What to do about people who believe that stealing is ok

[poptok1]

Could it be that all we are doing in striving for a utopia

That would be close to the truth, unfortunately. There is no practical chance for complete eradication of evil, trying will most likely result in some form of humanitarian catastrophe. However I do not believe, that accepting inherent evil inside people as a norm, evolutionary mechanism, is the correct way to go. Stealing is easy, it always will be easier than honest work and as such should be ostracized.
Not because it is harmful to others but solely cuz it makes us weak, makes us lesser beings, subjects of flawed nature, that only follow the simplest life paths. We know that this isn't the truth. Humans should and are aspiring to live for a better cause, for a higher purpose, evolutionary path that we unconsciously took, proves this. Exact reason for us to fight with our own nature is the fact, that this nature is flawed. Most of people accept that god became human, in order to save us. Why to reject the concept that human became a God and saveth himself?
 

Could some of the problems that my country (the United States) faces right now are in part somewhat illustrative of such blow-back?

Could you define what you mean by blow-back? Is it the culture of outrage? Division? Identity politics?

[1714779419]

1714779419

[1714779419]

1714779419

[1714779419]

1714779419

[tvbcof]

...
Most of people accept that god became human, in order to save us. Why to reject the concept that human became a God and saveth himself?

I reject it because it is kabbahlistic garbage being pumped by the powers that be fun, profit, and probably for their own survival at the top of the pyramid.  Whether they believe any parts of it themselves is the open question in my mind.  That they are pumping the soft brains of the masses with it is beyond question.  The next shoe to drop is that they are bigger Gods than your dinky little Godliness (assuming you are not one of the Chosen People) and it is your duty to help them.  The Chabad-Lubavitch people teach it fairly openly these days.

 

Could some of the problems that my country (the United States) faces right now are in part somewhat illustrative of such blow-back?

Could you define what you mean by blow-back? Is it the culture of outrage? Division? Identity politics?

I mean that Americans cannot fathom that people could be so bad as to deliberately sicken other people.  Even tough examples like the Sackler family with their valium->oxyconten->fentanyl franchise are outed in reasonably clear (if still redacted) form, they still hold to the basic assumption that demons don't exist.  Those few who do live in trailer parks, and certainly are not the people who rule over them.

Perhaps if they got kicked in the balls more by their own class they would not have such a hard time accepting that people can be ball kickers.  And thus, of course, would be better prepared to recognize and confront their assailants.

This failure to recognize evil is what I consider 'blowback' from an educational and societal framework with rejects evil in the same way the proverbial ostrich rejects danger.

[BADecker]

What to do about people who believe that stealing is ok?

Give them everything. That way there will be nothing left for them to steal. I mean, that's what we are doing for the Elite of the earth, right now... who love money but never have money enough. And when we think about it, we know that we are doing this for them.

[poptok1]

The Chabad-Lubavitch people teach it fairly openly these days.

Another jackpot, conclusion or rather solution (uuu dangerous word) appears to manifest itself. If you know what I mean  
However note that my postulate is based on completely different grounds. If their proposition is transhumanism, inducted on the rapid scale, presumably best by merging with the AI or similar abominations like that, my idea oscillates around the notion of gradual, steady evolution of mind, inducted only by the notion of classical understanding of natural philosophy, mathematics, law and culture.
That would be a return to the classical idea of academia, schooling of a man to be a better man rather than better worker.
Simply put, we need continue to develop ourself in general direction of humanism, because as long as we exist, it will never be (post) over. Like I said, problem is our broken and subverted schooling system.
Who broke it? And what about usury?   but I'm repeating myself...
    

[Mometaskers]

Great to see you again here Elwar. I feel this is a low-key diss on the Thai government. Well they deserve it.

I was surprised with this post, I've always thought "do not steal" is something that parents everywhere instill in their kids like "do not kill". What you mentioned about these people coming to America and taking advantage of the more open culture likely would have stolen stuff in their native country as well if given the chance. I still believe that if you are a "decent" person, you'd be "decent" wherever you go, most especially you are moving in to a more peaceful place. Dregs would be dregs.

With the MASSIVE amount of people coming into America undocumented, they should wisen up and just accept that not everyone can be "good".

