From Gizmodo:
Bad Samaritan Keeps CameraThis is the story about Judith and her unlost, but not yet found camera. She lost it on a trip to Hawaii, the camera had well over 500 photos on the memory card. Much to her delight she received a call from a park ranger informing her that somebody found her camera. A phone call later she found out that the camera was given to the diabetic son of the Canadian that found the camera. What is astonishing is that she actually accepts this pity excuse and works out a deal. All she wanted was her memory cards and a little bit of compensation - $50 for her $500 camera to be exact - for the camera.
She received a package two weeks later that had burned CDs of the pictures and a note saying that the Canucks needed the memory card for the camera. What's a lady to do? Of course, furiously call and demand justice! The bad Samaritan didn't care and told Judith that she was lucky to get anything back at all.
So go ahead, Stephen -- tell me why Judith doesn't deserve her camera back and that the unnamed Canadian is justified in keeping it. I'm sure your unique perspective on yet another example of ego-centrism run amok will be interesting.
Assuming the story contains all relevant details, I'm calling a spade a spade and labeling the finder of the camera a greedy, antisocial jerk. "Sucks to be you" just isn't an appropriate guiding philosophy for a modern society.
Craig,
You're coming off a little bad here. Despite your attempts to paint me as such, I'm not an extremist. Of course the camera should have been returned minus, of course, the cost of shipping. This is a great example of the members of society looking out for one another. And guess what -- it's also the law. You can't just keep things that belong to other people. It's just another case of the rules being set up to encourage people to do the right thing.
Try to understand this -- I'm not a Libertarian. I just have, in some instances, a slightly more libertarian view. I don't believe that we should get rid of the government. I don't believe that the free market should rule all. I'm NOT an extremist. However, I DO believe that we've done harm in not leaning a little more towards proper incentives. I DO believe that, in the past, we as a country have robbed people by placing disincentives on getting off of welfare (as an example). However, most reasonable people would agree to that.
In those rare instances where I do refer to myself as a Libertarian, it's because I am one of a growing many that holds many fiscally "Republican" views, but abhors the religious right's effects on the party.
Oh god -- I hope I don't draw your ire by saying that the person who lost the camera should pay for shipping. ;)
"In those rare instances where I do refer to myself as a Libertarian, it's because I am one of a growing many that holds many fiscally "Republican" views, but abhors the religious right's effects on the party."
Hey, we agree on this (at least)! But honestly, I think you do a disservice to your ideas to even say you "lean Libertarian" because their ideals, even as posted on their website, are indeed extreme (e.g., doing away with social security programs entirely). Even Democrat and Republican party objectives balance ideals with pragmatism, which is probably why they have ~50% each of the public's mindshare.
"Oh god -- I hope I don't draw your ire by saying that the person who lost the camera should pay for shipping. ;)"
LOL! No, I certainly wouldn't go that far. What I think would be a "fair" exchange, disregarding the law for the moment, would be for the camera owner to pay for shipping, perhaps even a bit more for the time and effort of the finder. That balances social equity with the value of time (to which I am acutely sensitive).
I apologize if my own reaction to your posts was "extreme". I am increasingly plagued and appalled these days by the prevalence of defending anti-social behavior when we most need to start acting like we give a damn about our fellow humans. From religious intolerance and provocation (e.g., the Danish cartoons mess...having the right to do something doesn't mean you can exercise that right without considering the consequences) to corporate greed (e.g., Sony's DRM rootkit debacle) to individuals' abuse of political or other power (e.g., Tom Delay ad nauseum), we as a society seem to be sinking in the quicksand of self-centeredness. And I'm finding it harder and harder to stomach any "logical" defense of such actions. Not an excuse, just an explanation.
Oh, and for the record, Stephen, here's about where I lie politically -- I don't really think our perspectives are that far apart. Take the test and see where you end up for comparison...I'd be interested in hearing.
You are a
Social Liberal
(60% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(61% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Centrist
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
Does this mean that I get to call YOU an extremist?
Ha! Sure...go ahead...compared to some things I've been called, that's not going to bother me. ;-)
It's interesting that your fiscal conservatism requires you to believe that most people will generally make good decisions on their own. If you'd spent the time I have educating American youth about business concepts, economics, and strategy, I think your view that people "are smarter than I think" would be modified somewhat. My empirical observations suggest otherwise.
