[Seablue]

I don't know much about store rooms but vending machines on the other hand... Vending machines sell overpriced drinks that enable obscenely wealthy companies to make more money and they regularly steal money directly from you by not working properly.

It happened to me on a few occasions that I got two drinks instead of the one I paid for. Hell, once I got my drink AND the machine gave me my money back, in fact, it gave me more than what I had paid. In these occasions, I started running around, panicking about how I had just voluntarily committed a theft. I tried putting the drinks and the money back into the machine but it didn't work. So I waited there for two days until someone came to put drinks into the machine, then I gave him back what I had stolen and begged him not to call the police. ...Yeah right.

So I don't steal from storerooms but I sure enjoy it when the vending machines from hell malfunction.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Economically, it becomes stealing when you take anything of value without consent. Value is determined both by the owner and the amounts of goods other would exchange for the said object of value. In your case, you're directly hurting the company/organization that sells the powerade, the company that makes the powerade, and all the employees and shareholders of said companies/organizations. Your indirectly hurting all of their paying customers, by driving up the cost to produce powerade (theft is an expense upon producers). And given that you'd rather steal than pay for the powerade, you obviously value the item less than people regularly buy powerade and people who sell powerade. Which means, in net, you are shrinking the economy (turning high-value powerade into low-value stolen drink). Shrinking the economy to benefit yourself is most certainly unethical, and is termed rent-seeking behavior in economics. Economists work to limit rent-seeking behavior wherever possible, to promote growth and development. --- This phenomenon of rent-seeking behavior is why countries built on diamond mines (like in Africa) can still be dramatically poorer than countries built on tiny resource-less islands (like in Asia). People are too busy fighting wars to steal all the powerade, rather than actually building their country. Hmm...according to this study: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Americans would be 45% richer if we somehow eliminated all rent-seeking behavior. Put another way, Americans spend roughly 31% of our national resources stealing/defrauding/politicking eachother. Your stealing that powerade is part of the wasted 31%. On a global scale, however, that's quite low. Back in the olden days, the vast majority of human effort was spent on conquering eachother...leaving the vast majority of humanity as nearly-starving peasant farmers.

Oh really? Who owns natural resources? BTW, you seem to have not clued in that taking the powerade is a hypothetical, simply because I said powerade and not stuff in general. Also, I'm not in america, so I wouldn't contribute to those statistics even if it wasn't a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Irrelevant. The fact that maybe their accounting isn't the best in the world has nothing to do with you adding yet another expense by stealing their stuff. Anyway, lights are left on to partly to help prevent theft. They probably could save heaps of money if they could turn them off without worrying about somebody breaking in to steal their expensive computers (or stocks of Powerade, as the case may be). Hopefully this helps you see yet another direct expense that theft causes.

That would be true, except that nothing I've said is established fact. You're latching onto the idea of facts to justify not having to think about and address the question.

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes its stealing, but fuck colleges and universities, I'd Oceans 13 them in a minute if I thought I could get away with it. $50,000 to tell you what books to read so that you can a stinking paper to get a job is robbery.

Economically, they're stealing more than professional scam artists. But still, I don't advocate any tangible stealing.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh really? Who owns natural resources?

Depends on the country and the resources in question. Mineral Rights are fairly well known... you do know about getting rich off finding oil on your land, right?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Then you know the answer to this question. They are owned, and taking them without permission is stealing.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Depends on the country and the resources in question. Mineral Rights are fairly well known... you do know about getting rich off finding oil on your land, right? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Then you know the answer to this question. They are owned, and taking them without permission is stealing.

My mind pulls up a fuzzy old few second clip of some guy shooting the ground with a shotgun and oil coming out, followed by that image. God knows how that got in my memory bank.

I still think that oil should be appropriated by the government and used to either offer its citizens cheaper gasoline, or sell it to other countries and use the money to fix all the roads, or other things that make life better for the people, you know, like a government is supposed to do?

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh really? Who owns natural resources?

Whomever's claim on said resources is backed by the region's government. Hence why humans so aggressively engage in rent-seeking behavior to claim said resources, rather than actually use the resources to build more valuable things.

If everyone stole because "nobody owns the Earth" then we'd all starve. Private property is a social contract between the owners and the ruling government that enables society to grow and develop.

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	BTW, you seem to have not clued in that taking the powerade is a hypothetical, simply because I said powerade and not stuff in general. Also, I'm not in america, so I wouldn't contribute to those statistics even if it wasn't a hypothetical.

Powerade could be any good or service, and America could be any human state. The core argument is unchanged.

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That would be true, except that nothing I've said is established fact. You're latching onto the idea of facts to justify not having to think about and address the question.

