Re: stealing vs. not stealing cable
YOu didn't even go into the aspect of intellectual property rights.
True, because I don't know any clear answers on intellectual property rights. The only justification for them is a cost-benefit analysis of pragmatism, not a moral argument.
If the person doing the stealing is the one who determines what constitutes theft, then we might as well go ahead and get rid of all theft laws.
He is the only person who knows the opportunity costs of his action; opportunity costs being the lost revenue that he would have given to the seller had he chosen to buy the product instead.
The embezzler who only steals .01% of the gross income of a multinational corporation didn't steal because it was a drop in the bucket and wouldn't affect the company.
My argument is not that the theft only causes a little bit of harm; it is that it causes no harm at all.
What if a two screen theater opened with two movies, and the entire audience of each house just moved next door at the end of thier show, because "they weren't going to pay for this movie, but since they're there anyway...."?
Then the theater would probably start checking tickets. But your hypothetical case violates the rules of my hypothetical case. All of these people could not just movie hop without taking up seats that would have been taken up by paying customers.
In Neuro's case, what if everyone said "well, I could just watch the TV from the signals on the air, but I bought broad band service so the signal is here anyway, so what's the big deal?
Everyone? Everyone who would not have bought cable otherwise is doing nothing wrong; i.e. causing no harm. Everyone that would have bought cable otherwise is doing something wrong by depriving the seller of revenues that they would have otherwise recieved.
The answer is the same in both cases - the company in question would have to either close thier doors or jack up thier prices to the people who are honest and pay for the service.
This is false. If the free-riders are not causing the the actual buyers from being excluded, then no harm is done to the company and there is no reason for them to jack up their prices.
The size of the take does not determine if something is theft.
No, but whether any harm is caused, and whether intellectual property rights actually exist do determine if something is theft.
if you think it's ok, then go to theater management and tell them what you are doing. If it's ok, they'll let you do it. Otherwise, you ARE taking something that is not yours without permission, and that is theft.
This is wrong. The theater may just be testing me to see if I actually might pay otherwise. In other words, they assume that I would be paying if I wasn't movie hopping, and therefore tell me that it is not ok. If they knew for certain that I would never pay for the second movie, and that there are empty seats in theater, why would they care whether I watch it or not? What harm have I caused them?
The point is, this would never happen in real life because the theater owners do not have perfect knowledge of my beliefs and preferences. But if they did, they would agree that no harm is being done to them.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