First, I forgot the ;) on that last one.
Second, you can see how close I was to barely making it into the Libertarian group, and that's why, when forced, I say Libertarian. It's the best way to describe a combination of liberal social and conservative economic.
Anyhoo....
Perhaps -- however, in my experience, people do a very good job. For instance, in business you can have sales people whom you are convinced are as stupid as a rotting piece of meat. Hand those same people a 450 page commission schedule and all of a sudden they're out selling the oddest things because they've found the loopholes.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. However, it's also VERY tough to institute safe guards without people eventually using them. Earlier you mentioned Social Security. That's a great example. It started as a way to protect those who despite savings, planning, pensions, etc. etc., still managed to fall through the cracks. It was a safeguard. Very few would argue that it worked as such. Over the course of many years people came to think of SS as a plan and NOT a safeguard.
I'm not for cutting these people off. It's morphed and it now is what it is. We've got to find a way to take care of these people. However, I do believe that, in the future, we need to spend more time thinking about the end-game so that we can avoid similar situations in the future.
Do I have the answer? No, but we need to take a look at some other proposals. Here's one off the top of my head. Let's pick an age (say 35 year olds) and say "You won't get SS when you're older." To make them even more upset let's tell the youth (under 35), "Oh no -- you still need to pay into it? Why? Because that's the price of being in a society. Some experiments work; some don't. But it's our duty to watch out."
What makes me mad is when people aren't willing to stop failed experiments.
Oh, no doubt -- I totally agree that people will usually act however they're motivated by the system, their environment, the situation, etc., and often they will take the least-resistance path to some reasonable level of satisfaction.
And don't think I'm for unqualified, universal social security, as I'm certainly a believe that those who need supporting and can work should indeed work. I get really ticked when I see what looks like an otherwise healthy individual standing at an intersection with a sign saying "Why lie? I need money for beer." (yes, there's somebody like that on my way to work). Those folks get zero sympathy from me.
But there are so many gray areas that giving the benefit of the *reasonable* doubt seems to be warranted. I think the firefighter example and this camera example are two where the person experiencing the loss could have been helped out by the other party at no significant net expense (or even possibly a modest gain), but they chose not to do so even when presented with reasonable (IMO) justification. If the firefighters are willing to cover someone for $X in membership dues and someone claims not to have known about the program beforehand and offers to join at the first knowledge, then I'd say that's reasonable. If someone says they lost the camera you found and would like it back, returning it is reasonable.
Both these cases have to do with the golden rule, which is, as we all know, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." As that's a multi-cultural, pan-religion concept, it speaks to the core of what humanity values, and I think both of these cases clearly illustrate someone NOT adhering to this rule.
Craig, I am an extremist libertarian nutjob and I'd be happy to explain these two situations from my lonely end of the political spectrum.
CAMERA
Short version: The anonymous Canadian is flat-out guilty of theft and possibly fraud.
Long version: The Canadian had no right to dictate the terms of the agreement because they had no right to the camera and the memory card in the first place. Discovering lost property and then reporting it establishes that. Judith made the choice to let the alleged diabetic child have the camera but she attached conditions to that exchange. The Canadian didn't follow through on those conditions, so I'd slap him or her with fraud as well.
FIRE
Short version: a legitimate decision by property owner resulting in fire damage.
Long version: Mr. Rueda did not meet the fire department's requirements to receive service. We don't know the details of his offer to pay so that avenue is mostly hypothetical for now, but it is not unreasonable to suggest the department could have allowed him to pay them back over time. It would have been the kind thing to do. The department seems to be nominally "privatized" in the sense that its revenues mostly come from people who choose to subscribe to their service. It cannot afford to provide fire extinguishing service to everyone who needs it and once you take a charity case you open the gates for others to demand your help. How do you deny them after accepting others?
"Sucks to be you" isn't the above philosophy. The above philosophy says is "we don't work together unless we agree together." If one side disagrees with the terms, then they have the right to refrain from interacting. The department's owner/operator/governing code didn't allow for this kind of situation and they had the right to say no.
Charles: Thanks for commenting.
