Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

nps.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#11

Post by wahnfrieden »

ultimafan wrote: post #8
ajkjk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#12

Post by droopyEyelids »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #11
ultimafan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?

Leaving aside the question of justification, one of the mysteries of life in the United States is that with so much gun violence there is so little of what you describe.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#13

Post by svat »

ajkjk wrote: post #5
dmix wrote: post #4

> The men he was chasing were armed and dangerous. How might you have reacted to the theft of a replaceable boat when capturing the thieves was so time-consuming and dangerous? This might sound a bit self-helpy but I've found one of the best indicators of a great people is their passion for caring about things most other people wouldn't bother to put effort into and then turning that basic caring into something bigge…

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

The article has this quote from Roosevelt:

> “In any wild country where the power of law is little felt or heeded, and where every one has to rely upon himself for protection, men soon get to feel that it is in the highest degree unwise to submit to any wrong…no matter what cost of risk or trouble. To submit tamely and meekly to theft or to any other injury is to invite almost certain repetition of the offense, in a place where self-reliant hardihood and the ability to hold one’s own under all circumstances rank as the first of virtues.”

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#14

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #12
wahnfrieden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?

Leaving aside the question of justification, one of the mysteries of life in the United States is that with so much gun violence there is so little of what you describe.

That becomes less of a mystery when you look at the gun violence details. A significant chunk is self-inflicted, and another significant chunk is gang related. Remove those and that leaves a surprisingly small amount of gun violence when you consider there are 1.5 guns per American.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#15

Post by vkou »

ajkjk wrote: post #5
dmix wrote: post #4

> The men he was chasing were armed and dangerous. How might you have reacted to the theft of a replaceable boat when capturing the thieves was so time-consuming and dangerous? This might sound a bit self-helpy but I've found one of the best indicators of a great people is their passion for caring about things most other people wouldn't bother to put effort into and then turning that basic caring into something bigge…

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

> an invention of risk departments at modern corporations.

No, it's an invention of an industrialized society that, for the most part, has material goods in relative abundance.

Very few people are actually in a situation where some burglar is in a position to ruin them to destitution. We aren't subsistence peasants, for whom the theft of a farm animal could have been the difference between life and starvation.

Violence, inflicted either by you, or at you, on the other hand, can very well be the difference between life and ruin, and it's baffling how so many people seem to treat the use of deadly force as if its some kind of video game, or Stephen Seagal flick.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#16

Post by ultimafan »

ajkjk wrote: post #9
ultimafan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. But it is really more than just the hours it took, or sentimental value. It is also the coherence of the worldview that "one's stuff is the…

>Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance.

For sure, there definitely are situations in which case it would be absurd to try to justify as within reason. But I would say burglaries, home invasions, muggings, carjackings or any theft that has an implication of violence towards the victim and the like squarely fall into the "within reason" category regardless of the actual amount attempted to be stolen.

>Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death.

I know what you mean, but I think this comes about as a result of Americans being one of the few peoples in the world in the unique position where they have the right to do something about it, and many of them are afraid of this right being curbed or taken away. There are not many countries where your average everyman can just walk into a store to buy a weapon that would actually be reasonable to use in a self defense scenario without harming yourself and then use them to legally protect themselves, their families, their properties. And those are rights sadly that many people in the US campaign against even knowing that once they are gone they are not likely to get them back. In other countries, people do not bring up such topics because they know the reality of having such rights in the future are more or less an impossibility.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#17

Post by ultimafan »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #11
ultimafan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?

Wage theft is abhorrent but does not have the implication of violence behind it, so I would say no, take it to the law and go work somewhere else. It's a far cry from knowing a stranger has broken into your house and violated one of the few sanctuaries you have and potentially put your family at risk, and left behind the trauma of family members never feeling safe in that home again (and that is something I can tell you from experience). You do not know what he is thinking or what his motivations are. You do not know how he will react to your presence or to the presence of your family, but you do know for him to have broken in he is not in the right state of mind and his reasoning skills have issues.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#18

Post by ultimafan »

vkou wrote: post #15
ajkjk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

> an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. No, it's an invention of an industrialized society that, for the most part, has material goods in relative abundance. Very few people are actually in a situation where some burglar is in a position to ruin them to destitution. We aren't subsistence peasants, for whom the theft of a farm animal could have been the difference between life and starvation. Violen…

>Very few people are actually in a situation where some burglar is in a position to ruin them to destitution. We aren't subsistence peasants, for whom the theft of a farm animal could have been the difference between life and starvation.

Don't about 60% of Americans live pay check to pay check? Though anecdotal what I tend to see while lurking is that HN is a bit of a bubble. There are plenty of people for whom the theft of their car, which they rely on completely because of the difficulty of living in many parts of the US without one can lead to financial ruin. And that is not mentioning the future potential of your life lost by any trauma associated with knowing your home is not safe and someone has broken into it, and potential income you will lose struggling with those thoughts or the anxiety of it.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#19

Post by wahnfrieden »

ultimafan wrote: post #17
wahnfrieden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?

Wage theft is abhorrent but does not have the implication of violence behind it, so I would say no, take it to the law and go work somewhere else. It's a far cry from knowing a stranger has broken into your house and violated one of the few sanctuaries you have and potentially put your family at risk, and left behind the trauma of family members never feeling safe in that home again (and that is something I can tell…

Oh I thought you were talking about property loss, not violent break and enter into your home. So you’re talking with people speaking out against lethal force in home invasion. Ok. Got it

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#20

Post by nradov »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #12
wahnfrieden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?

Leaving aside the question of justification, one of the mysteries of life in the United States is that with so much gun violence there is so little of what you describe.

In the vast majority of cases when people use guns to prevent theft, no shots are fired. Usually brandishing a weapon is sufficient. These incidents happen all the time, yet they don't appear in any official statistics.
Post reply on HN