Comment by fluoridation

3 days ago

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".