I don’t know. I remember learning as a kid (never knew if true) that in France at one time, theft of necessities was not prosecuted as a kind of hands-off social welfare program thing. Does that bump up to theft of insured replaceable objects? For the thief it might. For the courts, probably not. For the homeowner, certainly not because it’s a hassle to replace and having strangers enter your home is icky and destroys the illusion of safety.

I don’t know. I remember learning as a kid (never knew if true) that in France at one time, theft of necessities was not prosecuted as a kind of hands-off social welfare program thing.

Does that bump up to theft of insured replaceable objects? For the thief it might. For the courts, probably not. For the homeowner, certainly not because it’s a hassle to replace and having strangers enter your home is icky and destroys the illusion of safety.

===

You jumped ahead too far too fast. Walk up the ladder. I’m not an insurance agent but I’m thinking from how I imagine an insurance company might see things.

Theft is a part of every society and expected so there’s insurance. You buy insurance because you’re betting your stuff will get stolen while the insurance company, who calculated precise risks, bets that they can make a profit even while including any thefts that might occur.

So, theft happens.

====

If you’re uninsured while also valuing your possessions, you’re naive about realities.

===

Many do excuse murder. In some states, you are allowed to murder someone who you did not invite into your home if they make you feel uncomfortable. It’s not referred to as murder, but yet someone is still dead.

===

Is property equivalent to life?

===

If you believe property is equivalent to life, then you would answer “yes”.
If you draw a distinction between property and life, then you would answer “no”.

====

If I lie on my credit application I commit an illegal and immoral act.
I did not murder anyone. Yet I should be punished like a murderer?

Degrees man.

====

The thief is justifed to him/herself. This is why I posted the article.

I did not say I agree. Or that you should or that the courts should.

I spoke only of a thief’s justification for theft. I don’t know what a murderer’s justification for murder is. I did not explore that.

====

Where are moral issues in American society decided that create precedent that leads to law?

Courts and sometimes “from above” by politicians with opinions. But ideally, it goes through the court system first.

What happens in criminal court? Defense, prosecution, jury of peers.

====

The accused’s perspective is most certainly taken into account.

===

Courts vary. Trials vary. There was a case in back in Sept 16 where a 23 yr old male babysitter spent 30 days home arrest for molesting a boy under his care several times.

How’d he get no punishment? A convincing defense attorney and a sympathetic jury.

====

The law is not evenly applied. Perhaps it should be. Perhaps it shouldn’t. A police state would be an extreme. A society of favoratism might be the other. I dunno.

====

I can be sympathetic while also wanting a just recompense. [jail time, fine, whatever]

===

Homeowners insurance should cover theft. Fear of loss of your life is justified in some states but loss of stuff?

===

Property =/= life afaik. Maybe fear of loss of life = taking a life, but not property.

====

I can’t see a justification for property = life that’s lawful. Maybe in a movie but not real life.

====

It’d have to be fear of loss of life or harm to self or family. If someone told me that they didn’t really feel threatened by a burglar but shot them anyway because they knew they could, at the very least I wouldn’t want to know that person anymore.

====

People are irreplaceable. My pet is irreplaceable but more replaceable than people.. I can’t think of an item that is irreplaceably important to my future that I would murder someone over. Mind you, I’m a bit of a hoarder so they say. Hate throwing shit away. I might want to kill someone if they mess with my laptop but doubt I’d do it. Might maim them though.

====

Besides, there wouldn’t BE only two options.

If you can kill someone, you can maim them instead.

====

I might kill for a pet. I might kill if I feared for my life. But you spoke of items. If you have a kilo of coke and got yourself wrapped up in that mess, you already operate from an entirely different rulebook that I can’t answer for.

====

Here’s the thing: I’m not a drug runner. Thats a different rulebook. I’m not a cop. Different rulebook.

I can’t take their rulebooks and apply them to me.

====

See, I can’t live in an imaginary world like that where there’s no consequences. That’s movies.

====

Nope. There’s law enforcement. There’s a court system in place. Told you I don’t live in an imaginary world.

====

You’d probably feel justified if you killed someone unless it was an accident. I’d feel justified if I killed someone unless it was an accident. But the situations where I’d feel justified in killing someone is a narrow set and I’d expect to face legal consequences of my actions if I did.

“Scot free” isn’t part of my equation. If I murder, I get punished, even if it “feels good” or right to do it, and I expect it.

===

Not really. That’s why I wouldn’t murder someone unless I felt it was absolutely necessary. I’d also use every measure I could to escape because I’m not stupid. If I got caught, I’d use every means I could to get off scot free because I’d be stupid not to avail myself of every resource.

But I’d never automatically expect to “get away with it”.

====

The French? I was pointing out that different societies have different ways of dealing with the theft problem. My main point is that theft happens in any and every society.

===

I don’t ask myself questions like, “Could I murder someone if there were no laws?” It’s a ridiculous question.

===

Thought experiments are useful, sure. Great for creating fictional universes. Movie plots. Imaginary worlds. “What if?” It’s fun. It’s why fiction is fun and useful for figuring out our own moral stances on things.

But rifle or pistol in hand, what’s it gonna be? Hypothetical only takes you so far if you’ve left out too much of the real world in your thought experiments.

====

They can. Most paradoxes are resolveable though if not all. But the answers are usually unsatisfying to logicians because they involve solutions outside of the framework of the paradox.

====

Example: How to crack into a system with RSA 2048 Root key? Mathematically nearly impossible right?

How about: Find the person who has the passcode you need to get into the encrypted system, kidnap his/her family for random and kill them off one by one until they give you the password?

There. You did the mathematically impossible thing. Solved.

===

Oh I’m a BIG believer in bouncing ideas off people, especially people who have a different worldview than me. It’s how I learn better about my own thinking processes. Totally understand. Do it constantly.

====

I’ve never been good with binaries. Seen too many people misled by them. Too often they’re logic traps to compel you to answer in a way that then compromises your stance. One place they commonly mislead people is documentaries. It’s why I don’t watch them. They start with a what if. Once you accept the what if, or “let’s suppose”, they start building on it more and more until by the end, to maintain logical consistency you’re compelled to agree with their answers.

Problem is: Its based on a hypothetical. Then people take the answer they get and use it to make critical life choices not realizing they’re ultimately operating off of a fantasy tale.

I wish I was exaggerating but a survey of some strange ideas out there in the world and it’s all over the place.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− one = 2

Leave a Reply