Maybe ânaiveâ isnât the right languageâI mean it mostly in the sense of âitâs a bad idea to commit crimes in the service of charityâ rather than âthe expected value was negativeâ.
If Mario cared sufficiently little about being imprisoned, damaging a masterpiece, or generating opposition to famine relief writ large, I could see the theft as a positive-EV move from his perspective. But on the âbenefitâ side of the tradeoff, Iâm skeptical that there was even a remote possibility of the Belgian government putting up ~$17 million to ransom the painting, especially on the deadline he set. (Claude notes that governments have a strong incentive not to set a precedent by making public ransom payments.)
âAccording to the Dutch art historian and Vermeer expert Albert Blankert, Roymansâ demands were âalarmingly well receivedâ by the Dutch public. Petitions were circulated urging authorities to rescind the warrant for his arrest and there were spontaneous initiatives in favor of the refugees from East Pakistan. A wave of sympathy spread across the country, and slogans in favor of Roymanâs cause were seen chalked on bridges and walls.â
So it may have been a surprisingly effective publicity stunt, if the publicâs reactions were really so positive! (Thatâs not something Iâd expect in the modern world.)
But I continue to think itâs generally misguided to steal money so you can give it away,* for reasons including âI wouldnât want someone stealing my money to support their own favorite charityâ and âif your cause draws attention because thieves support it, you should expect people to turn against itâ.
*But if you can steal bread to feed your starving child, why not someone elseâs children? As the guy who played Javert in my high schoolâs production of Les Mis, I canât help thinking about Jean Valjean here. But Iâm not inclined to spend the time Iâd need to work through the relevant arguments and counterarguments.
I would have predicted the positive press and basically think this would âworkâ today if these conditions were met:
charismatic criminal (art thieves! maybe hackers like anonymous)
ransom made to a powerful, disliked entity (governments, specific well-known billionaires)
For a well-known cause thatâd widely regarded as worthy (hurricane/âtyphoon relief, childhood cancer research, etc.)
I agree you on the overall downsides though. This sets a bad precedent that will be misused by many and burn a ton of social trust that is ultimately more important.
Why do you think it was naive instead of a good bet that happened to not work out?
Maybe ânaiveâ isnât the right languageâI mean it mostly in the sense of âitâs a bad idea to commit crimes in the service of charityâ rather than âthe expected value was negativeâ.
If Mario cared sufficiently little about being imprisoned, damaging a masterpiece, or generating opposition to famine relief writ large, I could see the theft as a positive-EV move from his perspective. But on the âbenefitâ side of the tradeoff, Iâm skeptical that there was even a remote possibility of the Belgian government putting up ~$17 million to ransom the painting, especially on the deadline he set. (Claude notes that governments have a strong incentive not to set a precedent by making public ransom payments.)
That said, when I did some more reading on the case, I saw this:
So it may have been a surprisingly effective publicity stunt, if the publicâs reactions were really so positive! (Thatâs not something Iâd expect in the modern world.)
But I continue to think itâs generally misguided to steal money so you can give it away,* for reasons including âI wouldnât want someone stealing my money to support their own favorite charityâ and âif your cause draws attention because thieves support it, you should expect people to turn against itâ.
*But if you can steal bread to feed your starving child, why not someone elseâs children? As the guy who played Javert in my high schoolâs production of Les Mis, I canât help thinking about Jean Valjean here. But Iâm not inclined to spend the time Iâd need to work through the relevant arguments and counterarguments.
I would have predicted the positive press and basically think this would âworkâ today if these conditions were met:
charismatic criminal (art thieves! maybe hackers like anonymous)
ransom made to a powerful, disliked entity (governments, specific well-known billionaires)
For a well-known cause thatâd widely regarded as worthy (hurricane/âtyphoon relief, childhood cancer research, etc.)
I agree you on the overall downsides though. This sets a bad precedent that will be misused by many and burn a ton of social trust that is ultimately more important.