I think this is a fundamental attribution error... You're saying the person _is_ a thief, whereas I would say the person is _committing_ thievery. In the first case, it's the persons nature and no change in incentives would dissuade them. In the second, if you change the incentives so that thievery is less attractive (with its inherent risks) than just working for a good wage, the behavior would vanish.
_People committing thievery_ more often than not aren’t rational actors capable of assessing risks at least somewhat accurately. There, exact same argument with a term you prefer.
He was commenting on the risk decisions of farmers throughout history. It would be sensible for people to put all their effort into growing surplus of one crop for sale, but then they would be at greater risk of starving under crop failure.
People's choices are affected by their (percevied) risk calculus.
Hard disagree. The majority probably >95% of _People committing thievery_ will have assessed the risk to reward before doing it otherwise what would be the point? even if just for momentary excitement.
They just have very little to lose if they get caught. The problem is so many people are being pushed out of decent society in terms of rewards for work and wealth increase. you even have people who expect to go to prison at some point in their life simply because of the circumstances for their birth.
