Interesting dichotomy. I think a lot of people would have no problem.
replyI think I would consider myself in that group.
I think some lives are worth negative, and everyone is better off with them dead.
It's not just $2k lost here. There's a lot to be said about the immeasurable value of a high-trust society.
replyAs another commenter said: It's incredibly easy to not get shot; don't burglarize someone's home the same way you wouldn't jump in front of a moving train.
Holding the threat of death over people isn't the way to a "high-trust society." Maybe you think it's the way to something similar, but you have to give up the word "trust" because it doesn't apply here. If the only reason I think a man isn't going to rob me is because I will shoot him if he does, I don't trust that man.
replyA society which only has low crime because everyone is able to use lethal force to defend themselves and their property isn't one I would call higher "trust" than one that maintains the same crime levels without that threat.
I think that is the wrong way to think about it.
replyThe end state is you can trust others because nobody even wants to or considers it.
Punishing violators is being proposed as how to build the norm that no one wants to steal.