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

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#31

Post by vkou »

ultimafan wrote: post #18
vkou wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> Don't about 60% of Americans live pay check to pay check?

It's way less than that, closer to 20%.

And if you're in that kind of financial situation, you won't be able to afford killing someone over property. If you're that precarious, even if you're eventually 100% cleared of all the legal questions, the costs/time spent on it will ruin you. That kind of poverty is highly correlated with... Having a lot of difficulties navigating the justice system.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#32

Post by qwytw »

valianteffort wrote: post #23
ajkjk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The notion that a thief would have to pay for their crimes with their life, either because anyone could be armed and its legal to protect your property with lethal force, or the government would punish repeated theft with death, I think would be enough to deter most people from doing so. It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant…

> They enjoy unparalleled safety in their cities.

Plenty of countries/cities which don't are pretty safe too (e.g. Eastern Europe these days)

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#33

Post by qwytw »

Epa095 wrote: post #28
valianteffort wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that a thief would have to pay for their crimes with their life, either because anyone could be armed and its legal to protect your property with lethal force, or the government would punish repeated theft with death, I think would be enough to deter most people from doing so. It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant…

I agree that the immediate risk of death would probably influence it a bit. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that there is not a strong negative correlation between "risk of death" and "crime rate" in the world, just think about south America (high death risk and high crime) and the Nordic countries (low death risk low crime). I also strongly disagree with the statement "It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence…

> (low death risk low crime).

If you look at lower level crime (theft etc.) Western Europe and especially the Nordic countries are not doing that well. Sweden for instance has the highest levels of theft and burglary in the whole Europe by quite a margin. Not saying "too nice" prisons are too blame for this, there are certainly some more important factors (hint: recent immigration and failure to integrate second/third generation "immigrants" (couldn't find a better word to describe this group)).

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#34

Post by 7sidedmarble »

valianteffort wrote: post #23
ajkjk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The notion that a thief would have to pay for their crimes with their life, either because anyone could be armed and its legal to protect your property with lethal force, or the government would punish repeated theft with death, I think would be enough to deter most people from doing so. It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant…

I don't really think so. In the middle ages, punishments for all sorts of crimes were pretty severe--but partly because the vast majority of crime would go unsolved. If you're a peasant in the middle ages and some valuables go missing, who's going to track that down for you? It's not happening unless you know for sure it was your neighbor or something.

So yeah, when they would catch a thief they would receive some pretty harsh punishment. But it didn't stop much. Theft in the middle ages was rampant.

Humans are pretty bad at making calculations involving a really bad outcome at a 5% chance of happening, or those sorts of things. Theft persists today as it did then, just because it's really hard to investigate and so generally goes unpunished.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#35

Post by 0xfffafaCrash »

Interesting that the US NPS leaves completely un-noted the description of a thief as a half-breed.

Some of Roosevelt’s other commentary on Native Americans:

“I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”

Perhaps even now the NPS can’t help but turn a blind eye to the less endearing aspects of Roosevelt’s legacy.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#36

Post by ultimafan »

i8comments wrote: post #29
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…

Lethal force is only to be used in self defense, when your life is truly threatened and you truly have no other way of stopping them.

I don't know the context in which you mean that, so maybe I am misunderstanding you. But in my eyes someone who has chosen to commit theft on your property is already showing enough of a blatant disregard for social norms and the safety of you or your family that your life would be considered threatened. It's not possible to know their intentions or motivation and I wouldn't pass judgement on someone who chose lethal force in that kind of situation.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#37

Post by wizerdrobe »

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?

Well, I have some Appalachian ancestry so I might be skewed redneck[0] here, but sometimes yes. Or at least a good whooping. There’s an old bit from some comedian (Chris Rock?) that everyone should get one free smack on someone annually, maybe that’s a good line?

As a young, starry eyed entrepreneur living in the city I got in on a startup as Employee #1, built the entire company from scratch. Worked insane overtime, had some limited equity (5% ISO)… but the founder had certain strategies and tactics.

Always had excuses and lies for me about how he uses some app with his bank that mails the checks and I don’t know why the paycheck hasn’t come in the mail, he’ll go in person tomorrow and demand the manager though! Fast forward two months, the overdue check would arrive. Except now you might be waiting on last month and your current one as well…

I watched this same tactic repeat with contractors, our marketing and graphic design folks. Except not only would he delay for months making them sweat, he would give them a story about cash flow issues but he could settle the account now for, say, 40% of the original amount. They all took the deal, knowing they would likely never see a dime otherwise.

I ended up leaving the company after a 7th(?) wave of not being paid, we had received a 500k investment three months prior and our two man firm was magically out of money again so I called bullshit.

Sure, maybe you could retain legal council and see him in civil court 3 months later after your water was shut off for non-payment and you apartment evicted. Theoretically, we have non violent means of retribution here. Theoretically, you who burnt savings up trying to stay afloat while your credit card has interest and your apartment and utilities accrue late fees.

The guy really know how to toe the line of legal-but-immoral here… I don’t know, maybe a good whooping would be a sound solution for him? Who knows.

[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#38

Post by ultimafan »

Epa095 wrote: post #24
ultimafan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sorry I should have been more clear about that in my initial post. I would not condone someone going out and explicitly seeking violence after the fact.

The thief has your box of savings and are walking away. You recognise the thief, and can give the police its name. You happen to have a gun. Are you morraly permitted to commit violence to stop the thief? And how does this violence compare to the violence you can commit to the vage thief?

Too much of a hypothetical to give a real answer to that, imho. I do not think it is immoral to protect your savings or property if someone has gone to the lengths of violating your safety by breaking in to your home. If you know and recognize them, and you're familiar with them, you would probably know well enough to know that they are not a threat and didn't break in with the intention to hurt you. But all that goes out the window if you happen upon an unexpected stranger in your home in the spur of the moment.

With a wage thief, it's not an action that could directly threaten you. You would be making the choice to go well out of your way to cause harm to them, it'd be premeditated violence. And I would hope no one would choose to do that.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#39

Post by ultimafan »

vkou wrote: post #31
ultimafan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

> Don't about 60% of Americans live pay check to pay check? It's way less than that, closer to 20%. And if you're in that kind of financial situation, you won't be able to afford killing someone over property. If you're that precarious, even if you're eventually 100% cleared of all the legal questions, the costs/time spent on it will ruin you. That kind of poverty is highly correlated with... Having a lot of difficul…

That's fair. I've never been in such a situation, and hope that I never will. When my family faced a break in we were thankfully not home at the time, did not have much of value that could have been or was lost either. But I would still not pass moral judgement on someone in a similar situation who did happen to be at home and choose to protect their property. And I do find it sad that the legal system would potentially ruin their life over it.

Re: Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

#40

Post by ultimafan »

zwirbl wrote: post #22
ultimafan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 regar…

Or people in other countries are actually glad that the risk of being shot are minimal while still being safe

Crime exists everywhere on different scales. The genie is out of the bottle so to speak in the US, so gun control on a scale that brings America in line with other countries while also keeping citizen's rights and safety intact is imho not so much possible anymore. Does not feel like there is a good black and white answer to that, I would say the risk of being shot while not committing crimes is quite minimal in the US as well.
Post reply on HN