> False dichotomy?

Yes, I'm trying to say it's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other ways you could organise a justice system, many of which would lead to more just results.

For example - a fixed price system. 8 hours wages from the two parties to the dispute buys 30 minutes with one judge and two lawyers. More than enough time to deal with a minor matter like a scratched car. Or if you prefer a continental-style inquisitorial system, you can lose the lawyers and have 90 minutes with a judge. The fees mean judges and lawyers take home 5x the average salary.

How often do you get that sort of crime attended to and resolved satisfactorily?

You don't think large corporations are stealing from their workers?

Calling the arrangements consensual is also a rhetorical move.

Wage theft is a real crime and you don't get to rename it because your feelings are somehow hurt. Calling taxation "theft" is just vapid right wing mccarythism. Rich people paid mccarthy money to lie over and over again because at the time it was illegal to broadcast those lies on tv or radio. But a senator was immune and could lie all they wanted.

You are never going to be right about anything if you actually think what you posted makes any sense.

Im saying they are wasting everybodies time and money and by spending large resources on petty crime like graffiti instead of spending that time and money on prosecuting systemic crime and theft by employers that occurs far more frequently.

If someone gets stabbed outside my house every day with no charges filed, yeah im going to say spending resources prosecuting a fist fight at a bar is a waste of resources.

“To be clear, you’re saying something that’s impossible to infer from what you wrote because I made it up?” lmao

structuring is illegal for tax evasion too!

obviously if someone is a repeat offender then as they cross the threshold, chop-chop, straight to jail, charge them with the whole batch of crimes together.

it doesn't mean keep no records of crimes and don't respond at all.

Doesn’t that prove actually that the act of theft is not some calculated needs based negotiation in need of “the right threshold” to deter crime?

Like fare hopping, first half of my life i thought how unfair that i have to drone away as a tool of society and pay like a shmuck meanwhile these freeloaders have happily escaped the matrix.

second half of life i realized being unwilling or unable to pay $2.50 for public transist is an issue between that person and their life situation. If that’s what they need, I support the subsidy.

yeah we have extremely recent examples of this philosophy playing out and people are here defending it. It's bonkers!

Which <1000 crime did maddof start with?

Your claim makes for a good sound bite but its just not how it works. Subway evasion isn’t a gateway crime.

If you can’t pay for your next meal $20 might as well be $2 thousand or $20 thousand. Thats why overdraft fees are exploitative.

A person doesn’t steal a sandwich from 7-11, not get caught, then suddenly realize they can drain unsuspecting grandmas’ bank accounts by implementing a long con through masquerading as a long lost nephew through Facebook.

Anecdotally, I’ve heard that some big box stores like Target and Walmart allow shoplifters to get away with petty crime but save all evidence of these crimes to one day prosecute once the total shoplifted goes above the threshold of petty crime. Sometimes, these people would be goaded into this lifestyle by people who have agreements with Loss Prevention teams. Everyone wins except the shoplifter.

How is one earning money through graffiti damage

Ah yes, the graffiti artist to bank robber pipeline.. well done.

Well that would be assault (at least, battery probably too), so wouldn’t fall under the hypothetical $1000 threshold.

[dead]