# Mountain climber finds treasure chest on glacier



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

Pretty cool. This guy found jewels from a Indian plane crash on top of _Mont Blanc_. Theyr are worth like 300k. 

I think he should have kept them for himself.


----------



## Dioltach (Sep 26, 2013)

I'd be tempted (who wouldn't), but in the end I hope I'd do the right thing. If nothing else, it seems a bit ghoulish to me to keep something that probably belonged to someone who died in the crash.

(I also tell waiters in restaurants if they've left something off my bill.)


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

Why is it the right thing? Unless you're a veggan, you eat dead things all the time, why would it be worse to take minerals from the ancient dead?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2013)

The planes crashed 50 years ago, this is not Black Beard's gold.  It is very possible the rightful owners of the items at the time of the plane crash are still alive.  I know if I had family that had died in a plane crash that I would like something of theirs found again returned to me.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Sep 26, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> I'd be tempted (who wouldn't), but in the end I hope I'd do the right thing. If nothing else, it seems a bit ghoulish to me to keep something that probably belonged to someone who died in the crash.
> 
> (I also tell waiters in restaurants if they've left something off my bill.)




Why would it be ghoulish?  Don't you have anything passed down to you from now deceased family members?


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

Crothian said:


> The planes crashed 50 years ago, this is not Black Beard's gold.  It is very possible the rightful owners of the items at the time of the plane crash are still alive.  I know if I had family that had died in a plane crash that I would like something of theirs found again returned to me.



It being worth 300k is just a coincidence. /wink


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It being worth 300k is just a coincidence. /wink




The sentimental value of items of a loved one out weigh any perceived monetary value they might have.  However, since that are of such monetary value that would make the crime of stealing them potentially more severe.  The article does say that if the rightful owners cannot be located then the mountain climber can claim them.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 26, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I think he should have kept them for himself.




Nah, they don't really match his eyes.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

MarkB said:


> Nah, they don't really match his eyes.



True true, but they do match his aura.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2013)

Crothian said:


> The sentimental value of items of a loved one out weigh any perceived monetary value they might have.  However, since that are of such monetary value that would make the crime of stealing them potentially more severe.  The article does say that if the rightful owners cannot be located then the mountain climber can claim them.



So why mention sentimentality? Do not tell meyou find this immoral to the point that nostalgia needs to be protection of the law.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2013)

goldomark said:


> So why mention sentimentality? Do not tell meyou find this immoral to the point that nostalgia needs to be protection of the law.




The law is not protecting nostalgia.  It is protecting rightful ownership of an item I'm assuming.  Again, I'm not up to date on French Laws and reasons behind them.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

So why mention the emotional attachment someone has a for a mear object?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2013)

It fit that part of the conversation.  Objects can have more then monetary value.  You said the finder should keep the items and I was just looking at it from a different viewpoint that of the family of the person or persons who died in the crash.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

Meh, it is more than 50 years ago. They grieved. People are too attached to objects and people.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Sep 27, 2013)

Depends on the objects. Some might have archeological or historical value. And if you are looking to sell the objects in question, it would seem that the family members are a likely place to start.
But if it is just old gold bars or some such, well, cash is cash. Check with local salvage laws.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

These are jewels, like said in the OP and the linked article.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 27, 2013)

I would have kept the jewels and sold them at a later date. There is a lot of corruption in India and it's government. Chances are someone will fake some documents and keep the jewels. The family of the person that died in the plane crash won't get the jewels. I might as well get it rather than some corrupt government official. I'll at least put the money to good use.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 27, 2013)

For someone who isn't a professional criminal, trying to sell a load of precious stones without being able to provide provenance is likely to be difficult, and he'd probably get nowhere near what they were worth. Given that they look to be uncut stones, even just trying to get them valued without attracting attention would be tricky. And all the while, he'd run the risk of arrest and prosecution.

Even if you remove the moral dimension, declaring the find and hoping to get back either the stones or a finder's fee is likely a better option even on a purely risk/reward basis.