[Elwar]

From what I was told of Singapore, part of their success is due to the stiff punishments they had to put into place on thieves. They essentially accepted a lot of citizens who were thieves and had to completely change the culture to get to the point where they are now. Perhaps it is about severe punishments but they also restrict access very well.

I do lean toward personal responsibility, but the very simple act of running into the store to buy groceries while you have anything in the bed of your truck means you have to either bring it with you, have someone guard it or put it inside the truck. Little simple things like needing to chain down your lawn furniture and stuff like that. I was recently the guy guarding the truck while my friends were buying groceries and was approached by 3 different people gauging my level of protection vs what may have been in the truck bed. One guy implying that he would bring some guys with guns if I didn't give him a bit of cash (acting like he was joking the whole time).

[TECSHARE]

From what I was told of Singapore, part of their success is due to the stiff punishments they had to put into place on thieves. They essentially accepted a lot of citizens who were thieves and had to completely change the culture to get to the point where they are now. Perhaps it is about severe punishments but they also restrict access very well.

I do lean toward personal responsibility, but the very simple act of running into the store to buy groceries while you have anything in the bed of your truck means you have to either bring it with you, have someone guard it or put it inside the truck. Little simple things like needing to chain down your lawn furniture and stuff like that. I was recently the guy guarding the truck while my friends were buying groceries and was approached by 3 different people gauging my level of protection vs what may have been in the truck bed. One guy implying that he would bring some guys with guns if I didn't give him a bit of cash (acting like he was joking the whole time).

That's when you say "Cool, how many? We got several armed men inside the store right now. I just wanna know how many more we need to call. Lets have a shootout."

One thing I learned working security for several years is crazy respects crazy as long as it is not a dismissive challenging their manhood type challenge. If you are just crazy enough for them to not be sure how things will end up they just walk away 95% of the time. I have stood down up to 3 men just as large or larger than me at once using this technique on my own. The trick is to make sure you project full confidence, because if you flinch, stutter, fumble, or show any sign of fear at all it could backfire badly. Predators seek out weakness, just don't show them any.

[Elwar]

From what I was told of Singapore, part of their success is due to the stiff punishments they had to put into place on thieves. They essentially accepted a lot of citizens who were thieves and had to completely change the culture to get to the point where they are now. Perhaps it is about severe punishments but they also restrict access very well.

I do lean toward personal responsibility, but the very simple act of running into the store to buy groceries while you have anything in the bed of your truck means you have to either bring it with you, have someone guard it or put it inside the truck. Little simple things like needing to chain down your lawn furniture and stuff like that. I was recently the guy guarding the truck while my friends were buying groceries and was approached by 3 different people gauging my level of protection vs what may have been in the truck bed. One guy implying that he would bring some guys with guns if I didn't give him a bit of cash (acting like he was joking the whole time).

That's when you say "Cool, how many? We got several armed men inside the store right now. I just wanna know how many more we need to call. Lets have a shootout."

One thing I learned working security for several years is crazy respects crazy as long as it is not a dismissive challenging their manhood type challenge. If you are just crazy enough for them to not be sure how things will end up they just walk away 95% of the time. I have stood down up to 3 men just as large or larger than me at once using this technique on my own. The trick is to make sure you project full confidence, because if you flinch, stutter, fumble, or show any sign of fear at all it could backfire badly. Predators seek out weakness, just don't show them any.

I've been through enough to not let some dude intimidate me.

Where's your battleship dude?

[TECSHARE]

From what I was told of Singapore, part of their success is due to the stiff punishments they had to put into place on thieves. They essentially accepted a lot of citizens who were thieves and had to completely change the culture to get to the point where they are now. Perhaps it is about severe punishments but they also restrict access very well.

I do lean toward personal responsibility, but the very simple act of running into the store to buy groceries while you have anything in the bed of your truck means you have to either bring it with you, have someone guard it or put it inside the truck. Little simple things like needing to chain down your lawn furniture and stuff like that. I was recently the guy guarding the truck while my friends were buying groceries and was approached by 3 different people gauging my level of protection vs what may have been in the truck bed. One guy implying that he would bring some guys with guns if I didn't give him a bit of cash (acting like he was joking the whole time).

That's when you say "Cool, how many? We got several armed men inside the store right now. I just wanna know how many more we need to call. Lets have a shootout."

