14 Apr 05
1 edit
Taken from another thread..
"Is it rational for a person to rob food to feed themsevles?"
Seems perfectly rational to me, if they couldn't afford to buy food..
Also we are living in a capatalist society where money is all.. If a person thinks they can get away with thievery for personal material gain, is is not rational for them to try it?
14 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by dk3nnyYour notions of rational behavior and capitalism are not as I understand them.
Taken from another thread..
"Is it rational for a person to rob food to feed themsevles?"
Seems perfectly rational to me, if they couldn't afford to buy food..
Also we are living in a capatalist society where money is all.. If a ...[text shortened]... for personal material gain, is is not rational for them to try it?
Assessing the likelihood of escaping criminal punishment for an economic choice does not indicate rational behavior if it can be demonstrated that the behavior itself if irrational even under certain avoidance of punishment. The irrationality has nothing to do with risking being caught. It has to do with corrupting the very economy that you are trying to benefit from, pissing in your own punch bowl, if you will.
Money is nothing in capitalism. Capitalism can thrive whithout a single piece currency ever being printed.
14 Apr 05
1 edit
in an ideal society, the government should be providing to those who need it, if not then get them some sort of paid work that will be sufficient to put food on the table.. sadly not every country can afford to do this. if a person is genuinely hungry or stealing to feed their kids and there is absolutely nothing.. nothing they can do but steal that loaf of bread.. then that is perfectly legal in my opinion as the government cannot punish anyone they themselves couldn't help..
if the person stealing knows of other ways to earn and be able to provide for their families but chose not to, but steal instead, then they must be punished. laziness or greed isn’t an option.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo by your logic, even with the certain knowledge of not being caught, all crime is irrational? yes or no?
Your notions of rational behavior and capitalism are not as I understand them.
Assessing the likelihood of escaping criminal punishment for an economic choice does not indicate rational behavior if it can be demonstrated that the behavior itself if irrational even under certain avoidance of punishment. The irrationality has nothing to do w ...[text shortened]... hing in capitalism. Capitalism can thrive whithout a single piece currency ever being printed.
I ask, why is it irrational?
you say
<i> It has to do with corrupting the very economy that you are trying to benefit from, pissing in your own punch bowl, if you will.</i>
I'm sorry but i don't agree. Sometimes it a calculated risk (not speaking personally)
Othertimes it could just a case of not agreeing with the law.
The way i see it, its not irrational behaviour.. The system praises the rich and sometimes crime presents people with an easy ladder. Are they irrational not to take that chance? if so then why do so many people go for that option..
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dk3nnyNo, not simply by virtue of a government calling it a crime. As I mentioned in the other thread, drug dealing is not necessarily an irrational approach to generating income, provided it takes the form of a consensual trade.
So by your logic, even with the certain knowledge of not being caught, all crime is irrational? yes or no?
Crimes that a rational economic agent must find irrational are those that introduce into the economy the initiation of force against one's fellow agents. Theft is one example.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by dk3nnyYou can rationalize anything depending or your moral code. Can a Christian reason a justification for stealing, no. But he can justly seek help from his family, church, and/or neighbors. It is not really a question of logic - but of morals and what you base them on.
Taken from another thread..
"Is it rational for a person to rob food to feed themsevles?"
Seems perfectly rational to me, if they couldn't afford to buy food..
Also we are living in a capatalist society where money is all.. If a person thinks they can get away with thievery for personal material gain, is is not rational for them to try it?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesthen deal with the issue from the root.. don't punish people coz they were unfortunate enough not to have a nickel.. if the governing body is unable to assist, then it must be removed or changed.
Crimes that a rational economic agent must find irrational are those that introduce into the economy the initiation of force against one's fellow agents. Theft is one example.
what do you think punishing a father, throwing him in jail for whatever time will help his kids? we live in unfair society and this must change. the father will only get out of jail to steal again (not on purpose to harm another individual, but to keep on surviving him and his family)
these issues, rational or not, must be looked and dealt with from the toot, otherwise the problem will only grow and grow..