----------



## Janx (Sep 27, 2013)

MarkB said:


> For someone who isn't a professional criminal, trying to sell a load of precious stones without being able to provide provenance is likely to be difficult, and he'd probably get nowhere near what they were worth. Given that they look to be uncut stones, even just trying to get them valued without attracting attention would be tricky. And all the while, he'd run the risk of arrest and prosecution.
> 
> Even if you remove the moral dimension, declaring the find and hoping to get back either the stones or a finder's fee is likely a better option even on a purely risk/reward basis.




That is the kind of logical answer on why something is a bad idea that I like to see.

It's illegal!  It's wrong! is arbitrary and artificial constraints placed by others.

It'll be hard to sell and get the money is the fact of the situation that makes keeping them a bad idea.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

Even if hard to sell, it doesn't he me won't be able. People are too lazy and have low expectations.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 27, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Even if hard to sell, it doesn't he me won't be able. People are too lazy and have low expectations.




Pow! You're now in possession of an assortment of lumps of crystal, some clear, some cloudy, some opaque. They could be geological samples, or uncut gems, or semi-precious rocks useful as little more than paperweights. All you know is that they're not yours and they're in sachets marked "Made In India".

How do you go about turning them into money?


----------



## Janx (Sep 27, 2013)

MarkB said:


> Pow! You're now in possession of an assortment of lumps of crystal, some clear, some cloudy, some opaque. They could be geological samples, or uncut gems, or semi-precious rocks useful as little more than paperweights. All you know is that they're not yours and they're in sachets marked "Made In India".
> 
> How do you go about turning them into money?




I'll play!  (note, I actually agree with MarkB, but the mental exercise to figure out how to unload the loot is fun)

Let's assume that I've already deduced that my sudden posession of the pile of rocks might be considered illegal to some people.  At least they may think I committed a crime.  That's actually the first challenge, is not making a mistake during the initial happy dance phase.

So we enter the Discrete Investigation phase.

I need to know what these are.  I might do a bit of googling, and sort the rocks by apparent type (assuming a mix, rather than all diamonds in various forms).  Next, I will identify rock/rock experts and discretely take SMALL samples to each.  I will not flood any single expert.  The rock(s) I take to an expert will have a simple story such as I inherited them from a rock collecting uncle.  This way I avoid risking saying the wrong place like finding diamonds in an old mine in Arkansas when diamonds have never been found there (how would I know, I'm not the expert as I don't even know what kind of rocks these are).

Once I learn what kind of rocks most of the examples in my inventory is, I can identify the rest.  I expect to be LEARNING some rock stuff from the expert, so I can validate the rest that I thought were the same myself.  I'll also learn WHERE these kind of rocks can be found, as I'll need that to build a better story for the selling stage.

Next is the Learn the Market and Provenance phase.

I need to know the best way to sell these (E-Bay, gem shows, etc) and if there's any expectation of documentation (like these are blood diamonds from Africa).  If I had a gem cutting friend and a jewelry making friend (I have the latter), I'd turn all this into jewelry and sell that, as there's little red-tape on that (barring expensive jewelry that you buy insurance for).

Otherwise, assuming I am trying to just unload these will be tricky.  A place that does gem cutting to make jewelry probably works with their sources.  Cutting into that would look suspicious (psst!  Wanna buy some rough rubies?).  One might be able to sell them one at a time on E-Bay, but that's a lot of sales, which if there was a question, would stand out pretty bad.  If there was no question, it'd be a piece a cake to do, but pretty slow.

I'm thinking that the way to unload them enmasse is to befriend a jeweler.  Learn where their supplies come from.  Then befriend that guy.  Learn where he buys from, and befriend that guy.  Work your way down the chain until you find a "safe" spot to show up with some rocks to sell.  Of course, the farther down the chain you are, the less money you'll get, but you need to be selling at the rough stones end of things anyway.  A guy who uses fine gems in his jewelry isn't interested in ugly rocks that have diamonds in them.

It's definitely a lot of research to do this.  Possibly some travel.  I'm not sure, without the right connections, if the cost to get hooked in from scratch is worth the pay off because as rough stones, these things sell for lower prices anyway.


----------



## Dioltach (Sep 27, 2013)

Simple solution: take them to a reputable jeweller, and tell him that your great uncle brought "some fancy stones" back from Burma after the War. Your great aunt recently passed away, and your mother has asked you to find out what they're worth. (True story, by the way.)


