And yet enforcement isn’t as strong of a predictor of shoplifting as poverty/inequality.
It’s like the joke - I murder as much as I want and it’s not the fear of enforcement that keeps the number at 0. It may be why you aren’t shoplifting but please don’t extrapolate to the rest of us.
> We see the same in white-collar crime where companies constantly push the boundaries in blatant bad faith and this keeps happening because the illusions that kept everyone in order have broken down and actual enforcement isn't sufficient to deter the bad behavior.
White collar and petty theft are very different. The simplest proof is that white collar crime as a concept didn’t even exist until the 20th century whereas petty theft has existed forever.
I agree because there's still some morality left. But morality itself can change, and if deviance is normalized by lack of enforcement we might very well end up in a situation where nobody thinks twice about shoplifting, just like when it comes to white-collar crime which is already normalized and keeps being rewarded by the market again and again, so it's not really surprising that more and more "blue-collar" crime is happening.
> White collar and petty theft are very different
Why? Are you saying stealing a 3£ chocolate bar is bad, but doing the same in software via a hidden fee or some arcane clause in the ToS that nobody read (and thus did not agree to) is acceptable? In both cases someone is out 3£.
That’s a strong claim, but is there any scientific basis for claiming that enforcement creates morality? Anecdotally I see morality police in super religious communities and all it seems to enforce is the appearance of morality but actually people are chafing against it and subverting it all the time - if anything the repression seems to create higher incidence of violent and sexual crimes. As for police, I haven’t checked recently but the number of police officers and the amount of crime that occurs seems to be fairly uncorrelated which is not supporting the hypothesis that more enforcement = better morality and less crime.
One place I saw this play is out is in the Bahamas where you and super rich white people putting up huge fences claiming that the locals had a culture of theft - if it’s accessible steal it - when the simpler, but more uncomfortable truth, seemed to be that poverty and inequality creates resentment and the amount of inequality was quite extreme.
> Why? Are you saying stealing a 3£ chocolate bar is bad, but doing the same in software via a hidden fee or some arcane clause in the ToS that nobody read (and thus did not agree to) is acceptable? In both cases someone is out 3£.
I agree both are unacceptable but legally one form is an acceptable way to do business. White collar crime is something totally different by the way - it’s about individual actions like embezzlement or corruption. Corporate behavior is a whole other category. A major difference of corporate misbehavior is that companies generally exhibit a very sociopathic behavior so they engage in that pure calculus you talk about and moral hazards are extremely real (largely because the market is allowed to reward sociopaths). People at the individual level however don’t operate that way though - aside from where the brain is broken and there’s a compulsive act formed for theft or crime (often due to formative experiences during childhood), most people just don’t want to hurt each other but that desire is weak vs self preservation and preservation of your family. And what starts out as preservation can spiral downward into trying to give yourself the life you think you want (that nice jacket or nice tv).
Not sure (and doubt it) but my argument is that if enforcement was adequate then you wouldn't need morality - morality would be a "bonus" but even if it were to go away, adequate enforcement would still deter the undesirable behavior by making it unprofitable.
> which is not supporting the hypothesis that more enforcement = better morality and less crime.
"Law enforcement" in general is too broad to be able to draw this conclusion. Which crimes actually trigger enforcement (and what is the penalty)? If police is too busy busting kids smoking pot (or other victimless crimes that are easy to prosecute) to attend shoplifting incidents/property crime then shoplifting will remain regardless of how much "enforcement" there is (and of course the second-order effects from punishing pot smokers will set them up for a life of crime where they'll then "upgrade" to other crime with actual victims).
> both are unacceptable but legally one form is an acceptable way to do business
But law != morality. From a moral point of view I'm not sure there's a difference - in both cases someone is unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of the victim. When talking about morals and how they prevent people from acting antisocially, those morals may evolve over time if the bad behavior has been normalized by financial reward & lack of consequences.
> People at the individual level however don’t operate that way though
That is true but the economic incentives that are there (and lack of deterrence) means that people may start operating that way and I'd argue more and more people do, whether by choice or by lack of other options.
I’d recommend trying to find any grounding in evidence of your claims because the poverty and inequality links to crime are pretty well established in the data.
Most people do not base their actions on some kind of spreadsheet where they are optimizing for economic success. Many people, I hazard to guess most, base their behavior on some sort of pile of moral ideas and/or general bonhomie. Most people are pretty chill and don't want to screw around with other people's livelihoods regardless of legal consequences.
How do you then explain every company out there being hostile to their customers and constantly pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable, or even things like wage theft which is surprisingly common? Or is there a double-standard here, where individuals are supposed to act in good faith but companies are not just allowed to be assholes, but rewarded for doing so by the market and lack of adequate law enforcement actions?
It's true that morality and good-faith behavior has mostly kept things working well, but it's clear that morals and good faith alone isn't good enough since there are entities that abuse the system so laws and enforcement should be there. If it's not, then I'm not going to be particularly angry about the little guys acting antisocially when the entire economic system is encouraging & rewarding it.
Look at it from an IT security perspective: it's great that most users are acting in good faith and are not trying to exploit your system, but you still need to plan for the worst and make sure your system can survive hostile encounters. The same should apply to our legal system.
I'm not arguing that there are not some bad actors - this is clearly and obviously true. I think the legal system should act in whatever way optimizes its goals (presumably, the flourishing of living things or something) and I tend to think the punitive impulse typically doesn't do that. It's main appeal is that it feels good to imagine someone getting punished.
Well when it comes to companies the punishment and deterrent should be monetary damages that will effectively make the undesirable behavior unprofitable and thus discourage it in the future.
But we're not doing that, setting the standard that antisocial behavior is acceptable (and rewarded by the market by being more profitable than acting honestly), thus it is no surprise that the little guys have a go at it (and guess what, since we're not punishing that either, there is no downside to doing it repeatedly).
I think this is exactly the opposite of the right perspective for law and ethics. Society runs on trust, the more trust the better. ITSec runs best on zero trust. Applying the latter to the former lead to absurdities like "code is law" "smart" contracts.
Companies are sociopathic and we haven't figured out a good way to deal with this.
> you still need to plan for the worst and make sure your system can survive hostile encounters
Sure, but that's pretty different from saying it "just makes sense" to be a hostile actor.
Great, so let's start dealing with this rather than continuing the double-standard where the big guys are allowed & encouraged to behave antisocially while the little guys are shamed for it.
Until this is addressed, I'm not particularly surprised to see the little guys start acting anti-socially too; it makes perfect sense in the system of incentives we currently live in. Some people are lucky enough to survive while acting morally, but I don't think it's fair to be angry at those who don't instead of addressing the systemic problem that encourages antisocial behavior, both individual & corporate.
It's just that for a long while, enforcement or the illusion of there being enforcement mostly kept everyone in order, but nowadays the illusions are breaking down. More and more people are pushing the boundaries and realizing that no actual enforcement is happening, so why should they stop?
We see the same in white-collar crime where companies constantly push the boundaries in blatant bad faith and this keeps happening because the illusions that kept everyone in order have broken down and actual enforcement isn't sufficient to deter the bad behavior.
Keep in mind that shoplifting isn't merely a survival issue, there are "professionals" who steal for resale.