Solved by insurance? We should normalize the idea of theft because some large entity will replace our goods whenever they are stolen? This seems like it sets up an incentive to steal, since "don't worry, it will be replaced for them by insurance anyways".
Not to mention the emotional factor isn't the only factor by far. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have my car available to me on demand, rather than have to wait to make a claim with insurance and finding a replacement. Has nothing to do with my emotions.
Yes, we should normalize not reacting violently to theft because items can be replaced by insurance.
Theft is not a problem at the volume you're suggesting it is a problem. Most people don't have most of their things stolen most of the time, and AirTags have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the threat of theft.
And yes, it absolutely has to do with your emotions; everything has to do with emotions, the entire concept of reacting unemotionally is literally not possible for a human being to successfully execute unless you have a severe mental disorder (you don't, I gather).
Violent reactions are really the only deterrent left to keep thieves at bay. If everyone was so laissez faire about it, well, I'd eventually expect my house to be emptied daily, and my insurance to cost about $30k a month.
I get your point that theft isn't currently -that bad-, but realize that using that info to justify thievery just keeps compounding the problem.
You think the reason that every house in the world isn't emptied out daily is because of the threat of violent reactions by others?
You do realize there are loads of places in the world where people don't even lock their doors? And it's not cuz police are all over the place in those areas.
Perhaps material conditions are driving crime in many places...
> You do realize there are loads of places in the world where people don't even lock their doors
In a place with no daily crime, EVERY crime is investigated thoroughly, and the perpetrator brought to justice with all the resources of the (very bored) local police.
Think of the small town where no crime of note ever happens, and suddenly someone's house is robbed. Do you think the residents just shrug it off? Of course not — it's the only thing the town will talk about for weeks!
Of course every crime isn't investigated thoroughly in tiny towns, the unit economics don't magically work just cuz the town is smaller.
There are different dynamics in small communities on account of everyone knowing each other, etc. But it's not because there are expert detectives looking through all the clues to recover your stolen Macbook or some smashed window.
Hell, loads of times small town dynamics mean people "know" who it is, and still nothing happens! Because crime and punishment isn't some sort of kanban board with a list of crimes and tickets not going closed until a perpetrator is in front of a judge.
There are a million things that can and often do go wrong already with our criminal justice system, but it does function, more or less, as a way of arriving at a just conclusion; your suggestion that we throw all of that out is, literally, barbaric.
I can't believe I have to say this, but society is worse off without laws and a just mechanism by which to enforce them.
your suggestion that we throw all of that out is, literally, barbaric.
Sounds like you're arguing with someone who doesn't actually exist. If this happens frequently, it might be a good idea to talk about it with someone who is there for you.
Killing someone because they kind of resemble someone else who had been doing burglaries in the area is a far cry from defending your own property while a theft occurs. If someone attempts to rob or burglarize me while I'm present, I can and will use force up to and including lethal force to stop them. This is legal in some circumstances, not extrajudicial. In the cases where it is extrajudicial, it can often be moral. Police are a great feature of society, but a citizen has personal responsibility over his own life and property foremost. The police aren't always with you; you are.
It is in no way different, and that's the whole problem. If you condone extrajudicial killings/violence, you condone all of them, because your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement (how can you know your own judgement is flawed)?
You can't both agree that violence without due process is acceptable, and then disagree with how someone applied their own set of morality to a situation that resulted in them using violence.
It's either/or, because the alternative is for you to have a say in their violence, at which point you're just re-creating a criminal justice system.
> Your position is that people should be able to take the law into their own hand, using their own judgement, even if it's flawed judgement
Yes, and if the judgment turns out to be flawed, then punish them accordingly. There are many instances of laws where the legality depends on circumstances bounded by reasonable judgment, such as self defense. I am legally allowed to kill someone if I fear for my life in some circumstances. The judicial system then determines if my fear was justified. Likewise, defending your own property with violence is legal, depending on circumstances and judgments which are validated in court. The case you referenced was obviously poor judgment.
Your original point is that property cannot be morally defended through violence. This is neither the actual law, nor does it make sense from any real world perspective.
My original point was not that property cannot be morally defended through violence, my original point was that you cannot defend property morally through violence, which is the law (not a single state allows the use of lethal force to protect property, only life), and it makes perfect sense when you value human life over property (as the vast majority of human society does).
And considering the stakes, it does not make sense to enforce post-hoc a punishment for incorrectly applying this imaginary "defense of property" law you've invented. People's lives are not something you can un-end.
There are many more checks in place to deal with law enforcement abuse of power. It's far from perfect, but vastly superior to individual vigilante behavior.
Not to mention the emotional factor isn't the only factor by far. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have my car available to me on demand, rather than have to wait to make a claim with insurance and finding a replacement. Has nothing to do with my emotions.