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> Simple solution: take them to a reputable jeweller, and tell him that your great uncle brought "some fancy stones" back from Burma after the War. Your great aunt recently passed away, and your mother has asked you to find out what they're worth. (True story, by the way.)



Pretty much this.


----------



## Janx (Sep 27, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> Simple solution: take them to a reputable jeweller, and tell him that your great uncle brought "some fancy stones" back from Burma after the War. Your great aunt recently passed away, and your mother has asked you to find out what they're worth. (True story, by the way.)




Very clean.  Same principle as mine but way more efficient.

My method's more cautious, which should give time to figure out if your method is actually safe to do (by learning what you have and the nature of the market).

But your method is pretty clean, has a safe backstory and cuts to the chase.  I'm certain variations of it would work, and you could hunt through your family tree (or your friends to be acting as a seller on their behalf) to find somebody who's been overseas in case anybody investigates your story.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 27, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> Simple solution: take them to a reputable jeweller, and tell him that your great uncle brought "some fancy stones" back from Burma after the War. Your great aunt recently passed away, and your mother has asked you to find out what they're worth. (True story, by the way.)




That is pretty good. Providing the gems don't have some compositional signature that could trace them back to a particular place of origin (such as with Conflict diamonds), it might well work.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

You guys are thinking that the jewels were in the plane legally and declared in the first place.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 27, 2013)

goldomark said:


> You guys are thinking that the jewels were in the plane legally and declared in the first place.




How so? What would be different if they weren't?


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2013)

Someone wanted to smuggle them out of India? Got to Switzerland?Harder to trace. Who would report their stolen goods stolen? Etc.

Why were they reported when the planes crashed (if they did come from those two potential Indian flights)?


----------



## MarkB (Sep 28, 2013)

I'm not sure how any of that makes a difference to the present case. If anything, it makes it less likely that the original owners will claim them, and thus more likely that they'll revert to the person who found them.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 28, 2013)

Exactly, so why say you found them?


----------



## MarkB (Sep 28, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Exactly, so why say you found them?




Because it's still illegal not to, even if they were stolen?

Sorry, I still don't see what point you're trying to make.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 28, 2013)

Meh, illegal doesn't necessarely mean immoral.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 28, 2013)

Indeed not. But "it's not stealing if I'm stealing from thieves" is a poorly thought-out moral argument at best. You're still helping to prevent the item from being returned to the person it was stolen from.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 28, 2013)

Meh, after all that time, that person is probably dead. Dead people do not need money.


----------



## Dioltach (Sep 28, 2013)

But their heirs might.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 28, 2013)

And again, the owner might not be a human, but a country, business, museum, laboratory, school or...well, you can continue to fill in the blanks.  Suffice it to say, that the passage of a mere 50 years may not be enough to extinguish the possibility of the existence of rightful owners.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 28, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Meh, after all that time, that person is probably dead. Dead people do not need money.




In which case, they won't claim it, and you'll get the items back, free clear and legal. And if they do claim them, then it would have been wrong for you to keep them. It's self-regulating.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 28, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> But their heirs might.



Why should they be entitled to it? Why is sharing genetic material makes your an owner of something?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 28, 2013)

Because that's what the rules of most civilizations say.  If you live in a society, there are rules- ignore them at your risk.

You might as well be asking why you should be entitled to keep something if you aren't physically holding onto it at the moment.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 28, 2013)

Exactly, everything is relative and rules are arbitrary, made by the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 28, 2013)

Deleted - got a little too personal


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Exactly, everything is relative and rules are arbitrary, made by the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful.




If one cannot own possession and be secure in his ownership thereof within his society, he can never elevate himself above a state of nature.

The laws of ownership benefit the wealthy, there is no doubt, but they also benefit those who would no longer be poor.*

In fact, the societally recognized and legally defended ability- beyond the personal use of force- to own things beyond what you can physically carry is one thing that protects the poor from having their meager assets being confiscated at will by those with more power.






* such as my family: I was born into a house smaller than 500sq ft, with no TV, no washer or dryer, to parents with no car.  My folks today are in the top 2%.  You can't improve your status in life like that without the ability to own property.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 29, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If one cannot own possession and be secure in his ownership thereof within his society, he can never elevate himself above a state of nature.



