Vote with your wallet is a terrible system - Rant

[WarKitty]

If you have something of yours stolen, you're entitled to have it back if they can get it. You're not entitled to have a different instance of the same item back. If I have a Flying V guitar, Bob steals it and sells it, Bob is not required to get me a Flying V guitar. Bob goes to jail and isn't required to buy me a Flying V. If they can find it, yey, I get it back. If they can't, sucks to be me.

Actually, Bob would have to give you the fair market value of the Flying V guitar. The reason it doesn't come up in practice a lot is that you can't get blood from a stone, and what actually happens in a lot of cases is Bob's sold and spent the money and doesn't have the resources to pay you back anymore. And there's legal limits on how much of Bob's money you can take at any given time.

[Peelee]

Actually, Bob would have to give you the fair market value of the Flying V guitar. The reason it doesn't come up in practice a lot is that you can't get blood from a stone, and what actually happens in a lot of cases is Bob's sold and spent the money and doesn't have the resources to pay you back anymore. And there's legal limits on how much of Bob's money you can take at any given time.

That's if you win a civil suit though, correct? If I don't pursue that for whatever reason, would Bob have any legal obligations to me?

[WarKitty]

That's if you win a civil suit though, correct? If I don't pursue that for whatever reason, would Bob have any legal obligations to me?

The thing with the way the U.S. system is set up is that a civil suit is pretty much your way of officially legally recording that someone has X obligation to you and they're not fulfilling it, so you can use court-ordered legal means to make them fulfill it. Kind of like how if I agree to buy something from you on an installment plan and then I take the goods and stop paying, I definitely have a legal obligation to you but you couldn't do much to enforce it without suing me in civil court.

It's very common to have it be part of the sentence in criminal cases as well, but it's not required. However due to the relative levels of evidence a victory in a criminal theft case is considered pretty much assurance of victory in a civil theft case.

[Chen]

Not really. If a company loans the thief $50k, they are clearly willing to run the risk of not getting repaid, because that is a voluntary contract. The victim of the theft however, rather by definition, did not willingly enter into such an agreement. If we just left it as the thief now owes the victim money, but the people he paid off with the money get to keep it, all we've done is transferred a debt from a party who was willing to run the risk of not getting repaid to somebody who was not. And if the thief can't pay them back, the victim is out a pile of cash, and the original debtors are now substantially richer than they were; i.e. they end up profiting off of the thief's misdeeds and the victim's being stolen from in the first place.

This is not a sensible system.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here but I don't see how this applies to what I was saying. The scenario was person A steals money and uses it to create a lottery (for whatever reason). Person B wins a chunk of this money and uses his winnings to pay back his credit cards. All that is perfectly documented since its official credit card payments and you know EXACTLY where the stolen money went. So do you take it back from the credit card companies, who then have to re-charge person B who then has to sue person A to get their money back? Remember person B and the credit card companies did nothing knowingly wrong here.

In your example the initial thief only owes money to the credit card companies if the cops prove that it was paid with the stolen money. Because the stolen money is taken back and given to its rightful owner. But the thief wouldn't owe anything to the person he stole from. That person just gets their stolen stuff back.

The problem I have is all the legitimate transactions that occur after the initial, fraudulent one. It causes a huge chain of problems rather than forcing the original thief to simply pay back who he stole from. The liability falls on him for committing the initial crime.

Clearly with money its a lot more nebulous. With actual goods, its far less likely to change hands many times. But even changing hands just once, the person who bought it not knowing it was stolen is clearly entitled to his money back too, which presumably needs to come from the thief.

[Peelee]

The problem I have is all the legitimate transactions that occur after the initial, fraudulent one. It causes a huge chain of problems rather than forcing the original thief to simply pay back who he stole from. The liability falls on him for committing the initial crime.

Clearly with money its a lot more nebulous. With actual goods, its far less likely to change hands many times. But even changing hands just once, the person who bought it not knowing it was stolen is clearly entitled to his money back too, which presumably needs to come from the thief.

I don't disagree at all with this, but this assumes that the justice system is fair, as well as that the thief is able to give restitution.

[WarKitty]

I don't disagree at all with this, but this assumes that the justice system is fair, as well as that the thief is able to give restitution.

