Clearly the system people have voted in has failed to minimize theft as it is left unprosecuted too often. Thus rational and moral actors have to work inside system people voted for. And that is to reach state where crimes are properly prosecuted.
If the state fails to punish a criminal, the suffering is externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair? Why should the moral people put up with that?
If the company chooses to allow the thefts to continue unimpeded, why should it be anyone else's problem? Like, if someone walks into your home, picks up some items from your shelf, makes eye contact with you, and walks off, and you let them keep doing that over time, at some point you're just consenting to it. I think if you tried to sue them after they stole some arbitrary threshold, a judge would be right to ask why you didn't say anything at all, not even a simple "hey, stop that".
Stealing from Home Depot doesn’t make you a “sociopathic criminal”. It’s shoplifting, not murder. Besides, people who are stealing building supplies are probably doing it because they’re hard up for money and trying to make more on whatever jobs they have. They’re not stealing some random superfluous consumer goods, they’re just broke and trying to make a little more money.
It’s really not that hard to understand - unless you exist solely in the white collar Silicon Valley bubble and have never known a struggle in your life. The fact that you think they “deserve no sympathy” is straight up creepy. Who are you, Marie Antoinette? Who is the real sociopath here?
This is not helping. You should not make up an enemy that does not exist.
There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle. Go back to the reason of an eye for an eye, it is compelling even if it has been disproven.
> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment
Then they probably don't find "an eye for an eye" compelling. The whole expression is meant to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Stealing from Home Depot is a pretty minor crime, so should warrant pretty minor punishment.
And it is widely proven that people who are experiencing struggles in life are more likely to turn to crime. Reducing poverty reduces crime. Just because some people struggled and now want to dish out punishments, doesn't make it "sane" nor effective.
> You should not make up an enemy that does not exist.
Maybe not by that name, but that enemy is classism and it transcends geography. Many people are quick to make extremely serious moral judgements about less fortunate people because they haven't been in that position.
> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle.
There are many people who don't want others to have it easier than they had it, even when the solution is harmless. Many people even endure unnecessary hardship by choice because it allows them to feel morally superior to everyone else. It may feel compelling but it's not right, and it's not beneficial to society.
So are we talking about minimizing theft or maximizing justifiable human suffering?
Clearly the system people have voted in has failed to minimize theft as it is left unprosecuted too often. Thus rational and moral actors have to work inside system people voted for. And that is to reach state where crimes are properly prosecuted.
It has failed to eliminate it, is what you mean. Do you want to minimize theft at the expense of any other concern?
If the state fails to punish a criminal, the suffering is externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair? Why should the moral people put up with that?
If the company chooses to allow the thefts to continue unimpeded, why should it be anyone else's problem? Like, if someone walks into your home, picks up some items from your shelf, makes eye contact with you, and walks off, and you let them keep doing that over time, at some point you're just consenting to it. I think if you tried to sue them after they stole some arbitrary threshold, a judge would be right to ask why you didn't say anything at all, not even a simple "hey, stop that".
5 replies →
Stealing from Home Depot doesn’t make you a “sociopathic criminal”. It’s shoplifting, not murder. Besides, people who are stealing building supplies are probably doing it because they’re hard up for money and trying to make more on whatever jobs they have. They’re not stealing some random superfluous consumer goods, they’re just broke and trying to make a little more money.
It’s really not that hard to understand - unless you exist solely in the white collar Silicon Valley bubble and have never known a struggle in your life. The fact that you think they “deserve no sympathy” is straight up creepy. Who are you, Marie Antoinette? Who is the real sociopath here?
> white collar Silicon Valley bubble
This is not helping. You should not make up an enemy that does not exist.
There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle. Go back to the reason of an eye for an eye, it is compelling even if it has been disproven.
> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment
Then they probably don't find "an eye for an eye" compelling. The whole expression is meant to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Stealing from Home Depot is a pretty minor crime, so should warrant pretty minor punishment.
And it is widely proven that people who are experiencing struggles in life are more likely to turn to crime. Reducing poverty reduces crime. Just because some people struggled and now want to dish out punishments, doesn't make it "sane" nor effective.
1 reply →
> You should not make up an enemy that does not exist.
Maybe not by that name, but that enemy is classism and it transcends geography. Many people are quick to make extremely serious moral judgements about less fortunate people because they haven't been in that position.
> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle.
There are many people who don't want others to have it easier than they had it, even when the solution is harmless. Many people even endure unnecessary hardship by choice because it allows them to feel morally superior to everyone else. It may feel compelling but it's not right, and it's not beneficial to society.