http://books.google.com/books?id=sPHP4uUFQgEC&lpg=PP1...
* * *
Anyway, how do you decide who is the thief when we’re talking about stealing from boats trading in plunder, slaves, or products produced by slave labor, as was the case for an awful lot of what got shipped around the Atlantic for many centuries?
Is Iraq with our Army and Blackwater mercs really any different?
There were also (I would say the majority) private ships operating under a government licence, the letter of marque, where they could do anything to the enemy's shipping to "take, burn or destroy". That was mostly in the Channel and the south americas.
And there was a big grey area where a ship might be thieving on one occasion and operating under a letter of marque on another. As with most history, it all depends on who was telling the story afterwards.
Instead, it mostly has to do with their expected costs and benefits, just like any other choice. If one comes from a poor background and lives in a society with poor upward mobility, your quality of life as well as life expectancy is low anyway, so the risk of crime is less severe compared to the expected gains.
No wealthy people became pirates. If risk aversion/attraction was all there was to it, they would.
This message brought to you by the Thief Anti-Defamation League.
(Personally, I'd say that robbers are a subclass of thieves.)