One thing I learned working security for several years is crazy respects crazy as long as it is not a dismissive challenging their manhood type challenge. If you are just crazy enough for them to not be sure how things will end up they just walk away 95% of the time. I have stood down up to 3 men just as large or larger than me at once using this technique on my own. The trick is to make sure you project full confidence, because if you flinch, stutter, fumble, or show any sign of fear at all it could backfire badly. Predators seek out weakness, just don't show them any.

I've been through enough to not let some dude intimidate me.

Where's your battleship dude?

Oh I am sure, I wasn't so much addressing you personally as giving a general reply. Based on recent events it seems you are savvy enough know when it is the time to fight and when it is time for flight. When they actually bring the battleship is usually a good time for flight...

[peter0425]

Glad to see you are back and active here again. Regarding your topic, the Western world is a high trust level society. What you are describing is a low trust level society. This is largely a cultural issue, so the solutions are more systemic and institutional than individual fixes. In my opinion a lot of it has to do with corruption in government and law enforcement. If the law doesn't apply to those in power, people have no respect for the rule of law any longer because it is only imposed on them and not used to protect them. It is like playing a game where everyone is cheating. The honest player always loses and that mentality is difficult to reverse. Of course there are ways such as personally imposing harsh penalties to send a message, but most people don't have the stomach for that.

The highlighted part is the most applicable answer on how things goes this wrong for all the concerned countries,imagine people are struggling to have food in their table and almost died of starvation while the people in power are just feeding the spoilage to the dogs
It’s really heartache that the abusive are the government while people are always the victim so what they do is commit same as what others do and in long run it will become legal to them because there’s no truthful agency that impose the rules.

Lucky that this was not in my country and I’m proud that stealing is still against the law here

[Malsetid]

Back in the old days it was acceptable. Remember when spartans use to encourage kids to steal food as a means of survival. That was back then though. Times change, laws are implemented and we don't live in a society like that anymore. Moral standards have bet set. A good hearted person will give you something if you just ask. Or you have to lesrn how to work for what you need. Before you consider stealing, think about those people that work their asses off, some with disability, just to get what they need.

[coins4commies]

The issue is much more complicated than op suggests because of the fact t that everyone has different definitions of stealing.  In my time spent around the world, western, and mainly American cultures are the only ones who widely think stealing is ok as long as it is done through the law.  We don't really believe in morals just that might is right, legal is ok, illegal is not ok.  

Even if we settled on a uniform definition of stealing, we'd still have differences in our definitions of property.  

Taking a fair/survival portion of something that is not rightfully owned is not stealing.  Maybe if you took it all for yourself, it would stealing but if a hungry person takes food out of the grocery store and eats it, that is not stealing, because how could a person's food for survival belong to someone else?

If a person comes into your home and steals the food out of your refrigerator, that is probably stealing unless you were hoarding food.  


Another tough one is buying stolen goods.  

If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?  
If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?
If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?
What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back?  Did you steal it?


If you steal from a rich person it may or may not be stealing.  For example, if a hungry person steals a sandwich from walmart, it is not stealing but if someone steals all of the tvs out of walmart, then they are just as bad as walmart for stealing stolen tvs.  A true robinhood would take all of the tvs from walmart and distribute them to families who could not afford tvs or sell the tvs and divide the money amongst the people who made the tvs.  That would be justice not stealing.  

[af_newbie]

The issue is much more complicated than op suggests because of the fact t that everyone has different definitions of stealing.  In my time spent around the world, western, and mainly American cultures are the only ones who widely think stealing is ok as long as it is done through the law.  We don't really believe in morals just that might is right, legal is ok, illegal is not ok.  

Even if we settled on a uniform definition of stealing, we'd still have differences in our definitions of property.  

Taking a fair/survival portion of something that is not rightfully owned is not stealing.  Maybe if you took it all for yourself, it would stealing but if a hungry person takes food out of the grocery store and eats it, that is not stealing, because how could a person's food for survival belong to someone else?

If a person comes into your home and steals the food out of your refrigerator, that is probably stealing unless you were hoarding food.  


Another tough one is buying stolen goods.  

If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?  
If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?
If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?
What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back?  Did you steal it?


