Any ways to construct a dead-weight loss arguement due to unseen effects down the line for the one vs. the other, or vice versa?
Or perhaps simply a spontaneous decision is possible (thieves vs. bookcases)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLPtsQyuHbg&feature=player_embedded#!
Or, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqdZFuGt1I4&feature=related, etc.
Note: Compensation + percent on top + fine (as opposed to prison, which costs time, meaning foregone behaviors) is economically appealing to me due to lower process costs, but it also has a lesser opportunity cost to the thief. Considering they will not always be caught, this way they might make a profit...
That video is amazing. It reminded me of pro wrestling.
Considering they will not always be caught, this way they might make a profit...
I'm going to have to parse your jargon, but while I do this, check out this article on compensation ratio. You know that anyone requiring imprisonment would be required to pay for their stay right?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Now that's how you deal with thieves in your community.
From that article, the compensation ratio must be greater than the statistic of not being caught.
Three problems, however, it seems to me, when I thought of using some such argument:
1. If the statistic exists, and it is true, and if the compensation ratio can be derived ahead of time, then it can be discounted ahead of time, leading to more larger crimes and fewer smaller crimes.
2. If the statistic exists, and it is true, then the producer of defense (police, PMC, etc., etc.) can simply be lazy, and not do their job, saying: "We almost never catch anyone, so we are going to offset that by shooting anyone (or fining very greatly) anyone we do catch."
3. If 'the statistic exists and is true', is a big assumption. It seems arguable that each criminal might have a different opinion of how he evaluates risk by the subjective valuation he gives to different risk-causing components in his behavior. So, a compensation ratio might still no discourage crime, since the producer of defense does not know the subjective risk-judgement of the criminal caught.
The argument about spontaneous action is also difficult:
1. If I admit that subjective interpretations matter (as in fact they do), then what if the local subjects actually dislike the third party being robbed/attacked? This might lead to a popularity contest (and you know what popualrity and popular taste mean; just look at some of the people elected...)