If something is better than nothing, instead of expending capital on owner-supplied code infrastructure, why not pay robbers not to rob? That way, there's greater chance the owner is alive to use their device. (I'm thinking more control for you.)
And people carry much of value besides electronics today. You can use NYC seizure records and ATMs as proxies.
Of course something is better than nothing in the one dimension where it's something rather than nothing. I've never been arguing that this is the best solution or even a desirable solution. I've been stating (repeatedly) that there's a dimension (that doesn't involve being recipient of the contracts or similar) along which it's a positive thing. This was in answer to the strong statement, "How do people see this as a good idea? There are already voluntary methods for this, so there is literally no good justification for forcing a state-controlled version on everyone."
"why not pay robbers not to rob?"
Depends what you mean. A benefit solely for people who would otherwise rob seems obviously impractical - how do you verify that 1) they would rob absent the money, and 2) they refrain from robbing after you've given the money? Something broader like a Basic Income is actually something I favor, though I'm not certain that it will have a tremendous value in reducing robbery (though that's certainly conceivable).
"And people carry much of value besides electronics today. You can use NYC seizure records and ATMs as proxies."
You'll have to expand on this. Note that my argument was not "no one ever carries anything of significant value", but that the typical (black market) value of what's carried by even wealthy individuals has fallen if you exclude electronics.
Is nothing finite, infinite, undefined, or? What you're calling "nothing" is actually everything not in your artificial construction.
If we unpack "nothing" further, we'll find any number of 'somethings' that are worse than what you're attempting to measure and affect. That's what we call Unintended Consequences, and not simply tautology or Begging the Question.
It is far from clear that this measure will have any significant affect on crimes such as robbery. And if we begin to unpack the "something" we quickly get to questions like, "Is it really a good idea to design a method for centrally destroying critical communication infrastructure?"
Following your logic, shouldn't we expect more robberies to make up for lost revenue?
If you're still in search of "cause", I'd suggest that the rate of robbery is inversely proportional to the typical waist size over time, i.e. we're wealthier now than we were.
This has gotten even more inane. You ignore things I've said, attribute to me things I haven't, and generally aren't making a lot of sense. I'm done with this thread.
And people carry much of value besides electronics today. You can use NYC seizure records and ATMs as proxies.