3 ms·
All of the examination of costs in the comments assume a zero cost of enforcement. Free courts, free police, free jailing or fine enforcement of any violators.
by nwenzel 12y ago
All of the examination of costs in the comments assume a zero cost of enforcement. Free courts, free police, free jailing or fine enforcement of any violators.
Without that free enforcement, these $5-$50 items would not be worth fighting over.
I don't believe that police protection should be a fee-for-service business, but are there no checks and balances on the use of public services for private gain?
- phpnode 12y agoYour argument applies to theft of any low value item. If a shopkeeper presses charges against a shoplifter, are they using public services for private gain? Should there be checks in place to stop shopkeepers from reporting too many thieves?
- nwenzel 12y agoIt would seem from the article that the business model not only requires the free protection, but that the enforcement of fines an judgements is a major driver of revenues. In your hypothetical example, I believe you are referring to a physical storefront where the primary revenue generating activity is to sell merchandise. If your hypothetical shopkeeper had a shop that made more money from forcing shoplifters to pay a fine for scaling, then... perhaps. I don't think your hypothetical shop exists, so it's tough for me to answer.