If you steal from a rich person it may or may not be stealing.  For example, if a hungry person steals a sandwich from walmart, it is not stealing but if someone steals all of the tvs out of walmart, then they are just as bad as walmart for stealing stolen tvs.  A true robinhood would take all of the tvs from walmart and distribute them to families who could not afford tvs or sell the tvs and divide the money amongst the people who made the tvs.  That would be justice not stealing.  

Are you a member of the "Crime Apologetics Club"?  You have some twisted logic to justify stealing.

The size of the victim's net worth should not be used to justify a crime.  Stealing is a crime, it does not matter who does it or to whom.

"If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?" - No.
"If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?" - Yes
"If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?" - Yes
"What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back? Did you steal it?" - No

[coins4commies]

The issue is much more complicated than op suggests because of the fact t that everyone has different definitions of stealing.  In my time spent around the world, western, and mainly American cultures are the only ones who widely think stealing is ok as long as it is done through the law.  We don't really believe in morals just that might is right, legal is ok, illegal is not ok.  

Even if we settled on a uniform definition of stealing, we'd still have differences in our definitions of property.  

Taking a fair/survival portion of something that is not rightfully owned is not stealing.  Maybe if you took it all for yourself, it would stealing but if a hungry person takes food out of the grocery store and eats it, that is not stealing, because how could a person's food for survival belong to someone else?

If a person comes into your home and steals the food out of your refrigerator, that is probably stealing unless you were hoarding food.  


Another tough one is buying stolen goods.  

If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?  
If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?
If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?
What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back?  Did you steal it?


If you steal from a rich person it may or may not be stealing.  For example, if a hungry person steals a sandwich from walmart, it is not stealing but if someone steals all of the tvs out of walmart, then they are just as bad as walmart for stealing stolen tvs.  A true robinhood would take all of the tvs from walmart and distribute them to families who could not afford tvs or sell the tvs and divide the money amongst the people who made the tvs.  That would be justice not stealing.  

Are you a member of the "Crime Apologetics Club"?  You have some twisted logic to justify stealing.

The size of the victim's net worth should not be used to justify a crime.  Stealing is a crime, it does not matter who does it or to whom.

"If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?" - No.
"If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?" - Yes
"If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?" - Yes
"What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back? Did you steal it?" - No

When you absolve the people who create demand for stolen goods,  You are basically saying paying someone to steal something is not stealing.   This blurs the lines and if the stolen goods you are buying or receiving as gifts came from people who cannot afford to hire people to steal them back, then they will want to steal as well. They will have to steal. 

I'm saying "stealing" is not always a crime because I don't define stealing the same way you do.  Repeating "stealing is a crime" does not refute that. 

[actmyname]

This blurs the lines

At the same time, having vague definitions of stealing, like "taking a fair/survival portion of something that is not rightfully owned is not stealing" also blurs the lines between what is stealing and what is not.

By defining it in such a manner, you create a top-down definition to which you have to now define what a "fair/survival portion" of something is.

Is taking a piece of bread when you're starving stealing?
How about taking some gourmet dishes from a restaurant?
What if that was the closest thing around?
What if there was nothing else around?
What if you had to choose between taking the gourmet dish, and putting your hand on the stove for 10 seconds?

If taking one piece of bread is not stealing, is taking two pieces of bread stealing?
How about three?
Four?
Onwards?


See how your answers change as these questions develop and try to develop some other scenarios. This tests the rigor of your definition and in turn tests the rationale thereof.

[coins4commies]

This blurs the lines

At the same time, having vague definitions of stealing, like "taking a fair/survival portion of something that is not rightfully owned is not stealing" also blurs the lines between what is stealing and what is not.

By defining it in such a manner, you create a top-down definition to which you have to now define what a "fair/survival portion" of something is.

Is taking a piece of bread when you're starving stealing?
How about taking some gourmet dishes from a restaurant?
What if that was the closest thing around?
What if there was nothing else around?
What if you had to choose between taking the gourmet dish, and putting your hand on the stove for 10 seconds?

If taking one piece of bread is not stealing, is taking two pieces of bread stealing?
How about three?
Four?
Onwards?


See how your answers change as these questions develop and try to develop some other scenarios. This tests the rigor of your definition and in turn tests the rationale thereof.