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by PeachyThere's more to society than government.
then deal with the issue from the root.. don't punish people coz they were unfortunate enough not to have a nickel.. if the governing body is unable to assist, then it must be removed or changed.
what do you think punishing a father, throwing him in jail for whatever time will help his kids? we live in unfair society and this must change. the father will ...[text shortened]... , must be looked and dealt with from the toot, otherwise the problem will only grow and grow..
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI think you maybe be right..
You can rationalize anything depending or your moral code. Can a Christian reason a justification for stealing, no. But he can justly seek help from his family, church, and/or neighbors. It is not really a question of logic - but of morals and what you base them on.
What got me going was the statement in another thread that thievery was irrational..
I think its perfectably rational to steal if one is going hungry and has no other option..
Morally and legally or course if may not be the right thing to do but I could justify it.
Also i don't think that Martha Steward was being irrational when she was insider trading.. This is a form of theft.. i think it was just greed, she was doing it to make more money and thought she's get away with it
Its what capitalism is all about.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by Colettii agree.. but who has any power to make a big change? the people who are up there..
There's more to society than government.
of course you will get the greedy or lazy but these are the ones who i mentioned before that should be punished (or even better set straight and given a job or educated)
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNobody facing the question of starve or risk arrest stops to ask themselves "Hmmm, would Ayn Rand approve?" You can't agree on what constitutes rational behavior without first agreeing on what the goal of the behavior. The other folks posting here obviously haven't accepted Rand's heroic automatons as a standard for rational behaviour, nor have most of them accepted the economists notion that the salvation of the world lies in producing more and more and more stuff. Nobody here lives in a Howard Roark skyscraper or took Taggart Transcontinental to visit Gramma last summer. Nor has any parent celebrated the birth of a new rational economic agent.
No, not simply by virtue of a government calling it a crime. As I mentioned in the other thread, drug dealing is not necessarily an irrational approach to generating income, provided it takes the form of a consensual trade.
Crimes that a rational economic agent must find irrational are those that introduce into the economy the initiation of force against one's fellow agents. Theft is one example.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by PeachyI don't know if governement can make those kinds of changes - those are cultural changes, moral changes.
i agree.. but who has any power to make a big change? the people who are up there..
of course you will get the greedy or lazy but these are the ones who i mentioned before that should be punished (or even better set straight and given a job or educated)
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by Colettibut the government is the mother that looks after the society's well being. educate your people, support them, direct them, show them the right way..
I don't know if governement can make those kinds of changes - those are cultural changes, moral changes.
once that is done, then the individuals can choose how to feed themselves. if they go astray then be tough and punish. But till then, no one has any right to stop a helpless father to feed their kids, specially if the only way is to steal.
14 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by SkorjEveryone of us is an economic agent. If none of us are the rational sort, then we must all be the irrational sort. But if we're the irrational sort, why are people pretending to be rational, for instance by trying to demonstrate through reason that theft is a rational act? If the presumption is that we're all irrational, then
Nor has any parent celebrated the birth of a new rational economic agent.
1) The question of whether some act is rational or not is moot
2) One irrational person using reason in an attempt to convince another irrational personal about the alleged rationality or irrationaltiy of some act is simply bizarre.
I don't dispute any of your other points, except the claim that economists are concerned with analyzing or achieving the salvation of the world.
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dk3nnyThere's a difference between rationalizing and being rational. Rationalizing is usually twisting logic to produce the results you want - but you do so by erroneous reasoning. The reasoning is faulty - fallacious - invalid.
I think you maybe be right..
What got me going was the statement in another thread that thievery was irrational..
I think its perfectably rational to steal if one is going hungry and has no other option..
Morally and legally or course ...[text shortened]... ought she's get away with it
Its what capitalism is all about.
However, if ones moral code is loose and easily manipulated, one can come up with a rational reason for almost any behavior or action.
If it was not a violation of M Stewart's moral code, then she was being rational. But her code must not be very good IMHO.
My moral code says you are to play by the rules (civil law and profession ethical codes) as long as they do not violate my religious (Christian) moral codes. I could not rationally justify what M. Stewart did (nor do I think it's the way of capitalism).