Is that an cosmic law or another arbitrary one? 

Just take open source. Does it prevent "elevation"? How about the bow or the wheel? Who invented those and have intellectual property rights? Did it prevent him or her from "elevating" him/herself?



> The laws of ownership benefit the wealthy, there is no doubt, but they also benefit those who would no longer be poor.*
> 
> In fact, the societally recognized and legally defended ability- beyond the personal use of force- to own things beyond what you can physically carry is one thing that protects the poor from having their meager assets being confiscated at will by those with more power.



That is just a anglo-saxon take on propriety and wealth. Things are different in a hunter-gatherer society or with a more collectivitst take on propriety.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Is that an cosmic law or another arbitrary one?




You keep using that word, but I don't think you're using it properly.  There is a definite, logical reason behind laws that allow and protect property rights, borne out in hundreds of years of economic data.



> Just take open source. Does it prevent "elevation"? How about the bow or the wheel? Who invented those and have intellectual property rights? Did it prevent him or her from "elevating" him/herself?



Nothing in societal properly rights laws prevents one from discounting, sharing or even giving away property or sources of wealth.




> That is just a anglo-saxon take on propriety and wealth. Things are different in a hunter-gatherer society or with a more collectivitst take on propriety.




Not all that different, really.

Even in basic tribal societies, there are concepts of ownership.  For example, while many Native American tribes had no rules about owning land as an individual, they did have a concept of tribal ownership of territory, as well rules concerning personal property and theft thereof.

Inuit near the Bering Strait have a word, "kunlangeta" which refers to someone who has comitted any of a great number of offenses- including murder and theft.  Kuniangeta were supposedly tolerated until they could be shoved into the icy waters to drown.  And you don't get a punishment for "theft" unless there is a corresponding concept of ownership.

Despite not having words that directly correspond to "ownership" in English, the Maori legal system clearly noted hatsuch a concept existed: custom generally accorded the owner of property the right to punish the thief with violence and even death, though non-violent punishments were also permitted.  Beyond that, the Maori custom was that such goods as a person owned passed to his descendants.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 29, 2013)

MarkB said:


> For someone who isn't a professional criminal, trying to sell a load of precious stones without being able to provide provenance is likely to be difficult, and he'd probably get nowhere near what they were worth.



Yeah. Lots of laws are set up to prevent easy transfer of large quantities of valuables.

OOOoooh, this story is even better, the plane those rocks came off of might have been part of an assassination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homi_J._Bhabha#Assassination_conspiracy


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 29, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You keep using that word, but I don't think you're using it properly.  There is a definite, logical reason behind laws that allow and protect property rights, borne out in hundreds of years of economic data.



Not really. It is a tradition, something that was cultural. With modernity, it has been expended to other cultures, ideas and even the genes in your body. 



> Nothing in societal properly rights laws prevents one from discounting, sharing or even giving away property or sources of wealth.



If someone would invent the bow or wheel today, they would be patented. Propriety prevents dissimination. Thus elevation, according to you. Cause I do not believe in that BS.



> Even in basic tribal societies, there are concepts of ownership.



So do, some don't. Let us not be ethnocentric here. Propriety is not a universal concept. Sorry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 30, 2013)

> If someone would invent the bow or wheel today, they would be patented. Propriety prevents dissimination. Thus elevation, according to you. Cause I do not believe in that BS.




Property rights do not prevent dissemination, they prevent unauthorized dissemination.  If someone invented the bow or wheel today, nothing in the law would prevent them from letting someone else make those.  Look at Mercedes Benz: they allowed the free use of hundreds of their automobile safety patents, including major ones like 3 point harnesses, ABS, crumple zone technology and (as I recall) the airbag.

Economic fact: Since property rights in land were expanded beyond royalty, a gater percentage of people have been able to increase their wealth.

Economic fact: as property rights have expanded beyond the rule of "self-help", the pace of technological advance has increased, as well as the acceleration of that increase.

