iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Theft? You and I both live inside the system, so we would both agree that theft is unacceptable. However, for the guys who stole your stuff, they don't care. They got out of the "system". Survival of the fittest is truth, but what social Darwinists don't get is that men can actually redefine their environment. What the thieves did was to notice that they can't survive in the environment that was set by society. By ignoring the concept of property, they become able to survive without the blessing of the society.
All in all, it does not matter if we think it is unacceptable, it will continue to happen and to suggest changes to society to make it impossible to happen won't work, because thieves are already outside of our society. Ok, there is something that we could do to remove theft, and it would be to remove the concept of property so that theft would be impossible, but we do not want that, do we?
Neither you nor I know the economic state of the thieves with any certainty, and yet you are willing to assume off the bat that they're some sort of "noble survivor".
You are wrong my friend, I never attributed nobility to their actions. To me (and you) their actions are crap. And they are evil and a very big inconvenient.
There is nothing noble in their decision to prefer the good old violent way to access resources rather than accepting our arbitrary conventions about property. There is probably nothing noble in the way these arbitrary conventions were set either (I guess that a lot of people were tired of having to constantly fight for things so they, as a society agreed to make theft illegal). There are thieves of all economic levels. I think that many thieves are actually struggling people, but then we have thieves that already possess a great monetary position and continue stealing.
The decision to just dismiss the notion of property, I would say is composed of many possible reasons. A common one should be that the individual is unable to perform well under our rules. Whether it is because of lazyness, a disability, a society bias against them or a broken economic system that does not allow people to climb from the bottom by just hard work. Or maybe they just want the "thrill" of a thief's life. Or maybe they want 10 times more money than they do, even though they are actually in a good, decent economic position already.
Quote:
As for the not wanting to "remove the concept of poverty"
I meant to say
property.
Quote:
You are wrong my friend, I never attributed nobility to their actions. To me (and you) their actions are crap. And they are evil and a very big inconvenient.
On the other hand, those people that decided to live more like animals and be thieves probably think the same of those who don't.
ruveyn wrote:
Even without property there would still be killing which is theft of life. So theft will not go away even in a society without property. Edit: And that's actually what I said in the first place.
ruveyn
That's interesting.
And murder is really something that you cannot discourage people of doing. We have the psychos who get almost-sexual pleasure from it. Then on the more normal side of things, crimes for advancing position in a hierarchy will always happen as long as we have organization in society. And even if we get rid of that. Crimes of passion will occur for as long as there is some emotional part left in humans.
Arbitrary? You have items stolen from you and watch how arbitrary you think it is that theft is wrong.
05 Jul 2011, 11:16 pm
