Is any kind of stealing OK?

Remove all ads!

Theres no moral issue there at all Abomination. Christ no.

Personally, I would've got my mates to back me up in case the big lad started getting on top of me. Took the bat and cracked the thieving little bastard with it .

 

As evidenced by the impeccable integrity of virtually every CEO in America--Ken Lay is an outstanding rolemodel for any child.

*cough*

People will be people, regardless of their level of wealth.

 

I have done several similar things to those you mentioned, like raiding a place that is scheduled to be torn apart next week, and I can't see anything wrong with it. As long as no-one is hust, why give a **** about it?

Ahh, not too unlikely, mate. Remember in the EURO2004 qualifications, Italy lost against Wales with 2-0 in Wales, and with England's current form, I wouldn't be too sure.

 

I always give back any extra change. I have, in fact, been handled as much as ~20-60€ of cash when the cashier counted wrong. But I really never have time to consider what I'd do with that money, as I always hand it back immediately. Even with our roommates I'm the one most inclined to let others use my food and my products when they run out of their own and are too tired to go get more from the store. I don't worry about counting how much they owe me either. And I do not earn a lot of money, even by Finnish standards (which is low compared to GB, France, Germany let alone the US, considering our level of education that is).

But buying out of my own free will? I thought I made the point of entertainment clear. Where do you draw the line, then? By the sound of it, Blackthorne, it seems as if you think it perfectly ok to charge 10 000€ for every little piece of candy as long as people can afford their food, water and a house without it's furniture.

Let's do that, shall we, assume that everything else costs 10 000€ a piece. The production and distribution costs of those products is on average 5€, but they all cost 10 000€. Some 0.5% of all the people in the entire world can afford some of that. All the TV's, computers, music, cars, bikes, pictures, flowers, carpets, chairs... everything else but food and water and an empty home are things that only 0.5% of the people in the entire world can afford. But it's ok, people don't have to complain, they don't *need* these things to survive, right?

Get my point? Everyone can survive like that. But can they live? Or enjoy of their lives?

The way I see it, the optimal circumstance is when everyone can afford a comfortable life. For some individual or a company to have billions of cash while a thousand times more have next to nothing is not comfortable, it's sick. As long as any company or any individual is charging more than what they need for a comfortable life, at the expense of the comfort of other people, they are stealing. More or less, often less but still. Food and water are not the only "essentials" a human needs this day and age. They are the only things a human needs for his body to survive, but the mind is another matter. Entertainment is far from some kid's stuff that you can just live without. It's a part of our everyday lives. That some people who only prefer a specific form of entertainment cannot afford it because someone wants to earn a billion instead of a million a year, is not right.

Stealing is always wrong, as I said, no doubt about it. Every time I do something like it (of course not everything I do in my life is legal) I know it, and I don't feel proud of it. But I simply think it's worth it to do so when I do. But make no mistake, the people who take from stores or download an mp3 over the net are not the only ones that steal.

Edit: I ended up saying the same thing over and over there. The result of being interrupted at work again, as usual. Anyway, it's like the pedophilia comment I gave some 2 years back. This matter is not an on-off switch. When you start to take the price down from that 10 000€, or up from that 5€, you start to see a change in the level of "stealing" that people do. It's the individual morals of each that determines that change. And the ideal point where neither party is doing more wrong than the other is there where most people can afford a comfortable life. If such a point is even reachable. The right vs. wrong of stealing is indeed quite relative in this present world of ours.

[ September 16, 2004, 09:34: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

I wouldnt take a bag if I knew who it belonged to, unless it belonged to someone very rich (I havent heard any complaints about Robin Hood and if he can do it then why cant I? I would concider my self poor compared to a very rich guy, hence the Robin Hood "syndrome")

If something is forgotten, and the owners dont care come back looking for it, it is better if I take it than somebody else. You should always try to take advantage of your situation. If I were to find a unlocked bike in a bush, at a deserted place far away from my home (which, in this scenario, I am headed to) I would take it.

 

Just because someone is rich does it give you a right to steal from them? If you take something that doesn't belong to you, it is theft. If someone didn't care about something then they would probably give it away, right?