The trouble is there's really no good fair solution. A lot of times the thief can't give restitution. Or in fraud cases it's often not possible to make them give restitution because it may be unclear who the perpetrator was or they may not be able to be legally reached.

Really both ways happen sometimes in u.s. law and it can be a mess. There are some cases where it works one way and some where it works another. So if Bob stole money from you and used it to buy a new xbox, the store wouldn't owe you back the money he paid. But if Bob stole an xbox from you and sold it to a third party, generally the third party could be compelled to give you back your xbox and go after Bob for their money back.

[tomandtish]

I've been flirting with getting a straight razor myself. I'm not a fan of the disposable cartridges, because of the cost and the waste.

Cost goes way down when you start drying them. I shave almost every day (unless sick or feeling really lazy) and can get 6 months or longer out of a disposable. Simply make sure you dry it after use and don't leave it in the bathroom right next to the sink or shower.

The main cause of dull blade is microscopic rust. Drying it dramatically reduces how quick that builds up. I bought the current pack of blades I'm using at Costco about 5 years ago and I'm not even half-way through (came with like 20).

[Liquor Box]

If goods are stolen they are confiscated and returned to the legal owner, even if the current owner was not aware they were stolen. (If they are aware that's also a crime).

Do you have a source for that?

The starting point in common law jurisdictions with respect to goods (not money) is the nemo dat rule - that you cannot transfer a title in goods you don't have. But in most common law jurisdictions that is subject to a bona fide purchaser defence (you have a defence if you had no knowledge that the goods were stolen and paid a fair price for them). Having had a quick look USA is a bit out of step - both principles do still apply in most US jurisdiction, but they do not seem to be consistently applied as the nemo dat rule being subject to the bona fide purchaser defence. So it is possible that you are usually right with respect to some US jurisdictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser

Peelee said:
Agreed. Stolen goods are stolen goods, and bills got serial numbers. It sucks if you're the one holding the bag, but if they can prove that dollar was stolen from that guy, you're out of luck.

This is also not true (again assuming the lottery winner is innocent) in either common law or civil law (continental Europe) systems I think (although I'd defer to an expert in civil jurisdictions).

Money is not a good, so it is not subject to the nemo dat rule. The tort of unjust enrichment applies to funds received, but that requires that the receipt be unjust. It is possible for the receipt of funds to be unjust where the receiver is innocent of wrongdoing (for example if a person receives payment into their account by mistake), but I have never heard of a case of it happening where a person innocently received money through a legitimate contract (such as a contract to play the lottery) and was found to have received the money unjustly. It's possible that it may have happened in jurisdictions other than my own, but I doubt it. There are also various defences available to unjust enrichment and restitution (which is the usual remedy for unjust enrichment).

Edit:
One such defence coincides with Chen's scenario, where the person has used the money to pay of debts. If you have altered your position in reliance on the receipt of the funds it may be a defence.

[Liquor Box]

The problem I have is all the legitimate transactions that occur after the initial, fraudulent one. It causes a huge chain of problems rather than forcing the original thief to simply pay back who he stole from. The liability falls on him for committing the initial crime.

This!

If the thief is unable to pay, to me it seems equally fair (or unfair really) whoever it is who loses out - whether it is the person who the goods were stolen from, or the person who innocently buys them.

In my opinion though, there are a couple of reasons why the law (as it is in most jurisdictions) is right to protect the rights of people who innocently buy stolen goods ahead of the person who has their goods stolen:

• The person who had the goods stolen from them is better able to protect themself than the person who buys the goods. For most consumer goods there is no register, and it can be very hard (if not impossible) to find if a particular good (a guitar say) was stolen. However, there are steps (albeit not always foolproof and practicable) that a person can take to protect their property from theft.
• Forcing the person who receives stolen goods to return them (without compensation) would have a chilling effect on the market for second hand goods. The market for second hand goods is important as it allows cunsumers to receive goods at cheaper prices (particularly useful to poor people), and reduces waste.

[Peelee]

Do
This is also not true (again assuming the lottery winner is innocent) in either common law or civil law (continental Europe)

You can safely assume I will not make assertions for legalities in continental Europe. Over here, if you have stolen stuff and the owner can prove its theirs, chances are it sucks to be you.

