2013/11/29 Patrick Chkoreff <[1]pc@loom.cc>

   Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote, On 11/28/2013 09:37 AM:
   > Solving crime is also very much more expensive than causing it.
   That doesn't matter.  All that matters is that the benefit of solving
   the crime exceeds the cost of solving it.

   I think we disagree here. Game theory doesn't support this standpoint.
   I am sure having no crime would be better for humanity than the other
   way around. But to commit a crime can be extremely profitable,
   emotionally or financially. And for me to protect others is not
   profitable for me directly. It's like taxes, it's good for society if
   everyone just pays their taxes (provided the taxes are fair). But do I
   want to pay taxes? I don't know anyone that looks forward to paying his
   taxes.

   Forget retribution.  The primary benefit of an investigation is the
   insight which enables you to prevent future crimes.  That can be
   enormously valuable in terms of life and property.

   Then why didn't you spend 10% of your wealth/income last year on
   investigating crime prevention? I appreciate that you feel this
   discussion is helping, and it's helping me get my thoughts clearer, but
   I truly think a community cannot be expected to behave in a way good
   for the community but bad for the individual.

   > And the advantage to solving another person's problem is smaller than
   > solving your own.
   The advantage is the same when your problems are the same, which is
   often the case.

   I don't quite see this argument. A murderer and a police officer have
   opposing motives. A person in the street will back away from both to
   prevent getting hurt, even if he might help either achieve his/her
   goal.

References

   1. mailto:pc@loom.cc