3 ms·

That's not a healthy attitude. You don't have to be attached to an object to be averse to losing something of monetary value. It's like you're trying to be weir

by philtar 12y ago

That's not a healthy attitude. You don't have to be attached to an object to be averse to losing something of monetary value. It's like you're trying to be weird on purpose.

padelt 12y ago
Just another opinion: I find that attitude very healthy. As a society, you can have a general policy of not locking doors. Will work basically the same as a society with generally locked doors. Burglars will find a way in - this way or the other. There will be hotspots of crime in both cases. The overall rate will not differ that much.
omegaham 12y ago
You can be averse to losing something of monetary value and take sensible precautions to avoid losing them, (don't leave your wallet unattended, don't walk through a bad part of Camden at night, etc) but home defense seems to be a classic case of loss aversion. "I'm terrified of someone stealing my $400 TV and $600 computer, so I'm going to spend hours and hours of time and lots of money on an alarm system, guns, reinforced doors, new locks, better windows, and a goddamn bubble from The Prisoner."
cb18 12y ago
Hardly, he's just saying that since the odds of burglary are quite low(maybe not everywhere) and on a downward trend,[0] and since he doesn't have anything that is particularly irreplaceable, he's not going to be too concerned about burglary or take excessive precautions. And even if you did have something 'irreplaceable,' sooner or later it's going to be gone or transformed, it wouldn't hurt to incorporate that into your present awareness. [0]Pretty sure I heard something like this recently. One factor postulated was that since the price of consumer electronic items and whatnot typically targeted in burglaries has been falling, the risk/'reward' calculation of what a burglar would find in an average house versus the risk of being caught and going to jail is serving to deter potential burglars.

by philtar 12y ago

That's not a healthy attitude. You don't have to be attached to an object to be averse to losing something of monetary value. It's like you're trying to be weird on purpose.

padelt 12y ago

Just another opinion: I find that attitude very healthy. As a society, you can have a general policy of not locking doors. Will work basically the same as a society with generally locked doors. Burglars will find a way in - this way or the other. There will be hotspots of crime in both cases. The overall rate will not differ that much.

omegaham 12y ago

You can be averse to losing something of monetary value and take sensible precautions to avoid losing them, (don't leave your wallet unattended, don't walk through a bad part of Camden at night, etc) but home defense seems to be a classic case of loss aversion. "I'm terrified of someone stealing my $400 TV and $600 computer, so I'm going to spend hours and hours of time and lots of money on an alarm system, guns, reinforced doors, new locks, better windows, and a goddamn bubble from The Prisoner."

cb18 12y ago

Hardly, he's just saying that since the odds of burglary are quite low(maybe not everywhere) and on a downward trend,[0] and since he doesn't have anything that is particularly irreplaceable, he's not going to be too concerned about burglary or take excessive precautions. And even if you did have something 'irreplaceable,' sooner or later it's going to be gone or transformed, it wouldn't hurt to incorporate that into your present awareness. [0]Pretty sure I heard something like this recently. One factor postulated was that since the price of consumer electronic items and whatnot typically targeted in burglaries has been falling, the risk/'reward' calculation of what a burglar would find in an average house versus the risk of being caught and going to jail is serving to deter potential burglars.