And yet you think citing said "facts" means you don't need to address my argument at all, as seen above. The philosophy in your OP causes global poverty, as I clearly explained in my first post in this thread. Causing global poverty is bad.

---------- Post added 06-21-2012 at 09:15 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I still think that oil should be appropriated by the government and used to either offer its citizens cheaper gasoline, or sell it to other countries and use the money to fix all the roads, or other things that make life better for the people, you know, like a government is supposed to do?

Sounds nice, but it never really works that way. Why? Rent-seeking behavior. Government is made up of human beings who are as interested in personal profit as any business mogul. Why bother building society when you can fight for a larger percentage of government oil profits?

As "evil" as the American oil companies seem, they don't directly spend oil profits on mass militarization like the government-oil-industries in Russia and Saudi Arabia.

[CrudeHypothesis]

You know, every human has certain human needs, that lead to a particular set of traits if they are met, and a very different set of traits if they are denied. If a child grows up in an environment where people get their joy from the wellbeing of everyone, they'll have those values, and seek happiness by working towards the wellbeing of everyone else.

Why can't we put those people in charge?

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a child grows up in an environment where people get their joy from the wellbeing of everyone, they'll have those values, and seek happiness by working towards the wellbeing of everyone else. Why can't we put those people in charge?

They're still sulking because somebody took their powerade.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why can't we put those people in charge?

Because they lack the ruthlessness and ambition to hold power, unable to deal with the unrest caused by limited resources. Which is why human history is one of competing tyrannies intermixed with the occasional kleptocratic republic.


"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
-George Orwell


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Seablue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't know much about store rooms but vending machines on the other hand... Vending machines sell overpriced drinks that enable obscenely wealthy companies to make more money and they regularly steal money directly from you by not working properly. It happened to me on a few occasions that I got two drinks instead of the one I paid for. Hell, once I got my drink AND the machine gave me my money back, in fact, it gave me more than what I had paid. In these occasions, I started running around, panicking about how I had just voluntarily committed a theft. I tried putting the drinks and the money back into the machine but it didn't work. So I waited there for two days until someone came to put drinks into the machine, then I gave him back what I had stolen and begged him not to call the police. ...Yeah right. So I don't steal from storerooms but I sure enjoy it when the vending machines from hell malfunction.

This is an interesting point. I don't think most people consider taking two sodas when the machine gives you two is stealing. Using my economic argument, it shouldn't matter since this would go down on an expense do to bad vending machines, and the shopkeeper would have to simply invest in a better one. The buyer couldn't help him with this expense easily because seeking out the shopkeeper would cost him time - which is valuable. Although, I guess ideally there would be some kind of way to return the soda - maybe just put it in a bin. You use to see that kind of trust in really old vending machines - you put the money in and you got access to the entire cooler, but you were trusted to just take one. Too bad we all ruined it.

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That would be true, except that nothing I've said is established fact. You're latching onto the idea of facts to justify not having to think about and address the question.

More like you misunderstood what I meant by "irrelevant." The savings in turning off lights you caused won't be seen by the university, so it will not prevent them from seeing the theft of the Powerade as an expense, and having to install added security. If you had some way to show the University that you were effectively paying for the drink in an alternative way and they accepted it - then you could use your argument. For instance, if the owner of the University saw you turning off the lights and decided to reward you with a Powerade for the money you'd saved them.

[CrudeHypothesis]

You're sating if you pay for one and the machine gives you two that's ok, but if you trick the machine into giving you two for the price of one that's bad? Either way the machine has dispensed two and received the pay for one, so the only difference between the two is in your head.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're sating if you pay for one and the machine gives you two that's ok, but if you trick the machine into giving you two for the price of one that's bad? Either way the machine has dispensed two and received the pay for one, so the only difference between the two is in your head.

Intent matters. I don't tend to take advantage of mistakes either (and my personal opinion is that if you'd try to get a mistake corrected if it worked against you, it's only fair to correct someone else's mistake when it works in your favour), but it's clearly in a different ballpark to the equivalent of actively defrauding someone.

[Storm]

Vending machine mistakes are kind of interesting. I think it's a matter of time. Most people if the machine eats their money, do not bother to find someone who works there to get their money back - even though you are allowed to do so. But most people also do not return the extra soda if they get two. I think we therefore put this down to people not wanting to take extra time to correct mistakes.

However, if the cashier short changes someone, they usually correct it if they notice right away. If the cashier gives you extra change, most people will return it if they notice. So, it's an interest of time. The further away a person is from the cashier when they notice the mistake and the smaller the gap between the correct amount they should have received back and the amount they actually did, the less likely they are to correct the mistake.

