Bicycle Theft and Morality

[gusl]

There's been some talk about the immorality of buying a bicycle from junkies on the logic students mailing list. But once you're a victim, are you going to set yourself up to be a victim again by buying a legitimate bike (which costs about 5-10 times the price of a stolen bike)?

Is stealing a bicycle worse than buying a stolen bicycle? To a consequentialist (the only reasonable position), the consequences are the same, except that you are supporting a junkie in the latter case. What about ordering the theft of a specific bike?

If you can't enforce the property rights, does it make sense to have them? Is stealing a bike in Amsterdam any better than stealing one in Boston?



another thought: the price of nice stolen bikes. Nice bikes are more likely to be stolen because they sell for more. If buyers know that, they will not want to buy them as much. What is the equilibirum?

Comments

[ehintz.livejournal.com]

Can't say I know much about Amsterdam, so maybe none of my ideas would work. But in general the way I'd approach the issue is to replace the stolen bike with something else, perhaps a skateboard or rollerblades, which I could keep on my person. Thus, I avoid indirect support of the underground bike industry while satisfying the need for personal transport.

[candid.livejournal.com]

Isn't this a prisoner's dilemma? We'd all be better off if no one bought stolen bikes, but each of us individually is better off buying a stolen bike _regardless of what everyone else does_.

Also, the consequentialist can take solace that the consequences of buying a stolen bike are related but unidentical to those of stealing a bike.

Also, does your argument apply to paying ransoms? ("Is kidnapping worse than paying ransom for a kidnap victim?")

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Also, the consequentialist can take solace that the consequences of buying a stolen bike are related but unidentical to those of stealing a bike.

The differences between buying stolen and stealing are basically:

* BUYER IS BETTER OFF due to efficiency. It's cheaper to buy from the specialist.

* THIEF IS BETTER OFF. Junkie gets a surplus. He values the money more than work/risk cost of stealing.

* conscience / social perception cost: it sounds less evil to buy stolen.

Okay, buying stolen seems best for everyone, except for those who have a low conscience / social perception cost / are efficient at stealing.

But those differences are pretty small compared to the loss the original owner had. In fact, for him it makes no difference at all. So it should not be much of a solace.

I don't believe in morality. Like Binmore, I think it's all about coordination. The thing is a lot of people have a conscience, and they don't accept such moral nihilism.

[radiantsun.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the bike culture is in Amsterdam, but one time (in band camp) somebody (an american) told me that there are yellow bicycles all over amsterdam and that you just use those and take them and leave them wherever you go . . . and they're like public property. I suppose that's not true give your bike discussions, but the fanciful part of me really wanted to believe it.

I think someone needs to design a bike lock that electrifies the bike and is armed and disarmed with a remote control. I'd say when RFID's are everywhere it will be harder, but criminals will just get "better" . . .

Some students at UCLA take their bikes with them into the classroom.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the bike culture is in Amsterdam, but one time (in band camp) somebody (an american) told me that there are yellow bicycles all over amsterdam and that you just use those and take them and leave them wherever you go . . . and they're like public property. I suppose that's not true give your bike discussions, but the fanciful part of me really wanted to believe it.

Read the comment by peamasii. Maybe your friend was thinking of Copenhagen.

RFIDs are a great idea, and could be very good for the economy. I hear that petty theft adds up to big losses for retailers.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

The property rights are only mildly enforced here. You can report a stolen bike, but the police will not actively look for it in the city. Mostly people expect and accept that if you don't double-lock the bike it can get stolen.

OK, it may not be moral to buy or sell used bikes, but then again the junkie may not be any more irresponsible in stealing bikes than he would be in doing anything else. Unless we can define what is moral for the junkie, we cannot define if it's moral for us to support him (even indirectly). Generally I tend to bias in favor of the victim but again it's unclear if the victim is from property theft or of general marginalization from society.

It all comes to nought, no moral dictate can change the dynamic of theft and replacement.

The price for new bikes includes a premium that can be afforded by those who have preferred storage for their new bikes: a garden, patio or locked box where the overnight thief cannot reach.

They tried having free bikes in Amsterdam (as they do in Copenhagen) and they all got shipped to Ukraine or somewhere like that. Conversely, in Copenhagen they tried liberalizing soft drug use and they all ended up in the hands of the local mafia. Go figure, you can have one but not the other.

I'm saddened by so many people's lack of respect for property rights or morals.

[zeronaught.livejournal.com]

I like my bike. I don't want it to be stolen. I don't want other people's bikes to be stolen. I'm all for not buying stolen bikes if it makes a junkie give up smack 0.00000001% faster.

Then again I'm not going to keep buying new bikes forever. I have now contributed to the bike economy by paying for one new bike. If it is stolen and placed in the collective pool I shall buy a stolen one from said pool without compunction.