 

That's the core concept and basically you are right. But what about rich people who don't need a thing but won't give it to you anyway? I would argue that that is how it normally is. And in the essence they are right, it is their property.

But as I pointed out earler in my episode on Cardinal Frings, somtetimes theft is justified - that is in a situation of need. That is, and so we do see it in our constitution, property obliges. While it is a protected right, it still can be taken away for the greater good, or in a situation of danger, for the good of an individual.

When you have a wooden fence and there is a dog that is about to bite me, I am allowed to break it in order to get myself a big stick to fight off that hound of hell. Even though I violate your property (I'd have to compensate you though) I'd be justified.

But there is a difference between a justification and a rationalisation, like "they won't miss it anyway."

A justification makes it no more a punishable offence - take killing in self-defense: It is justified - and I wouldn't owe anyone a compensation. And it would not be criminal while "Well, yes, I shot him, but now that he's dead he's better off, he had huge debts and cancer anyway, and was a drug addict ... I presume" will sure not have that effect.

After all my highstrung morals, these rules sure don't apply to DL mp3's

 

Bill Gates didn't find his millions on the street; he worked hard to get where he is now; MJ sings songs, he didn't stole a bank; Schumacher earns millions because someone want to pay him that, he don't go around shoplifting or leaving MacDonnald without paying; imo, saying that I can take just "little things" (pencils, change, etc.,) from a rich guy or a company doens't make sense, they got there because their jobs, I bet if you got rich, you wouldn't want someone come to take you out what you earned with your hard - or not - work.

 

@ Sydax: Nobody said they didn't earn what they got. It's just that they got too much. Money isn't born out of nowhere, there's a certain amount of it available, and that amount doesn't change. Or it does, with inflation and deflation but basically it stays the same. All the millions one person has usually comes off the pockets of others.

The point is not that Bill Gates is a bad person. The point is that the world would be a better place if Bill Gates got a few millions instead of a few hundred billions, and as a tradeoff millions of people would have food, homes and a comfortable life instead of living off of sand and water at worst. He'd still be rich, like he deserved, but a lot people would be happy and didn't *have* to steal for it.

For example. I've counted that I need around 1.5 million euros to live the rest of my life happily. Putting the money to some good use while working at the side I would have a VERY happy life. I wouldn't be driving around in a limo perhaps, but that's not something I need anyway. I could travel around the world, buy my own house and my own furniture, and live with the knowledge that I could afford all the normal things and a bit extra for the rest of my life. Thus, I decided back when I was a kid already that if I should ever win in lottery or suddenly earn more than that, I would give the rest off to my friends and family. I *will* hold on to that promise. That's the idea here too. A million or two can already afford a decently comfortable, economically safe life for the rest of your days (depending where you are of course), so what's the use of having billions in a bank account doing absolutely no good to anyone, while people all around you are battling with debts and even food to eat each day?

Aside from those who are sick of mind, people steal only when they need something they don't have, and can't get their hands on (no money, availability etc). So the greater the difference of possession is between people, the greater the need for the poor to steal.

[ September 16, 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

Im not talking about going and stealing all of Microsoft or anything.
If I were silly-rich, I wouldnt mind doing something for the poor, nor would I care if I found out someone had stolen a few pencils or blank CDs from one of my companys.
But many rich guys dont do anything for the poor, and alot of companies dont care if they pollute the environment. Those people, generally the polluters, deserve to be punished (but in many cases they arent, because of loop-holes in the laws)

You cant always follow the laws, that would make us slaves for the government.

In the old Spartan society, they actualy had a law saying "stealing is legal as long as you dont get caught"

What Im trying to say is, stealing is ok as long as the consequenses arent too big, and you wont feel too bad afterwards. I wouldnt commit a crime that directly hurts the victim seriusly (like the physical/mental aftermath of a robbery or such)

 

@ Foradasthar

I think you're going to need more money than you think unless you're a lot older than I think. That, or the cost of living where you are is a lot less than in the U.S. 1.5 million Euro? That's what? About 2 million U.S. dollars? That wouldn't cut it for me for the rest of my life. I mean, it would be enough if I invested properly and very carefully monitored what I spent, but my wife and I will earn WAY more than 2 million dollars during the remainder of our lives. Heck, we'd come close to that even if we never received another pay raise. My number would be considerably higher than yours. The amount of money that I would need to quit work and feel comfortable? I'd say 10 million dollars minimum.