For instance, if the cashier short changes you 10 cents and you're 10 minutes out of the store, you're probably unlikely to go back. But if the cashier accidentally gives you an extra $100 and you somehow don't notice till you're 10 minutes away, you're probably going to turn around and return it.

[ppu6502]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're sating if you pay for one and the machine gives you two that's ok, but if you trick the machine into giving you two for the price of one that's bad? Either way the machine has dispensed two and received the pay for one, so the only difference between the two is in your head.

If my car explodes due to a manufacture defect, I'll collect the insurance, and be justified in doing so. If it explodes because I stuck a gasoline soaked towel into the tank and set it on fire, I'm being a thieving little bitch.

There are two reasons to "struggle" with this sort of ethical question.

1) Being a fucking moron
2) Rationalizing

[CrudeHypothesis]

Ok, I'm thinking about Schrödinger's thought experiment again. You're standing outside the only entrance of a room you can't see inside. Inside this room is a vending machine. 20 people walk in and out of the room. You check the vending machine and 11 sodas are missing, but the machine has the money for 10. Is someone a thief?

[ppu6502]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ok, I'm thinking about Schrödinger's thought experiment again. You're standing outside the only entrance of a room you can't see inside. Inside this room is a vending machine. 20 people walk in and out of the room. You check the vending machine and 11 sodas are missing, but the machine has the money for 10. Is someone a thief?

20 babies walk into that room, one of them dies. Did somebody murder it? Guess it doesn't matter, because maybe it died of natural causes, right?

You have to be fucking kidding.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	20 babies walk into that room, one of them dies. Did somebody murder it? Guess it doesn't matter, because maybe it died of natural causes, right? You have to be fucking kidding.

Too much for you? It's really simple, here I'll explain it.

More people went through the room than sodas taken, so not everyone took sodas. More sodas were taken than money given, so either the machine released 2 at once or someone stole 2 at once or someone stole 1 without paying or someone ordered one and got their money back or someone paid and got one but the machine spat the money out and someone else used it to buy one or... regardless, the machine still comes up missing money for one soda, but it's all the same to the owners, ergo it shouldn't matter what happened in the room. If you were the person who knew what happened, the only difference would exist in your head.

[ppu6502]

Did you even read my response? It demonstrates the flaw in your reasoning. Your reasoning literally justifies murdering babies.

[illustral]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's about getting back the drink companies that screw us, you all seem to miss that point.

Then... make your own Poweraid? :/
Denial of business > stealing

[IotaNull]

So, in short, you're yet another person who can't understsnd the difference between "the truth is only known to some people" and "truth is subjective".

The absence of adequate information to deduce the correct answer doesn't mean that there is no correct answer.

It was you that missed ppu's point, by the way, not the other way round. By your logic, if 20 babies walk into a room and one dies, the police shouldn't launch an investigation (since it makes no functional difference whether it was murdered or died of natural causes and nobody can be blamed for it dying of natural causes) and suddenly the definition of murder itself is in question.

---------- Post added 06-25-2012 at 09:23 AM ----------

Also, it actually DOES make a difference to the owner. If they find out that it was stolen, they can cut their losses with better security. If it was a mechanical fault, the machine can be engineered to reduce the likelihood of it. Knowing where the problem lies matters.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, in short, you're yet another person who can't understsnd the difference between "the truth is only known to some people" and "truth is subjective".

That's an assumption. I'm playing devils advocate here.

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The absence of adequate information to deduce the correct answer doesn't mean that there is no correct answer. It was you that missed ppu's point, by the way, not the other way round. By your logic, if 20 babies walk into a room and one dies, the police shouldn't launch an investigation (since it makes no functional difference whether it was murdered or died of natural causes and nobody can be blamed for it dying of natural causes) and suddenly the definition of murder itself is in question.

But the whole idea of 20 babies walking into a room is absurd. Babies don't walk; when they can walk they're not babies anymore, they're toddlers. 20 Babies wouldn't spontaneously walk into a room sequentially. That infinite baby theorem also fails because we're expecting soda to be sold but not babies to die. For ppu's logic to work, you'd have to be expecting a baby to die.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, it actually DOES make a difference to the owner. If they find out that it was stolen, they can cut their losses with better security. If it was a mechanical fault, the machine can be engineered to reduce the likelihood of it. Knowing where the problem lies matters.

...I hadn't thought of that. ...Do you think it's plausible to take a Powerade to make them increase security? You know, kind of like breaking in to something to identify a hole in security?

[AlfredSchnittke]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Too much for you? It's really simple, here I'll explain it. More people went through the room than sodas taken, so not everyone took sodas. More sodas were taken than money given, so either the machine released 2 at once or someone stole 2 at once or someone stole 1 without paying or someone ordered one and got their money back or someone paid and got one but the machine spat the money out and someone else used it to buy one or... regardless, the machine still comes up missing money for one soda, but it's all the same to the owners, ergo it shouldn't matter what happened in the room. If you were the person who knew what happened, the only difference would exist in your head.

