Topic: Should people have the right to initiate fraud? (Read 490 times)
+1
...snip...
the threat of living with it the rest of their lives should discourage people from committing fraud in the first place.
the threat of living with it the rest of their lives should discourage people from committing fraud in the first place.
Most criminals have short terms desperate needs for cash so it takes the threat of serious punishment to stop them. For example the 2 fraudsters below lost every penny they stole as fast as they stole it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326376/I-fell-spiv-whod-duped-women-fleeced-200k-How-I-stupid.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326294/Former-head-IT-Royal-Academy-Music-stole-370-000-blew-Charlie-Sheen-lifestyle-Las-Vegas-jailed.html
The essence of your idea is that its the victim's fault that the con man is smarter. That's no reason to allow her get robbed.
There's a big difference between protecting people from something and recognizing that it is wrong and people who do it should be punished.
For instance, in a libertarian society, people would probably still go armed, even though initiation of force is wrong. Should someone initiate the use of force, they will suffer the consequences, but it's not wise to rely only on those consequences to protect yourself.
Just like it's silly to rely only on the consequences of being caught at fraud to protect you from fraud. Due diligence is the equivalent of carrying a pistol for self-protection.
For instance, in a libertarian society, people would probably still go armed, even though initiation of force is wrong. Should someone initiate the use of force, they will suffer the consequences, but it's not wise to rely only on those consequences to protect yourself.
Just like it's silly to rely only on the consequences of being caught at fraud to protect you from fraud. Due diligence is the equivalent of carrying a pistol for self-protection.
Most libertarians and an-caps agree that the initiation of force or fraud against someone is wrong and if there are any laws, they should focus on those two things.
But I would say that Bitcoin has proven that people who are exposed to fraud are more aware and are more able to avoid it on their own.
Just like the guy who is working on the BitcoinCard stated that he was considering taking pre-orders but because of the stigma that has within the community he decided not to do it. Everyone knows to be very careful with using bitcoins for PayPal. There are ways of dealing with scammers...exposing them and letting people see that person's history. E-bay ratings is a good example of how good businesses thrive while people who commit fraud can have their business affected. With today's technology fraud should stick to any person for the rest of their life...allow people to make their own decision on whether or not to deal with that person based on their past.
Protecting us from fraud makes us complacent.
Is it convenient to be protected? Sure. Being the first person to get screwed over by someone who was otherwise trustworthy would suck. But the threat of living with it the rest of their lives should discourage people from committing fraud in the first place.
But I would say that Bitcoin has proven that people who are exposed to fraud are more aware and are more able to avoid it on their own.
Just like the guy who is working on the BitcoinCard stated that he was considering taking pre-orders but because of the stigma that has within the community he decided not to do it. Everyone knows to be very careful with using bitcoins for PayPal. There are ways of dealing with scammers...exposing them and letting people see that person's history. E-bay ratings is a good example of how good businesses thrive while people who commit fraud can have their business affected. With today's technology fraud should stick to any person for the rest of their life...allow people to make their own decision on whether or not to deal with that person based on their past.
Protecting us from fraud makes us complacent.
Is it convenient to be protected? Sure. Being the first person to get screwed over by someone who was otherwise trustworthy would suck. But the threat of living with it the rest of their lives should discourage people from committing fraud in the first place.
Jump to: