I think crimes like this should definitely be punished with hefty fines and some years in prison, so even the super rich care about them.
But it is just money. Money is not lifetime. Money is just a number central banks can control. You can insure yourself against losing it. It cannot even be lost, it is just somewhere else. The criminal can repay it. Time working for money is not lost. Time being dead, because you got murdered, is lost. Your mother or your children will not cry, because somebody took some money from you.
I would even go further: Yeah, making $3,2M will take me a while, but I guess I would prefer to have to regain $3,2M than to cope with psychological or physiological damages of a really violent crime. If I were to lose $3,2M, it would partially be my fault, because clearly my business was lacking some control mechanisms. If two guys come after you from behind, there is really nothing you could have done.
An NPR story on an explosion at an apartment building in Silver Spring talked about how many of the immigrants living there kept their life savings in cash, which was destroyed. Money can be lost.
I think for most people in the developed world, it is much easier to prevent that than losing your life. Also the money in a sense is somewhere else now, since there is less of it, everyone else's money is now worth very slightly more.
Money is life time. People exchange their life time for money. How money is introduced into the economy is a red herring.
The rest of your argument is red herring as well, you just switched to talking about violent crime, which has nothing to do with our conversation. I was talking specificzlly about misdemeanor theft, not robbery or felony theft.
It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim. Lifetime spent working is not gone. You still live while working, thus it accounts to your lifetime. There are even people who very much enjoy their time spent working. Lifetime spent dead, in or near a coma is gone.
> How money is introduced into the economy is a red herring.
It is not, it is the explanation, what money actually is (not lifetime, by stating that central banks cannot create lifetime for you). You are just claiming what you think it is, I was describing what it actually is. You are welcome to back up your claim, too.
> you just switched to talking about violent crime, which has nothing to do with our conversation.
Since you originally answered to my comment comparing the punishments for violent crimes and embezzlement, yes it has everything to do with our conversation.
I am saying life is more valuable than money, so punishments for violent crimes should be harsher. You then first claimed that crimes involving money are actually about lifetime (and thus life). I argued against that point and now you have gone full circle and claim that we aren't even talking about violent crimes. Why do you try to pull misdemeanor theft on a level where it can be compare to violent crimes then, by introducing lifetime as a currency?
> It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim
Yes it is, and it does not not become it by you repeating that claim.
Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy. The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny.
> It is not, it is the explanation, what money actually is
No, it's the explanation of how money is introduced, not what it "actually is". Money is the measure of human labor. You clearly can't comprehend the difference.
I clearly described why lifetime is not money (because it is not traded, you still live) and what money is (it is not only the mechanism of how it is introduced, but also how it's value can be changed afterwards and so on).
> Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy.
Just a claim. Even if this were true, lifetime is still not lost.
> The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny.
People like to be needed. Also just a claim.
I think at this point the discussion makes no sense. I will stop writing this over and over again now, as long as you do not answer my main argument: When someone gives human labor and gets money, he does not give away lifetime in the way a murderer takes away his lifetime. He still lives while working.
But it is just money. Money is not lifetime. Money is just a number central banks can control. You can insure yourself against losing it. It cannot even be lost, it is just somewhere else. The criminal can repay it. Time working for money is not lost. Time being dead, because you got murdered, is lost. Your mother or your children will not cry, because somebody took some money from you.
I would even go further: Yeah, making $3,2M will take me a while, but I guess I would prefer to have to regain $3,2M than to cope with psychological or physiological damages of a really violent crime. If I were to lose $3,2M, it would partially be my fault, because clearly my business was lacking some control mechanisms. If two guys come after you from behind, there is really nothing you could have done.
Edit: This is another submission currently at the frontpage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12421687