Those combined factors are essentially the ONLY reasons we have a middle class at all.  When Russia finally did away with its version of the feudal society to embrace a more capitalist structure (IOW, Pre-Marx & Lenin)- their economy boomed.  Modern China's economy is growing in large measure due to adopting more capitalist practices AND more vigorously protecting the property rights of its own citizens (though not the rights of foreigners).

Are concepts of property rights universally held?  No.  But if you look at the societies that continue to innovate versus those that stagnate*, you'll find nearly every one protects property rights vigorously.







* or those that stave of stagnation by ignoring the property rights of others.


----------



## Janx (Sep 30, 2013)

MarkB said:


> I'm not sure how any of that makes a difference to the present case. If anything, it makes it less likely that the original owners will claim them, and thus more likely that they'll revert to the person who found them.




I think one of the key challenges that MarkB is alluding to, is if you show up with a box of rocks to sell, people ask questions.

Because if you're not already known as being in the business, it is assumed that you stole them.

Which means questions get asked.

"They fell off a truck", or "My aunt willed them to me" are such common claims, that they're not believed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 30, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Property rights do not prevent dissemination, they prevent unauthorized dissemination.



Pretty much the same thing. It prevents advancement of humanity because a few need to make some profit.


----------



## Bullgrit (Sep 30, 2013)

Humanity seems to have been advancing pretty darn well in these recent times with property rights as the norm. If the wheel and bow were created today, they'd be in wide spread use by the general population within a year, the creators would be wealthy -- with enough money and time to invest in creating even more great things.

Here's to property rights and capitalism!

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 30, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Pretty much the same thing. It prevents advancement of humanity because a few need to make some profit.




I disagree, as does the history of economics.

It gives innovators an advantage in recouping the costs and possibly making a profit from the time & money they invested in creating their inventions.  It gives certainty in the form of a framework within which such people can plan for the future- especially in investing in their own financial health or in further R&D.  It minimizes the expenditures innovators must personally invest in self-help measures to protect their innovations from those who would take them, freeing up capital.

There are concrete reasons why China now protects the IP of its nationals as vigorously as any Western nation: the same pirates they permit to go after the IP of foreign capitalists were equal opportunity thieves.  Rampant domestic piracy was reducing ROI numbers into the negatives.  As a result, China was experiencing an internal collapse of its native "inventor class".  Those that could leave the country were trying to do so, and those that could not were going out of business.

Its simple: if innovators find it is counter to their best interests to innovate, they are far less likely to do so.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 30, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I disagree, as does the history of economics.
> 
> It gives innovators an advantage in recouping the costs and possibly making a profit from the time & money they invested in creating their inventions.  It gives certainty in the form of a framework within which such people can plan for the future- especially in investing in their own financial health or in further R&D.  It minimizes the expenditures innovators must personally invest in self-help measures to protect their innovations from those who would take them, freeing up capital.
> 
> ...



You're proving my point. It doesn't benefit humanity, it means more money in the pockets of few people. Those aren't the same thing.


----------



## Bullgrit (Sep 30, 2013)

goldomark said:
			
		

> It doesn't benefit humanity, it means more money in the pockets of few people.



Humanity benefits from the innovation, and the individual is rewarded for his innovation. It's win-win.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 30, 2013)

goldomark said:


> You're proving my point. It doesn't benefit humanity, it means more money in the pockets of few people. Those aren't the same thing.




Innovation "grows the pie"- it increases the options for all those around.  Without it, we long ago would have fallen into the Malthusian trap or been stymied by other very real constraints.

A business does not exist in a vacuum.  Sure, the innovator gets money, but so do his employees.

Are there abuses in the capitalist system?  Of course.  But those are not a consequence of the ability to own property, they are a consequence of other factors, like corruption/bribery/insider trading, flauting ecological regs, predatory business practices, etc.

If you go back and actually read the work of Adam Smith- which not enough of his champions OR critics do- you'd find that the father of lassaiz-faire capitalism acknowledged that the free market was not a panacea, and flat out stated that some things in society should not be left to its whims.  Many social ills, in his mind, would be exacerbated by complete lack of regulation, and would need to be remedied: that's the role of government (regulations), societal institutions like churches and other charities, and ultimately, our own moral compasses.



> No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.






> To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature.


----------

