Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I read the thread and it is not a perceived criticism. It is a real criticism and is a valid point. Some people may disagree with the criticism but that doesn't automatically make it invalid.

Actually in many ways a murder can be considered theft, due to the lost resources that person may have generated within a normal life span that is then deprived from a family member and/or dependent. Usually such matters are handled in civil court. They are called wrongful death suits. Keep in mind, one does not need to be convicted of murder to be held monetarily liable for a person's death. But this type of law varies from area to area so it could be quite different to you than it could be for me.

An easy example of this that has plenty of things to read about are the OJ Simpson cases. Other examples are lawsuits brought against law enforcement agencies for unjustified shootings.



I fear we've been talking past each other, but it doesn't matter.

The problem with that view is that your defining theft essentially as any wrongful setback of interests, which means that every non-victimless crime (and even legal but immoral acts) is "theft".

But by stretching the word so far, it essentially loses all meaning. The guy who cut in line is a thief because he stole your time; the woman who insulted you in public stole some of your self-esteem.

And more: with copyright infringement being considered theft we're not even talking about interests being set back, but suppositions that they have been set back (since it's impossible to if it actually had any effect).

To me, theft means one thing: wrongful transfer of something from the victim to someone else. Any other definition is too broad to be usable.


With all your stretches of logic and out of context examples I fail to see how you are disputing anything that I said.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: