371–380 of 406 posts
By this logic, money theft is 'not a crime' if poor.
You do not have a basic biological need for money, actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. * Stealing something back * Stealing Hitler's secret plans * Stealing a portion of everybody's property/income, but providing vital protection, infrastructure and social services in return. * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her. * Stealing land from the commons to efficiently put it to work * Stealing land at market valu…
This is why I'm an Objectivist - it's the only philosophy which gives a moral argument for property rights. (Most libertarian and free-market thinkers argue on pragmatic grounds, which means they are willing to compromise in the manner you describe). Virtue of Selfishness puts the case succinctly: "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I think is that the burden should be shouldered by the state, and not small business owners. What this ruling does, is place the burden of caring for the 'hungry' on grocers, which is an unfair burden. Unless the courts decision came with a way to compensate the grocer, this ruling is idiotically naieve.
Usually, compensation is the subject of civil lawsuits, not criminal process (though some systems allow restitution to also be addressed as part of a criminal action, but even there civil action is also available.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, I'm all for basic income, and social safety nets. But stealing them, isn't the right answer either. The burden should be on the state to provide those necessities, not the local business owners.
So when you are poor and starving to death, you shouldn't steal because you believe in some sort of governmental idealism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, I'm all for basic income, and social safety nets. But stealing them, isn't the right answer either. The burden should be on the state to provide those necessities, not the local business owners.
Judging the act not to be subject to criminal sanction is very far from judging it to be "the right answer", or even legally permitted in systems which have both criminal and civil remedies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not have a basic biological need for money, actually.
I don't think anyone is saying poor people should be allowed to rob banks or mug people. The article is about stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. You are allowed to drive under the influence of alcohol if you are trying to save someones life. Or even shoot someone, as long as you could reasonably expect that your or someone else life was in danger. Even if it turns out that there was no real danger, for instance you where threatened with an unloaded or even a fake gun. If you are very hungry, and steel a sausage, the crime compared to the need is very low…
i've read you comment, and it looks to me like this is a fair rephrasing. can you offer better alternatives where i mischaracterize your position? * you are allowed to drive under the influence of alcohol and endager other people's lives * you are allowed to kill another as long as they weren't 100% obviously harmless * stealing food is worse than threatening or terminating others' lives
Steeling food for a small amount when you are out of means and you are starving is not a crime.
It seems as this is the law here in Sweden. The factors in play are that you could reasonably be expected to be helped out of danger by the government, at least here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her." If you don't understand why this is a misogynistic statement, I think the best advice I can offer you is to research why it might be considered as such. Ask a feminist you know and trust more than me, as a suggested start.
I'm sorry, but that's a lousy answer. It's lousy because you don't trust him or other people to give your perspective a fair chance. When you tell me, "I'm happy we can reflect publically" and then clam up and punt when someone else asks you to expand, you not only lose credibility, you're also stealing credibility from the ideas you're defending.
But also, I was on the bus and felt a prompt response was more useful than an exhaustive one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These kinds of discussions always make me think of this story: "A Scottish miner was walking home one night with a bunch of pheasants he had poached from a local landowner's estate when the landowner appeared and demanded that the miner hand over the pheasants. "Why should I hand them over to you?", asked the miner. "Because this is my land and those are my pheasants", the landowner replied. "OK", said the miner, "wh…
Land is special because it has always existed and (practically) you can't make more of it. There are reasons to make it private, but it's quite different from, say, a sculpture. Clay is nearly worthless, so if an artist turns it into a valuable sculpture, that value was created . Obviously, there's a spectrum here. Even land typically requires an investment to make it useful for anything. Food is largely created; esp…
Ownership of something you worked to create is different from ownership of something due to luck of being born in the right crib.