The Ethics of stealing.

[rhys gethin]

OK so basically you're a communist. Nice one.

Well, it's still legal, as yet.

 

[NoEgo]

Well, it's still legal, as yet.

So you'd vote for years of state oppression and human suffering just because other people have more than you do? You're suffering from resentment.

You should be careful of what you wish for, you might well get it.

Capitalism might have its faults, but it's certainly the lessor of the two evils.

 

[In Bloom]

So within that narrow focus, I say theft is absolutely wrong because personal security demands inviolable property rights (consequentialist argument), and because theft combines greed and deception (mens rea) with assault (actus reus) in a way that can never be excused.

You keep using the word "assault" in a stupid context here.

In any case, the notion of "inviolable property rights" only grants personal security to those who control property. You can't just group my possession of, say, a book, with a landlords ownership of a flat which he never uses, the two are clearly different.

Besides which, the continuation of capitalism and thus the continuation of the ruling class' position of power is contingent upon exploitation, greed, deception and physical violence, why should we behave a certain way just because scumbags like that have defined it as moral behaviour? Why should I respect for my boss's property when he has no respect for my freedom, health or happiness?

(The starving mother isn't really justified in her thieving; she hasn't thieved at all due to an absence of mens rea.)

Dear oh dear, somebody's been reading too much first year philosophy, "Yeah, she was stealing, but, like, it wasn't really stealing because she didn't do it for a certain arbitrarily defined reason"

Why is theft acceptable in certain circumstances? (Excluding necessity, for the sake of argument.) Reasons that don't rely on wealth redistribution would be especially helpful. (As David Nicholls wrote in Starter for Ten: "Marx wanted the proletariat to seize the means of production; he didn't suggest they pocket the contents of the till in an all-night petrol station.")

I'd suggest that David Nicholls doesn't actually understand Marx at all.

Who said anything about "wealth redistribution" anyway? I just like nicking things from work

No, I'm saying the application of morality is decided by a given situation: that's entirely different to saying moral concepts are themselves relative and defined by the situation.

In what sense are the two different?

 

[Azrael]

You keep using the word "assault" in a stupid context here.

Assault is an unlawful physical attack, and theft is an attack on property rights. What else do you call it? A cheeky bit of hankey-pankey with a ciggie afterwards?

In any case, the notion of "inviolable property rights" only grants personal security to those who control property. You can't just group my possession of, say, a book, with a landlords ownership of a flat which he never uses, the two are clearly different.

Yep, just as a Trabant and Jaguar are different, but both are cars. (Well, just about.)

Besides which, the continuation of capitalism and thus the continuation of the ruling class' position of power is contingent upon exploitation, greed, deception and physical violence, why should we behave a certain way just because scumbags like that have defined it as moral behaviour? Why should I respect for my boss's property when he has no respect for my freedom, health or happiness?

Because if your boss matches your description the solution is his prosecution for gross negligence, not your waging war on financial security. Or are we to suppose the lout who's told thieving is now OK is possessed of the good conscience to confine his pilfering to the blood-soaked hands of the oppressor?

Dear oh dear, somebody's been reading too much first year philosophy, "Yeah, she was stealing, but, like, it wasn't really stealing because she didn't do it for a certain arbitrarily defined reason"

Jurisprudence actually, and since the concept of necessity has been around for centuries, and in any case, arises from the logic of the argument, I'd hardly call it arbitrarily defined. Best brush up on that philosophy. Don't worry, rising to a first year level is not required. (Or, of course, likely.)

I'd suggest that David Nicholls doesn't actually understand Marx at all.

Marx didn't want the proles to seize the means of production?

Who said anything about "wealth redistribution" anyway? I just like nicking things from work

Clearly.

In what sense are the two different?

One defines morality, the other makes an exception to a pre-existing rule. Next!

 

[rhys gethin]

So you'd vote for years of state oppression and human suffering just because other people have more than you do? You're suffering from resentment.

You should be careful of what you wish for, you might well get it.

Capitalism might have its faults, but it's certainly the lessor of the two evils.

Eh? I do not believe in Stalinist state capitalism any more than I believe in American monopoly capitalism and vote for neither. I resent the fact that the human race is oppressed by greedy morons, certainly. Capitalism has, since its inception, produced imperialism, vast wars and mass-murder on an incredible scale; it requires widespread poverty, works up racism and is now about to destroy the world by heating it to the point we can't live here any more. THAT is less evil than something? WHAT exactly?