Laws are different in different places. You can see my location. I cannot see yours. Please have enough intellectual honesty to not argue from a clearly different position without letting me know; that's just annoying.

Also, instead of double posting, you can always edit your first post to add stuff in.

[Liquor Box]

You can safely assume I will not make assertions for legalities in continental Europe. Over here, if you have stolen stuff and the owner can prove its theirs, chances are it sucks to be you.

Laws are different in different places. You can see my location. I cannot see yours. Please have enough intellectual honesty to not argue from a clearly different position without letting me know; that's just annoying.

Also, instead of double posting, you can always edit your first post to add stuff in.

Can I suggest that if you want to be overly critical of a post, that you read it carefully first.

I let you know exactly which jurisdictions I was talking about - common law jurisdictions (which means UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa amongst others) and civil jurisdictions (which means most countries in continental europe).

As to where you are from - if you are from Birmingham in UK or USA, then you are part of a common law jurisdiction (and should know that if you feel well informed enough to wade into the law as you have in this thread). I am from New Zealand since you asked (kind of).

As to the bolded part, our strain of the conversation was about money (not things) which had been stolen. If you disagree with me that unjust enrichment is the correct tort, please direct me to the legal principle or statute that you think applies (in your own jurisdiction, or any other common law jurisdiction you care to nominate). If you think I have misapplied the tort, please explain how you think it should be applied.

[Dr.Samurai]

The lottery discussion is a distraction from the fact that you have no grounds to dismiss an argument based on someone's sex.

[WarKitty]

The lottery discussion is a distraction from the fact that you have no grounds to dismiss an argument based on someone's sex.

Given that this is gitp, I'm pretty sure the whole reason we're on here is to be distracted.

[GloatingSwine]

If you have something of yours stolen, you're entitled to have it back if they can get it. You're not entitled to have a different instance of the same item back. If I have a Flying V guitar, Bob steals it and sells it, Bob is not required to get me a Flying V guitar.

No, but it is confiscated from the person who bought it from Bob and returned to its rightful owner, and if they were aware it was stolen they are also charged with a crime.

[Dr.Samurai]

Given that this is gitp, I'm pretty sure the whole reason we're on here is to be distracted.

Lol, a fair point

[Peelee]

Can I suggest that if you want to be overly critical of a post, that you read it carefully first.

You're right. I'm speaking authoritatively when I am not at all able to. Sorry!

[2D8HP]

Can I suggest that if you want to be overly critical of a post, that you read it carefully first.....

My thoroughly understand something before proclaiming it AWESOME!!! or LAME!!?

Where's the sport in that?

Yeah, that's not gonna happen

Given that this is gitp, I'm pretty sure the whole reason we're on here is to be distracted.

Now that I understand!

[Aotrs Commander]

*makes infrequent boredom/lack-of-useful-time trip to Friendly Banter part of forum*

*reads thread*

*adds "enforce pocket options to woman's cloithing" to long, long, LOOOONG list of Things Bleakbane Will Force By Any Mean Required That Will Make Concept of Pre-Scarcity Society Cry When Bleakbane Takes Over list¹*



Though I have can vaguley relate to the pockets issue despite not being female because WHY THE FRACK ARE POCKETS ON WATERPROOFS A FRACKING PREMIUM ITEM NOWADAYS, SERIOUSLY.



Also Vote with Wallet => apparently "$27000 game content unlock package" if we believe Cloud Imperium Games...

I, personally, though, will also vote for my wallet Things With Wolverine In Them as long as they are not Things With Wolverine In Them Even Distantly Related To Old Man Logan (don't care how good a film Logan is, a premise that starts with "all the characters you like apart fom Wolverine are dead" doesn't matter how well its executed), but not nearly so hard as Things With Jubilee In Them And Seriously, It Better Not Be A Fricking Cameo For The Umpteenth Time You Bastards Because Retribution For That Is On the Aforemention Back-Up Back-Up Plan list.