Regarding the camera issue, it appears there is general consensus that the Canadian in question is merely being an asshat...case closed. :-)
Regarding the firefighting issue, I think this is the primary issue at hand: did the property owner *choose* to not become a member prior to the fire, or was he genuinely unaware that membership was required? I've never lived somewhere where taxes did not pay for a fire company, so if I moved somewhere where that was the case and nobody told me about it, I would probably be completely ignorant until I had a fire. So, I can see how the property owner could be telling the truth. If, however, he lied in the story and decided to not buy coverage, then yes, I agree that he got what he deserved. I am not a liberal wingnut, as I do believe in both responsibility and fairness, but I think that belief in the man's claims of ignorance effectively separate those on either side of the debate. Such a thin line to divide two perspectives, eh?
My problem with the fire is that I can EASILY see someone lying under those circumstances. Seriously, you're watching your house garage burn to the ground. They inform you that you didn't pay your dues. It's clear that they're going to let the house burn. Are you saying that 99% of the people out there wouldn't start screaming either "I didn't know" or "Yes, I did!!!!!?"
I generally consider myself to be an honest person (often to a fault). Yet, I can't say 100% that I wouldn't tell a white lie if all my property were burning to the ground. I'd comfort myself by telling myself that I'd make a big donation to the department (and I would), but I might lie.
Would you lie, Craig?
Stephen, that's really not the issue. People lie a lot of the time. The fact that this guy was motivated to lie doesn't mean that he actually was. If you assume he was lying just because he had motivation to, then you take on a "guilty until proven innocent" position that is inconsistent with our society's justice system.
Should the IRS assume that everyone is lying on their income tax filings just because we are financially motivated to hide some of our income? It's easy to see how someone would be tempted to lie in that situation.
Should I as a college professor assume that all of my students are lying about not cheating when they sign their code of conduct agreements because they are motivated to get high grades by any possible means? It's easy to see someone tempted by lying in that situation.
Should the insurance adjuster assume that his client is lying about being at fault in a traffic accident because he stands to be financially hurt by telling the truth?
If yes to all these situations, society essentially ceases to function.
You may argue the fire situation differed by a matter of degree, but all you derive in following that argument to its conclusion is some arbitrary line separating benefit-of-the-doubt from skeptical condemnation.
Your argument, again, seems rooted in a deep-seated cynicism about humanity, that we will behave dishonestly at any opportunity to benefit ourselves and that there can be no assumption, or even hope, of trustworthiness. Yet, you claim that you, yourself, do not behave this way. Those two positions seem to be in conflict with each other. Either all people are inherently greedy or only some people are. If the former, then I shouldn't trust you as far as I can throw you. If the latter, then you have to admit that there's a significant chance that this guy is telling the truth.
But perhaps the estimate of that chance is what separates us in this situation: based on only a few details, you assume the guy to be crafty/rational and lying ("guilty until proven innocent"), whereas I assume him to be ignorant (of the program, at least) and telling the truth ("innocent until proven guilty"). Perhaps if we both assume everyone to be ignorant and lying, we'd be in the right mindset to be politicians, eh?
I find it ironic that you have, in the past, called me an extremist. Yet, you can't seem to come to terms with any behavior that's not at the extreme.
For instance, your basic argument appears to be "They must save the house because, despite the high likelihood that someone could be lying, they don't know for sure that *he* is."
Needless to say, I do find one's likelihood of lying highly relevant. As is the case with every one of the example that you brought up…
For instance, the IRS *does* assume you are lying and audits you if you do certain "trigger" events where people are more prone to lie.
Many college professors *do* assume that all their students are lying. I'm sure you are aware of the multiple systems available where professors submit student's term papers into a database to attempt to scan for plagiarism.
The mere fact that insurance investigators exist is proof that the insurance companies don’t simply take people at their words; they investigate and 90% of the time they find split fault. This is code for “we couldn’t prove who was telling the truth so both of your rates will go up.”
This world is, and has always been, a series of grays. You say that lines would bring society to a screeching halt. I would say that rules like “always assume truth unless you can PROVE lying” would have a FAR more detrimental effect. It disregards that everything is a spectrum.
Those two positions seem to be in conflict with each other. Either all people are inherently greedy or only some people are. If the former, then I shouldn't trust you as far as I can throw you. If the latter, then you have to admit that there's a significant chance that this guy is telling the truth.
Again you’ve fallen victim to absolutes. It’s far more complicated than that. I said that I might lie in the situation, because it’s a grey area. It’s an area where I might be able to convince myself (like you did) that it was a win-win situation. That doesn’t mean that I would always lie. Motivation needs to be taken into account. Surely you’ve told a lie in your life. Does that mean that I can never trust you? As a centrist ;) I’m inclined to live in a world of grays.