 

[thought]

I get really annoyed over work place stealing.

As a UK tax payer, why should i be funding the paper supply for those children whos parents work in health / social care sectors, and have access to envelopes, pens and some basic stationary. All things I have to buy?

If these items wernt stolen by many people every year, my council tax bill could be reduced. Instead of which the goverment pays more beauracrats, to find and name people who are trying to survive on welfare benefits, who may be "stealing" from the state in order to survive, and not so that little johnny has some new, clean white paper to draw on, whilst in the restaurant that night.

Imagine if we assume that every "goverment" employer only claims one pencil, two envelopes and 1 a 4 pad per year... approximatly £1 of goods...


Armed forces = Total of all personnel -196,650 http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/WomenInTheArmedForces.htm
NHS =
Social Care= http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=550&All=Y&B2.x=63&B2.y=3
Education=
Local and National Council =

Oh well it would only pay for the education of most of the UK and Europe!

This is why stealing from work, or ourselves isnt good for the state!

 

[Azrael]

Capitalism has, since its inception, produced imperialism, vast wars and mass-murder on an incredible scale; it requires widespread poverty, works up racism and is now about to destroy the world by heating it to the point we can't live here any more. THAT is less evil than something? WHAT exactly?

Well I'll give you global warming (in that governments didn't reign in business), but imperialism, racism, poverty, and mass-murder? All around long, long before capitalism. Not to mention the ancient empires, the Spanish were running smash & grab raids on south America long before they developed a modern economy. In fact the capitalist British Empire, in trading with its constituents instead of simply stripmining their resources and bolting, was a distinct improvement on what went before. (And not one I'm remotely defending, I hate imperialism, but it didn't match previous levels of colonial imcompetence.)

Capitalism can be used towards the ends you describe: or towards entirely different ends if politicians have the guts to send it in a different direction. They are not part and parcel of the system, any more than human evil is simply blamed on religion.

 

[rhys gethin]

Well I'll give you global warming (in that governments didn't reign in business), but imperialism, racism, poverty, and mass-murder? All around long, long before capitalism. Not to mention the ancient empires, the Spanish were running smash & grab raids on south America long before they developed a modern economy. In fact the capitalist British Empire, in trading with its constituents instead of simply stripmining their resources and bolting, was a distinct improvement on what went before. (And not one I'm remotely defending, I hate imperialism, but it didn't match previous levels of colonial imcompetence.)

Capitalism can be used towards the ends you describe: or towards entirely different ends if politicians have the guts to send it in a different direction. They are not part and parcel of the system, any more than human evil is simply blamed on religion.

Clearly all previous complex societies have been class ones based on exploitation, but the degree and kind of exploitation differs, as do colonial activites, racism (not in Rome) and the degree of killing (less in Peru and China, more under the steppe peoples), etcetera etcetera. The key point is that competition, the revolutionising of the social world, the drive towards monopoly and the inevitability of slumps are essential to the functioning of the capitalist system, can't be avoided, and give rise to poverty, racism and war inevitably. Politicians, unfortuntately, will never have the guts to send it in a different direction because it cannot go there and remain itself and will therefore have them overthrown if they try. Like Owen in New Lanark, you are imagining a wolf without teeth - a creature that, if it ever exists, doesn't last long.

 

[NoEgo]

Eh? I do not believe in Stalinist state capitalism any more than I believe in American monopoly capitalism and vote for neither. I resent the fact that the human race is oppressed by greedy morons, certainly. Capitalism has, since its inception, produced imperialism, vast wars and mass-murder on an incredible scale; it requires widespread poverty, works up racism and is now about to destroy the world by heating it to the point we can't live here any more. THAT is less evil than something? WHAT exactly?

Got absolutely nothing to do with capitalism mate!

 

[rhys gethin]

Got absolutely nothing to do with capitalism mate!

What hasn't?

 

[NoEgo]

What hasn't?

This mate. - you said: "Capitalism has, since its inception, produced imperialism, vast wars and mass-murder on an incredible scale; it requires widespread poverty, works up racism and is now about to destroy the world by heating it to the point we can't live here any more"

Got nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[weltweit]

Capitalism does not require widespread poverty though sometimes it may result in that.

Capitalism is every man for himself, evolution and natural selection, red in tooth and claw.

Capitalism can be completely uncivilised, it is the individual struggle for survival.