*disappears back into the ether, leaving behind bemused, disturbed and/or completely uncaring posters*



¹The back-up plan to *implement the Updated Timmy Turner Solution (i.e. turn everyone into identical grey blobs and locate anycreature that still manages to be "-ist" and set their souls on permenant plasma)* itself the back-up to "Kill Everyone And Laugh Amid The Ashes In The Final Peace And Quiet, Because Oh My Lichemaster Every Time I Turn Around Humans."

[Fyraltari]

Given that this is gitp, I'm pretty sure the whole reason we're on here is to be distracted.

WarKitty continues to be the most sensible person on this thread.

[WarKitty]

WarKitty continues to be the most sensible person on this thread.

When the most sensible person is a cat, that's kind of sad.

Somewhat on topic: one example of the market working well for women's wear seems to be the rise of athleisure clothing. Companies noticed a lot of women bought workout clothing just for wearing around, because they were stretchy and comfortable and easy to clean.

[Peelee]

When the most sensible person is a cat, that's kind of sad.

That's not really an inaccurate description of the thread in general, I've gotta point out. I certainly didn't help, admittedly.

[2D8HP]

That's not really an inaccurate description of the thread in general, I've gotta point out.

True.

I certainly didn't help, admittedly.

Nuh-uh!

You were cogent!

[Fyraltari]

When the most sensible person is a cat, that's kind of sad.

That is, admittedly, one way to look at it.

[WarKitty]

That is, admittedly, one way to look at it.

I'm just going to sit here licking my butt.

[Lemmy]

Agreed. Stolen goods are stolen goods, and bills got serial numbers. It sucks if you're the one holding the bag, but if they can prove that dollar was stolen from that guy, you're out of luck.

And this is why pawn shops are always super excited to buy what they think may be stolen goods, and are never required to return them if it turns out they are.

Point taken. But doesn't change the fact that the whole argument is false equivalency. "Tracked stolen goods must be returned" is completely different from "it's ok for person A to harm person B, because someone else in B's demographics harmed someone in A's demographics". Or do you think it'd be completely acceptable and morally correct for black people to enslave white people? Should descendants from the people conqueres by Genghis Khan be free to raid, rape, enslave and kill Mongols? How many people are entitled to enslave and kill Italians because of Rome? Are Paraguayans free to rob and kill Brazilians, Uruguayans and Argentinians?

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen many cases (usually involving embezzling or similar crimes) where the guilty party had to repay the value they stole (plus suffer whatever other punishment the law predicts), but whoever provided the products or services they used the money on were not even part of the process.

[Lemmy]

Do you have any evidence for that?

What? That women are more privileged than men in many ways? Sure. I'm on my cell phone now, so I can't provide any links, but if you want, research how likely women are to be tried and convicted for a crime, compared to men. Or how long their sentences are for the same crime. Take a look at divorce laws and rulings while you're at it. Check what gender has more college scholarship programs dedicated to them despite being the vast majority of people in higher education.

Are there areas where men are privileged? Sure. I never said there weren't. But don't act like men are always privileged and women are always disadvantaged, because that's factually untrue.

If goods are stolen they are confiscated and returned to the legal owner, even if the current owner was not aware they were stolen. (If they are aware that's also a crime).

Not necessarily. If the criminal paying for the stolen item is possible (in addition to whatever other legal consequences the law dictates), that's what happens in a lot of cases.

It's also besides the point. Like I mentioned before, it was a completely false equivalency to start with.

[2D8HP]

Point taken. But doesn't change the fact that the whole argument is false equivalency. "Tracked stolen goods must be returned" is completely different from "it's ok for person A to harm person B, because someone else in B's demographics harmed someone in A's demographics".... .

Huh?



Did I miss a post by Redcloak upthread?

[Florian]

@Peelee:

The interesting point is that you feel "entitled" to something. That's actually pretty alien to me.

[Fyraltari]

@Lemmy, it looks like I misunderstood your argument.
My apologies.

[Peelee]

@Peelee:

The interesting point is that you feel "entitled" to something. That's actually pretty alien to me.

To the best of my knowledge, feeling entitled and being entitled to something as specified by the law are different things. I may feel entitled to a Tesla Roadster, but that means jack all. Conversely, if a court rules lawsuit in my favor, then I am entitled to the fruits of their ruling. If that's alien to you, I frankly don't know what to say.