Ideally also from companies who employed them (one can dream).
Prison time would also work, I guess, but overall in such case "you are losing 50% of your wealth, guess you are selling your flat and going back to renting" seems a good penalty to me.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
do_something 10mo ago
The amount of losses incurred by this would be large enough that 50% might not actually even cover it. And going full-damages isn't unwarranted as a punitive measure either; this was nearly not caught, so any punitive measure has to massively exceed ill-gotten gains in order for it to be rendered clearly-negative-EV for the fraudster.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, to align incentives you do have to make the money come out of the people who made the criminal decisions.
Ideally also from companies who employed them (one can dream).
Prison time would also work, I guess, but overall in such case "you are losing 50% of your wealth, guess you are selling your flat and going back to renting" seems a good penalty to me.
(not that such outcome is likely)
The amount of losses incurred by this would be large enough that 50% might not actually even cover it. And going full-damages isn't unwarranted as a punitive measure either; this was nearly not caught, so any punitive measure has to massively exceed ill-gotten gains in order for it to be rendered clearly-negative-EV for the fraudster.
Sadly, courts in Poland love to give sentences like "you have stolen 2 million? 2 months of prison, without requiring to give defrauded money back".
I would take spending 2 months in Polish prison for 2 million.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link