[Retric]

If someone takes a pallet of hundreds sitting in the open on the back of a truck. It's reasonable to say: "Take reasonable precautions, temping targets promote crime."

Bitcoin forums are filled with people that are both incompetent and well off, that's going to attract sharks. For similar reasons Google brought in investment advisers pre IPO to educate staff that where about to become targets.

PS: That's not to say any form of theft is ok. Just locked doors keep people honest and let police focus on more important things.

[candu]

If someone takes a pallet of hundreds sitting in the open on the back of the truck, and it doesn't belong to them, it still meets the legal definition of theft. It might not be the best idea to leave it there, but that doesn't magically absolve the thief of legal responsibility.

This example isn't even one of those murky ethical grey areas around property (see: copyright law extensions, squatters' rights, medieval concepts of hunting rights, privatization of public resources, farmers' rights to re-grow seeds, etc.) - it's out-and-out theft.

[Retric]

I completely agree. However, a large chunk of society would take it even if they had never stolen anything before and did not intend to commit a crime that day.

PS: Look up Duty of Care, people can share responsibility even if a third party is commuting a crime. Placing a 10 lb solid gold statue on your roof and advertising this is is not just negligent, but flat out dangerous.

[TeMPOraL]

What you say shows the exact same mistake (but in opposite direction) as the "victim-blaming" crowd - conflating moral responsibility with practical wisdom. Yes, putting that gold statue on your roof is just stupid, because of the world we live in. No, that doesn't make the burglars less responsible, morally and legally, for robbing you. Those two statements are true at the same time.

[Retric]

What makes you think I disagree with that idea?

If everyone walked around holding a loaded gun, you would see far more gun violence. That has nothing to do with morality, just impulse control.

I am not saying people are not responsible for their own actions. Just that forms of crime prevention do actually work.

[TeMPOraL]

> What makes you think I disagree with that idea?

The whole subthread kind of looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that theft is theft.

> I am not saying people are not responsible for their own actions. Just that forms of crime prevention do actually work.

So we agree on that. My point is that it's not either-or - effective crime prevention doesn't make a crime not a crime.

[Retric]

> looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that theft is theft

I don't. If you're reading that into what I said that's on you.

A mass murder will commit fewer crimes in solitary confinement. That does not mean solitary confinement makes them a better person, or not a murder. It simply prevents future murders. So, the concepts are independent.

[CyberDildonics]

That's not how the law works. If you lie to get someone's money, that's fraud. If you take their money, that's theft. People being taken by obvious cons don't make these things not theft or not fraud.

[Retric]

That's not what I am saying. Bank vaults among other things prevent many bank robberies. If someone does not rob a bank then they are not a bank robber.

The above says nothing about people who do rob banks.