 

[weltweit]

Oh forgot to add

Yes capitalism CAN BE both exploitation and theft

And if you feel you have been stolen from then taking your posessions back is not an act of theft, it is an act of repatriation.

On balance though the current UK version of capitalism is not really theft or exploitation, in my opinion, so stealing from people who have more than you is not really ethical according to my moral thinking.

 

[rhys gethin]

This mate. - you said: "Capitalism has, since its inception, produced imperialism, vast wars and mass-murder on an incredible scale; it requires widespread poverty, works up racism and is now about to destroy the world by heating it to the point we can't live here any more"

Got nothing to do with capitalism.

Well, since capitalism has been the dominant system since the Eighteenth century and since these things have all happened (do you doubt they did happen?) it would be quite a feat to show that they had NOTHING to do with that dominant system, surely? Do you believe that the attack on Iraq, for instance, came about because Bush and Bliar woke up one morning convinced that they were likely to be attacked by that not-very-important country? Or did it perhaps have something to do with oil and the control thereof? Don't you think that the rise of anti-semitism in Germany might have had something to do with the threat of Communist revolution there, or was it just chance - governed by the planets, perhaps? Why was the cotton industry in Bengal destroyed by British imperialism, to be replaced by the cotton industry in Lancashire? Nothing to do with the interests of British capitalism - like the Irish Famine or the First world War? I believe that if you think hard you might well find some connection hiding in there somewhere, but the current fashion, certainly, is to find such notions old-fashioned, like legal rights, freedom and suchlike. Up to you, clearly.

 

[rhys gethin]

Capitalism does not require widespread poverty though sometimes it may result in that.

Capitalism is every man for himself, evolution and natural selection, red in tooth and claw.

Capitalism can be completely uncivilised, it is the individual struggle for survival.

Wages are a key cost to capitalism (the difference between the cost of labour and the price of commodities is where profit is found), and a reserve of 'surplus labour' is required for its proper functioning (it keeps the labour cost low). The system can just about survive without general poverty for a while, but as we've seen over the last quarter-century, it will push back to general poverty as soon as it possibly can.

It is only theoretically 'every man for himself'. In fact, the vast majority of the poor have no chance of competing, and the children of the rich minority live very well-cushioned lives.

The rest of what you say is true.

 

[weltweit]

Wages are a key cost to capitalism (the difference between the cost of labour and the price of commodities is where profit is found), and a reserve of 'surplus labour' is required for its proper functioning (it keeps the labour cost low).

Well profit is the excess of revenue over costs but costs include a lot more than just labour, depending on what you are doing.

Labour is a key cost where capitalism is labour intensive for example we and other developed countries have seen labour intensive manufacturing being transferred to former eastern European countries and Taiwan Korea and now increasingly to China.

But more automated capital intensive manufacturing needs efficient capital markets, low cost materials, and smaller numbers of highly educated staff and by and large we have that in the UK.

I accept that service industries tend to be labour intensive but for example shelf filling and burger flipping have to stay here even while labour intensive call centres are being relocated to Bangalore.

Also we have seen an effort to reduce exploitation with the minimum wage and it appears to have helped although I expect the average private soldier serving in Iraq or Helmland is probably way below it.

I am just not sure I agree with you that a reserve of 'surplus labour' is required it sounds like you say a level of unemployment is needed, if you are meaning this then how much and are they short term or long term unemployed?

The system can just about survive without general poverty for a while, but as we've seen over the last quarter-century, it will push back to general poverty as soon as it possibly can.

It is only theoretically 'every man for himself'. In fact, the vast majority of the poor have no chance of competing, and the children of the rich minority live very well-cushioned lives.

But this is the problem, either you allow those who make money in their lives to leave it to their children or even to spend it on their children while they are still alive, or you say that their money is not theirs to spend and allocate it out yourselves (assuming you are government).

I think up the thread I suggested 100% inheritance duty which was proposed by an American supporter of meritocracy but he was quick to admit that if only one country did this (and that is unlikely in itself) all that would happen is that all the richer people would simply leave.

So practically speaking we are stuck with trying to ensure people can be qualified to enter into the “every man for himself” race, perhaps “the human race” with as many qualifications as possible to make up for any lack of finance that they may have, compared to those who went the silver spoon route.

However that is not achieved with university degrees that leave you tens of thousands in debt, before you have thought about getting on the vastly inflated housing ladder.

I do not think NuLabours actions suggest they support a meritocracy but they did with the minimum wage try to reduce the potential cruelty of rampant capitalism.