 

Except for all the wages that they pay to all they employ . . . . . There'd be a heck of a lot more poor people if guys like Bill Gates (for example) didn't start a business that gives jobs to 1000s of people.

 

You take things too far on these forums, lol .

 

Not exactly. Spartans encouraged their teenagers to stealing just for training reasons (stealth tactics, cunning etc.) not because stealing was a characteristic of their culture.When a boy got caught, he was not punished because he had stolen but because he had been arrested and therefore he had failed to accomplish his "mission".

 

@ BTA: That's the problem of monopoly. Killing all the smaller businesses by affording to cut the costs with what they've earned from other areas, until competition is ruined after which they can pretty much do what they wish. Better emphasized by the all too well-known businesses in some parts of Africa. The 10 000€ example was an extreme one. Though the demand might be great, there is often very few who can supply.

Free capitalism doesn't result in a fair trade for everyone. I'm sure we all know of the recent trials of many of the huge monopoly companies. The bigger the company, the more steady the need for suppliers, and the greater amounts of stuff are ordered per time, making each individual product cheaper. And in the small company my family owned, the "buy-in" price of some of the products was low indeed already. Still this isn't my area, I took one course of trade economy back in highschool. I believe I know the princible well enough, but I don't have the resources nor the desire to start debating over the specifics of this one.

@ Aldeth: The average wage a Finn gets is around 2000€ a month. Considerably less than what an American educated person does. My wage, being just a 23 yearold soon-to-be student again, is a bit under that. Now if I get 1,5 million euros, that amounts to 50 000 euros per year for 30 years, or 25 000 euros per year for 60 years. Which would mean a bit over 2000 euros, taxfree (counting out the tax that comes from how much you got, which's name I don't know in English), per month, for the rest of my days. Now this was *only* assuming I didn't invest or store any of it on a bank account where it would start to grow by itself. Even the lousiest of bank accounts with a mere 1% bonus to stored amount of cash per year would make a heck of a lot money out of a million when left there for 20 years. Also, I would work on the side as I said, basically covering my normal living expenses (food / apartment) without resorting to that 1,5 million.

With just 2000 (and realistically it would amount to around twice as much at least) per month in Finland, I can't afford a porche, or a luxury apartment. But I can buy a nice house for myself, a decently good car, furniture and computers etc. I can do all the hobbies I want, and travel around when I want. For a Finnish person, 1,5 million is a huge amount of money.

For comparison, a *very* good programmer or some other IT expert, so to say, could earn around 4000-6000 euros a month here. A *very* good one. I know they earn what, ten times that at least in the US? We don't get much money here, but the offside is that about every person comes off fairly well with our social wellfare systems and medical care that everyone has a free right to when needed. Nobody is left off to the streets to scavenge off the garbages of others.

@ dmc:
I have to admit that I don't know much of the specifics of how scientific recoveries make money. But I did leave out the fact that money is made through for example trading raw materials, as I figured that obvious and irrelevant in the example that I gave. No offense taken. Also, none is meant when I ask, did you even try to understand the meaning of what I said before? This is the last time I will say this:

I do not think that Bill Gates didn't earn his money. I don't figure him for the evil sort at all, for as I said it seems obvious to me that he isn't even after it for the money. He's a fairly generous man, all things considered, though "his" company is lead in a rather brutal manner. I didn't say I thought F-1 races were useless (although I don't like them) and Schumacher shouldn't make any money. I fully realise the benefits of entertainment and know that he does WORK for what he has.

Please understand that I'm not trying to say "the rich suck, their money belongs to ME". I've hated the people who harrass lottery jackpot winners since forever, even if it was luck that got them the money it's still their money. And I don't think everyone should earn equally much, because the more you work the more you deserve. The thing I'm trying to say here, is that money should be treated realistically. It's the classical "with power comes responsibility".