I am pretty sure this is adequate evidence to make the claim that "someone in that group of 20 people is a thief."

Hard to tell what the point of this thought "experiment" is...?

[ppu6502]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But the whole idea of 20 babies walking into a room is absurd. Babies don't walk; when they can walk they're not babies anymore, they're toddlers. 20 Babies wouldn't spontaneously walk into a room sequentially. That infinite baby theorem also fails because we're expecting soda to be sold but not babies to die. For ppu's logic to work, you'd have to be expecting a baby to die.

This is a joke right? Ok, assuming it's a joke, how about a non-joke response?

If it's not a joke, can you please verify it is not a joke?

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...I hadn't thought of that. ...Do you think it's plausible to take a Powerade to make them increase security? You know, kind of like breaking in to something to identify a hole in security?

This is a regular thing for hackers to do - and generally the industry appreciates it. The key thing is that you notify them of the vulnerability. This whole practice falls into "grey" area, ethically, but many companies appreciate it.

If you're not notifying them of when and how you stole their merchandise, you're just plain old stealing. You basically are taking a leap of faith that divulging the information is more value to them than the cost associated with your theft.

That line is avoided entirely if you own the machine and paid to stock it, and are just hacking it for the fun.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's an assumption. I'm playing devils advocate here.

Then you're not doing it very well. And no, that's not an assumption. The point of devil's advocacy is to make someone demonstrate that they have some defensible basis for their viewpoint, not to discredit someone's viewpoint because they can't convince someone who's being intentionally dense.

	But the whole idea of 20 babies walking into a room is absurd. Babies don't walk; when they can walk they're not babies anymore, they're toddlers. 20 Babies wouldn't spontaneously walk into a room sequentially.

Irrelevant.

	That infinite baby theorem

Speaking of assumptions, where in the unholy rectal cavities of Satan did you pull this from?

	also fails because we're expecting soda to be sold but not babies to die. For ppu's logic to work, you'd have to be expecting a baby to die.

Something happened that wasn't expected in both cases. One soda is missing that shouldn't be. One baby is dead that shouldn't be. The analogy holds.

	...I hadn't thought of that. ...Do you think it's plausible to take a Powerade to make them increase security? You know, kind of like breaking in to something to identify a hole in security?

The vending machine company would have to hire someone to try to break in discreetly, but sure. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't done already.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then you're not doing it very well. And no, that's not an assumption. The point of devil's advocacy is to make someone demonstrate that they have some defensible basis for their viewpoint, not to discredit someone's viewpoint because they can't convince someone who's being intentionally dense.

I thought the point of devils advocacy was to argue a point you don't believe in for the challenge... or was it for the fun of pissing people off? Or is that trolling? Ok, CrudeHypothesis is in a box. You post comments in and responses come out. Regardless, you'll respond to the posts as you see fit, so the actual state of CrudeHypothesis doesn't matter to you.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, I'm talking about Powerade and you're talking about dead babies, which are two different things.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Speaking of assumptions, where in the unholy rectal cavities of Satan did you pull this from?

If an infinite number of babies were stumbling around a room for an infinite abound of time, chances are eventually somewhere 20 babies will walk out of the room. It's a play on the infinite monkey theorem where an almost equally improbable event would eventually occur after enough time.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Something happened that wasn't expected in both cases. One soda is missing that shouldn't be. One baby is dead that shouldn't be. The analogy holds.

I disagree. I can't be bothered searching back for who made the comment, but apparently people who sell drinks expect a small number of them to be stolen. I don't think anyone expects their baby to march in file with a bunch of other babies and be killed in the process.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The vending machine company would have to hire someone to try to break in discreetly, but sure. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't done already.

Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a regular thing for hackers to do - and generally the industry appreciates it. The key thing is that you notify them of the vulnerability. This whole practice falls into "grey" area, ethically, but many companies appreciate it. If you're not notifying them of when and how you stole their merchandise, you're just plain old stealing. You basically are taking a leap of faith that divulging the information is more value to them than the cost associated with your theft. That line is avoided entirely if you own the machine and paid to stock it, and are just hacking it for the fun.

Grey areas hey? I think taking powerade is in the gray area because it depends on your intentions. Also, does the end justify the means; but that's a different discussion.

[mieu]

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	20 babies walk into that room, one of them dies. Did somebody murder it? Guess it doesn't matter, because maybe it died of natural causes, right? You have to be fucking kidding.

No, it doesn't matter because babies shouldn't be walking in the first place