I do think unregulated capitalism, without moderation by market controls, is the law of the jungle.

Dog eat dog and if you want it, fight for it.

 

[rhys gethin]

Weltweit - That is a bit long to answer in one lump, and my wife has long since threatened to leave me if I utter the expression 'labour theory of value' just once more, so my thinking has got rusty. I'm sure,though, that the less labour goes into commodities - by and large anyway - the more the price is likely to fall, as we see with most electronic stuff. I reckon, too, that the general point about poverty becomes a lot clearer if we think in world terms. The Economist, for instance, says that labour costs are being held down in the advanced countries by the vast numbers of (very poorly paid) workers entering the capitalist market place in China, India and the old USSR - where there is also a great deal of un-and-under-employment. I don't think we are in such vast a disagreement. I didn't answer your earlier point about 100% death duties because if we were ever in a position to enforce it we could also have world socialism under workers control: it is fine in theory, but can you see any ruling class ever agreeing it?

 

[weltweit]

Weltweit - That is a bit long to answer in one lump, and my wife has long since threatened to leave me if I utter the expression 'labour theory of value' just once more,

Ha, well my partner has actually left me (they will be coming back though) not sure which of my utterances was to blame

I'm sure,though, that the less labour goes into commodities - by and large anyway - the more the price is likely to fall, as we see with most electronic stuff.

Oh I think electronic stuff has become cheap because it all comes from China, Korea and Taiwan (laptop city) where labour is very cheap (at the moment) but also because of economies of scale, automation and experience curve benefits.

Labour in China is so cheap at the moment that on building sites they chose not to hire a crane rather they just take on another 400 workers to carry the stuff that the crane would have lifted.

I reckon, too, that the general point about poverty becomes a lot clearer if we think in world terms. The Economist, for instance, says that labour costs are being held down in the advanced countries by the vast numbers of (very poorly paid) workers entering the capitalist market place in China, India and the old USSR - where there is also a great deal of un-and-under-employment.

Oh well that could certainly be true, it is capitalism that is driving globalisation as it is relentless in its search for new markets to fuel growth for its constituent players. It is always easier to win a totally new customer than convert a customer in a saturated market.

I don't think we are in such vast a disagreement. I didn't answer your earlier point about 100% death duties because if we were ever in a position to enforce it we could also have world socialism under workers control: it is fine in theory, but can you see any ruling class ever agreeing it?

No indeed and I would also myself be against it, I want to decide what I do with the pitiful money that I have and I object to other people telling me what to do with it or taking it from me or my children.

I only suggested the 100% death duties because if you idealistically really believe in meritocracy then that is what you would have to do. Try to start everyone from the same point.

It may not be popular in here, as I understand U75 is pretty left leaning, but I like capitalism. When I walk into a big trade show I do not see lots of companies, I see lots of organisms fighting for the light of publicity. I see all the natural relationships parasitic partnerships, a food chain, different organisms trying to solve the same problem, trying to occupy the same space, competition every where you look, success and failure, life and death.

I see a rainforest of living organisms fighting for survival.

I think I see Darwinian evolution and that because we are squeamish, and are right to be, we try to reel in the worst excesses, so workers when too badly exploited gang themselves together into unions to up their bargaining power. When we legislate against monopoly we recognise one organism can be dominant for too long a period before it eventually will also die back, so pre-emptively we limit its growth.

The problem I do see with capitalism is that economist’s perfect markets, while an attractive idea, are impossible to achieve in the real world and much of the profits companies are making, especially where they are making excessive profits, is because they are exploiting this lack of perfect knowledge and getting away with it because the rest of us let them.

But that too is somehow evolutionary, organisms that suit their environment thrive, those that do not or do not have a successful competitive strategy die back and may die off.

Sorry this does not have a lot to do with the ethics of stealing.

Sorry. [puts thinking cap back on]

 

[rhys gethin]

weltweit - my own opinion is that evolution has more to do with changes in the environment than with competition (we didn't defeat the dinosaurs - the weather changed, or something), that co-operative species do a lot better than competitive ones and that what I once read in Kropotkin's 'Mutual Aid' and have forgotten was as convincing as the small bits I now remember. I suppose all this is relevant because those who steal won't even even agree to the rules of the game whereas those who do agree often get robbed: if we didn't have personal property we could avoid this problem, and many others. Small businesses might be 'efficient' in some respects, but what we mostly get are near-monopolies, which are AIDS viruses as Darwinian victors.