: Stealing is to be looked as a universal 'wrong'. Now we can always find contradictions that fit under this universal acception, but noy once is it questioned: Why is stealing wrong? It is a dangerous pattern to overlook universal acceptances. Why is murder wrong?I agree. Stealing is universally condemned in every society which has the notion of property. Some societies have no concept of "property", but that doesn't mean that they tolerate stealing, rather it means taht the concept fo stealing cannot exist; it would be like a bunch of eunuchs discussing adultery.
: But pursuing under the assumption that stealing is fact a wrong, I still think it is still way out of line to parallel the theft from stores to the oppressive outcome of capitalism. Theft from stores is a knock against capitalism and the infrastructure that compliments it.
Well, OK, but the fact is that often the theft hurts the small shopkeeper who is merely trying to make a living, and dpoes nothing to fight the Man. Plus, even in theory, two wrongs don't make a right. if we feel that teh capitalist has done wrong in stealing the workers' production, then we ought to pass laws to exproprpriate hsi stolen wealth, not take it by force. This would make the statement that taking by force is unjustified, and that teh appropriate way to allocate goods is through democratic decisions. Stealing from a capitalist is like performing vigilante justice on murderers; if tehre is an alternative way to punsih them relying on due process and peaceful, democratic methods, tehse are the avenues that should be taken.
: Moreover, I cannot see the logic behind only stealing 'nessecities'. Who are you determine what is necessary? It only weakens your entire argument to read this.
the judgment is necessarily subjective. But sometime's it's fairly clear. a a,mn who steals a crust of bread is diferent from teh Brothers Menednez who murdred their parents to further their own luxurious lifestyle.
: If stealing was practiced by the masses, it might have the stanima to hinder capitalism.
Yes, but until then, all it does is harm shopkeepers and otehr people who are as much a victim of teh system as you are.
: Next point... I hardly think that stealing is selfish or violent.
Well, bank robbery at gunpoint is certainly violent- and theft IS generally selfoish, unelss the money is funneled to an altruistic cause.
:Is it selfish to put yourself at risk to not pay for something which would only go to making some business even richer.
the lines can't be drawn in black and white. If you steal a car from a dealer, soemwhere along the line you're hurting the guy who made the car, because now he may get paid even less.
:By supporting the system of paying for goods with money, you are clearly supporting the system you seem to dislike.
I dislike it, but i don't see as how it can be changed in teh near future. I'm not convinced that a totally moneyless society would work in a modern industrial landscape. The first thing we need to do is separate health acre, education, justice etc. from money.
: Next point... 'Punished by your own guilty conciou?' Please. Wake up.
: Actions speak loudest. Yes we can go around trying to set good examples by panning and such, but do you really think that will do anything?
I wasn't advocating us all panhandling! personally, I'd find it boring and unrewarding. I will GIVE to panhanlders, though, to an extent...
:I doubt people would even stop to think about those basic things you pointed out, let alone the distribution of wealth. I prefer to take a stand against this oppressive system and not support it by helping to drive what is its fundemental... money.
OK, but hwo do you advocate we go about the transition form capitalism to moneyless socialism? Is there not going to be some intermnediate stage?
Thanks for your response by teh way.
: -- Jason
:
: : In an interview with someone or other, Eldridge Cleaver compared his feelings towards panhandlers and petty thieves. I think teh conversation went roughly lihke this:
: : CLEAVER: I have more respect for a man who holds up a store than for a man who asks me for money. Because the thief is acting like a man, standiong up to talke what society owes him, whereas the panhandler is just being servile...
: : INTERVIEWER: Even if you owned the store, would you still say teh same thing?
: : CLEAVER: That's a stupid question because i would never own a business. But yes, he would still ahve the right to take what he needed...
: : What does everyone think about this viewpoint? Me, I completelky disagree. First of all, theft is wrong in a general senae; if we are to conclude that it's wrong for capitalists to steal the fruits of their workers' labor, tehn it must also be wrong for people to rob stores (except stealing for food or otehr necessities). Secondly, I have more respect for panhanlers because of teh implicit statement taht they're making. they are saying, 'My claim on your money is going to be imposed by moral force, not by violence. I deserve your money because I am, human and it isn't right that you should have money and I don't. If you don't give me money, you will be punished only by your own guilty conscience." In thsi way, they are implicitly claiming that society's proceeds should be distributed on the basis of need and not on teh basis of force or power- they are pointing the way to a better society, while teh thief merely continues the same old cycle of selfishness and violence.
: : So in conclusion, i think on this topic Eldridge Cleaver was full of B.S. His viewpoint is nevertheless thought provoking through. What do you all think.
: : (Note: Eldridge Cleaver was the former Minister of Information of the Black Panther Party.)