Here I'll give as good an example as I can possibly muster:
You have 500 billion dollars. In front of you you have people from those who just can't afford their dreams, to those who can't afford a comfortable living, to those who die because they can't afford food. Now all the money you have, is earned through hard work. Then tell me, do you feel it's ok to keep that 500 billion and let those people fend off for themselves, because you did earn it afterall. Or didn't you feel it was the right thing to do to give off, let's say 400 billion and suffer the horrible loss of living with only mere 100 BILLION dollars for yourself, knowing that these people in front of you would lead happier lives. That these people could even live at all?

Now considering that in US someone needs a lot more money, then sure let's change the few millions I talked about before to say, 100 millions. Or one billion perhaps. I think one billion can afford someone the occasional limo & a private jet plane ride?

My partner in work is sick today and we're in a busy time over here, so I wrote this text in what appears to be around 1,5 hours, suffering from at least 100 interruptions. There's bound to be repetition and errors in there.

I'll make a conclusion now, in my attempt to bring these false interpretations to an end.

I've made it well known that I hate the capitalistic attitude that is everywhere in the western world today. So my primary point here is that money should be gathered and used reasonably. One man should not have more money than a country full of people, for no matter how much he'd earned that himself, the price of all that money to him is directly or indirectly that those other people are left without. While it might sound like this is not about stealing at all, to me it is. To me, every time you take more than you need from other people, you're stealing. Many commercials con people ever so subtly that even they have gone through legal issues because of it. They are one of the most apparent means for thievery, in my opinion. As a mass phenomenon their success speaks of less "free choice" involved than one would think at first sight. At this point I finally fully lost my train of thought and I need to do some work, try to read what I mean next time, even if I'm not so skilled as I would like in spelling it out like this

Edit: Remembered: If the people of this world were less busy hoarding ridiculous amounts money they'll never be able to use, and go for reasonable and cheap prices whenever they were able, satisfying with a realistic albeit large amount of money for themselves, there'd be a lot more cash to spare for those who *really* need more of it. That is why I call it stealing, why capitalism in general is like stealing to me.

Edit 2: Actually, Abomination, loans aren't charity. They're just another example of how money is used to make more money. While they do aid some people, they also do serious harm to others. Banks make business by taking more than they give, the billions of mr Gates aren't needed for that. In the end, they change nothing in this.

[ September 17, 2004, 11:04: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

Actually Foradasthar, these people with 'more money than a country' don't just keep their money locked away in vaults. They have it in a bank and while it is in a bank it is granted as loans for other people. These people use those loans to start businessess, hiring more people and paying more money... There is no 'hoarding' unless someone is actually putting their money in a vault while it is in cash form and nobody with heaps of money would be stupid enough to do that - think of the interest they would be missing out on.

 

You say "...The point is that the world would be a better place if Bill Gates got a few millions instead of a few hundred billions, and as a tradeoff millions of people would have food, homes and a comfortable life instead of living off of sand and water..."
IMO, is not their fault, everytime I see advertisings asking you to give money to poor people, or saying that we have to be more kindly and all of that, I say: why don't you say that to politicians? Is not Bill's fault if he has millions and there are poor people, in fact, he, like many more people, have care centers, donate money, etc., if there are poor people, if there are poor people who steal and kill for food (like here) is not because someone is rich and don't want to give some money, is the fault of the government for not take care of their own people, like raising taxes to the extreme that many people is in bankrupt; here, medics, teachers, retired people, earn a misery for salary, is my fault if I'm rich and don't give some money? No, but that's not the case, because as I said, many of those rich guys give some of their money.
But imo, that's not the solution, if politicians do their job, maybe it would be a better world.

 

dmc already touched on this pretty well, but I'd like add one more point.

dmc mentions that there is certainly a great deal more money today than a couple of hundred years ago. To take that a step further there is more money today than 10 years ago, 1 year ago, 1 month ago, 1 week ago, and yes, even yesterday. Talking about all available money is finite terms is unrealistic unless you are talking about a snap shot in time. For example, there probably is a fixed amount of wealth at this very second, but that's not the same number as it was yesterday, nor will it be the same number as tomorrow.