, which routinely gives power away as a part of doing business, the school has no incentive to do so, nor compelling reason to practice less than 'dumb economics' because giving away power for them is, in fact, dumb economics.