But you never answered my question… would you watch quietly as your house burned to the ground or would you lie, and, if so, does that mean that you would also carjack someone in order to upgrade the to clearly superior 993. ;) One != the other.
You got me, Stephen...I simply cannot reconcile most of your post with what I said immediately before it. And answering the hypotheticals you pose isn't useful, so I won't.
I'm not quite clear on how you take my statements "...or only some people are" and "...there's a significant chance that this guy is telling the truth" as evidence that I believe only in extremes.
For instance, your basic argument appears to be "They must save the house because, despite the high likelihood that someone could be lying, they don't know for sure that *he* is."
Sure...that's accurate. Given the uncertainty, their policy should be address the immediate need immediately (i.e., put out the fire) and then figure out whether or not he's lying later. In this case, the cost of assuming he's lying and being wrong is far more than the cost of assuming he's telling the truth and being wrong.
If they knew the man had prior knowledge and chosen not to join up (e.g., the fire chief discussed the program with the guy and he declined), then the fire company had every right to withhold service. But that information wasn't in the story -- you assume it. I just find that assumption, even when presented with evidence in the story to the contrary and no evidence to support it other than a general cynicism towards human nature, to be a bit disappointing.
cynicism - a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others (per dictionary.com)
"Needless to say, I do find one's likelihood of lying highly relevant."
There are many scenarios where there is a high likelihood of someone lying, yet society insists that we assume they are telling the truth until "proof" otherwise is available. Our justice system, at least the one in effect prior to the Bush administration, operates on an "innocent until proven guilty" policy. We don't jail everyone who might be lying about not committing a crime, despite their being highly motivated to lie in such a situation, until they can prove that they're innocent...that's not our way (Gitmo notwithstanding).
If I suspect a student of cheating and he says he wasn't (highly motivated to lie in this situation), I can't, and shouldn't, flunk him without proof (or at least really strong evidence). Guess what...this exact scenario happened to me yesterday. There was no conclusive evidence either way, but did I flunk the student? No, for that would be counter to our society's norm.
My current understanding of your position is that you, when presented with evidence about a given situation, would be more likely to assume guilt or deception than I would. That's certainly your choice, but I still don't believe that it, or the firefighters' position, is aligned with American notions of justice.
Should the IRS assume that everyone is lying on their income tax filings just because we are financially motivated to hide some of our income? It's easy to see how someone would be tempted to lie in that situation.
Should I as a college professor assume that all of my students are lying about not cheating when they sign their code of conduct agreements because they are motivated to get high grades by any possible means? It's easy to see someone tempted by lying in that situation.
Should the insurance adjuster assume that his client is lying about being at fault in a traffic accident because he stands to be financially hurt by telling the truth?
If yes to all these situations, society essentially ceases to function.
My point was that in each of these cases the answer is yes and society hasn't ceased to function.
Am I cynical? I suppose that depends on how you define "general." I don't think that it's wrong to factor in common-sense. In general I don't assume that people are lying. Like everything it's a spectrum. I'm certainly more cynical than you, but I'm also probably more realistic than you also.
"My point was that in each of these cases the answer is yes and society hasn't ceased to function."
Well, I hate to say this without nuance or subtlety, but you're wrong.
The IRS doesn't assume everyone is cheating, or else everyone would be audited. The IRS may indeed assume that everyone might make a mistake, which is why automated validation systems are used to check over numbers, but that's significantly different than assuming everyone has intent to defraud.
No college professors but the most paranoid assume all their students are cheating without some significant reason to suspect. In fact, we are usually very surprised when we find a case where it's happening.
Finally, while I can't speak to all insurance adjusters, the one I do know said that she typically assumes people are giving an accurate portrayal of events unless something "sounds funky" or doesn't mesh with other witnesses' accounts. To me, that sure doesn't sound like a baseline presumption of intentional duplicity.
And I'm fairly sure you understood that I meant those just as examples, not as the only tests of societal health.
While I won't debate you over your self-proclaimed perception of "being realistic," since perception is reality to most, I'll close with saying that I'd rather be me, with my assumptions of mass ignorance, than you with your assumptions of mass guile; ignorance is far easier to cure.