Comment by Nextgrid
3 years ago
I’d argue that the optimal amount of crime is zero but the optimal amount of possibility of crime should be non-zero. That’s a necessary escape hatch out of a police state or authoritarian government. After all, the resistance against the Nazis was technically criminal at that time, even though now we’d all agree it was a good thing it occurred anyway.
It is especially important nowadays because unlike back then where technology was limited and surveilling 100% of the population was impossible, it is very much possible today and is already being done in certain places such as China.
I like this view: you take care of a lot of the conventional concern we while also some futuristic ones like Pre-Crime in Minority Report.
Exactly.
But patio’s argument is that since he works for the fraud department at Stripe payments, he wants fraud to exist so he can keep his cushy job.
Ask the police about the optimal amount of speeding tickets.
Does he mention this somewhere? Last time I spoke to him, he was working on Stripe Press, his interest in fraud and spam prevention long predates his work at Stripe.
Exactly. Everybody seems to be throwing around the word "optimal" but not asking "optimal to whom?".
The article was kind of long-winded so I didn't read it all. But has a catchy title. So is the title about
a) Optimal amount of fraud to the society at large?
b) Optimal amount of fraud to the businesses which suffer a loss because of it?
c) Optimal amount of fraud to the customers of such businesses?
d) Optimal amount of fraud to the chief of fraud-prevention department?
e) Optimal amount of fraud to the fraudsters?
If you define crime as violating the anarchist non-aggression principle, then it makes more sense. The only problem is that the state would be the largest offender.
Nazi laws weren't moral, as it's not moral today to demand half of my profits or I go to jail.
You just picked your own idea of morality and decided to elevate it above others: you chose the "anarchist non-aggression principle" as somehow morally superior to other ideas about how crimes should be defined, and decided that with that definition, targeting zero crimes makes more sense.
But the whole point is that we will never universally agree on a morality because society's overall preferences shift over time. So targeting zero crimes never makes sense.