Comment by Hilift | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hilift | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Unfortunately the state will never be able to stop or prevent it. There needs to be arrests and prosecutions though, and that is where the problems start. For a interesting example, look at California. A few years back, the state reverted medium-serious crimes back to the county for detainment. This moved the cost of incarceration back to the source, however, those inmates cannot be released. So if there is an overcrowding/capacity concern, the low-level offenses such as retail theft are often immediately released even if they are a repeat habitual recidivist offender with no disincentive to offend again.

For a vision of the future, look at YouTube videos of walking tours of San Francisco and Oakland. Entire streets for lease, 38% commercial availability rate. The Crocker Mall and San Francisco Centre Mall are empty, the latter for sale, losing over $1 billion in value.

Probably doesn't matter though, because most people ditched shopping and do everything online now.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/auction-san-franci...

SF Centre Mall tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN3JXQoM9AU

SF Crocker Galleria tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzuSQSA3brA

If only there were some way to substantially reduce the incentive for theft of consumer goods.

What could motivate people to theft? They must need something awfully badly. Perhaps fixing the underlying requirements could help.

You're saying it in sort of a condescending way, but there's still truth.

Desperation leads to crime, true.

But also true: a lack of societal norms leads to crime. Any time we advocate or demonstrate disrespect, cheating, injustice, cruelty, unwarranted rule-breaking, doxing, or any kind of mob mentality we are contributing to it.

And yes your favorite political villains are all guilty of this, but we need to start with ourselves and the people close to us.

Why wouldn't we start with the biggest offenders?

They want money and there's no reason not to do it. This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs, most thefts are not of anything necessary. It's just a job to them.

> This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs

Curious how you reach this conclusion from the point that they do it for money?

> They want money

> It's just a job to them.

That's pretty much exactly how most people meet their needs: do a job for money. That they are stealing things other than what is directly needed is a distraction from the point that they are stealing to meet their needs.

Steal bread to eat it? Meeting needs (directly)

Steal baby formula to sell on the black market? May or may not be meeting needs, but it definitely isn’t direct!

> May or may not be

Yes, this is my point. It can't be concluded that they are not stealing to meet their needs.

It certainly can be concluded it isn’t for a direct need, which is not ‘stealing bread to feed starving kids’.

> it isn’t for a direct need

Well, right, but that's not what I was refuting.

Stealing to meet abstract secondary needs is criminal for a reason. People don’t sympathize with it because everyone has needs, and if everyone stole to meet them instead of find something more productive to do, society would collapse into anarchy.

So yes, I am refuting what you are saying.

> So yes, I am refuting what you are saying.

You're not. You acknowledge my point

> Stealing to meet abstract secondary needs

But do not refute that this is the reason for the theft, only argue that it is wrong regardless. My only point is that the theft is "a matter of meeting peoples needs".

> criminal for a reason

I'm not sure of your overall point. Stealing bread to eat is also criminal for the same reasons.

If your point is ‘stealing is to meet people’s needs’ then there is no point.

Unless you think anyone was proposing they did it to set it on fire instead?

Needs are also often defined arbitrarily, and many people steal because they ‘need’ more drugs, for example. So, who cares?

> Needs are also often defined arbitrarily

I thought they'd be defined as real needs like food, warmth, safety. That seems a reasonable assumption.

> then there is no point

No, there is a point. The commenter I initially replied to wrote

> This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs

My point is that this statement seems to be false for the reasons that I've given.

You're getting downvoted but you're right, more and more people cannot afford to pay for life's necessities.

Wages have stagnated for decades as prices have increased. What possible solution is there other than to address the biggest elephant in the room.

> What could motivate people to theft?

Kleptomania

> They must need something awfully badly.

Dopamine

> Perhaps fixing the underlying requirements could help.

Prosecution (not just lip service)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com