Thats the point though.  I just wanted to point out that it isn't always so simple. All definitions of stealing fail in their own way.  

With personal property its simple but beyond needs, everything is difficult to determine.  The person taking it is in the best position to know if they are stealing but no one truly knows because no one knows who these things belong to.  This is why its best to have restaurants setup like a local trend in my area.  There are no prices and they simply ask "what would you like to pay for that today" and you make a donation.  Most people pay normal prices but some pay much less, some pay much more, and no one steals. 

Imagine the following for simplicity
1.there are 10 people in the world
2.only enough resources for 10 loaves of bread or less per week.
3. everyone needs a loaf per week to survive

Here is how it would work by my moral code.

-anyone who takes 2 or more loaves in one week is stealing no matter how they acquired the bread.  
-taking 4 or less loaves of bread from someone who has made 5 loaves is not stealing unless you keep 2 or more for yourself.  
-if someone gives you 2 loaves of bread and you keep both, you also stole one loaf of bread.  

Of course its never that simple because our world has so many more variables and contexts at play.  Its hard to determine what is stealing and what even is property.  

[actmyname]

Imagine the following for simplicity
1.there are 10 people in the world
2.only enough resources for 10 loaves of bread or less per week.
3. everyone needs a loaf per week to survive

Here is how it would work by my moral code.

-anyone who takes 2 or more loaves in one week is stealing no matter how they acquired the bread.  
-taking 4 or less loaves of bread from someone who has made 5 loaves is not stealing unless you keep 2 or more for yourself.  
-if someone gives you 2 loaves of bread and you keep both, you also stole one loaf of bread.  

Of course its never that simple because our world has so many more variables and contexts at play.  Its hard to determine what is stealing and what even is property.

Let's restructure this to just one week/round? It seems like you could simplify it much more.

Definition: the act of stealing is dictated thusly:

Let a set S contain n components p₁, p₂, ..., p_n and a limited amount of resource x∈ℝ.
y_i∈ℝ := the amount of resource x that p_i requires for the round.
q_i∈ℝ := the amount of resource x that p_i takes for the round.

q₁ + q₂ + ... + q_n ≤ x

If q_i > y_i then p_i is stealingConsider this case, then.

S = {p₁, p₂, p₃}
x = 6
y₁ = 1
y₂ = 2
y₃ = 4It really is a convoluted issue.

[af_newbie]

The issue is much more complicated than op suggests because of the fact t that everyone has different definitions of stealing.  In my time spent around the world, western, and mainly American cultures are the only ones who widely think stealing is ok as long as it is done through the law.  We don't really believe in morals just that might is right, legal is ok, illegal is not ok.  

Even if we settled on a uniform definition of stealing, we'd still have differences in our definitions of property.  

Taking a fair/survival portion of something that is not rightfully owned is not stealing.  Maybe if you took it all for yourself, it would stealing but if a hungry person takes food out of the grocery store and eats it, that is not stealing, because how could a person's food for survival belong to someone else?

If a person comes into your home and steals the food out of your refrigerator, that is probably stealing unless you were hoarding food.  


Another tough one is buying stolen goods.  

If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?  
If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?
If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?
What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back?  Did you steal it?


If you steal from a rich person it may or may not be stealing.  For example, if a hungry person steals a sandwich from walmart, it is not stealing but if someone steals all of the tvs out of walmart, then they are just as bad as walmart for stealing stolen tvs.  A true robinhood would take all of the tvs from walmart and distribute them to families who could not afford tvs or sell the tvs and divide the money amongst the people who made the tvs.  That would be justice not stealing.  

Are you a member of the "Crime Apologetics Club"?  You have some twisted logic to justify stealing.

The size of the victim's net worth should not be used to justify a crime.  Stealing is a crime, it does not matter who does it or to whom.

"If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?" - No.
"If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?" - Yes
"If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?" - Yes
"What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back? Did you steal it?" - No

When you absolve the people who create demand for stolen goods,  You are basically saying paying someone to steal something is not stealing.   This blurs the lines and if the stolen goods you are buying or receiving as gifts came from people who cannot afford to hire people to steal them back, then they will want to steal as well. They will have to steal. 

I'm saying "stealing" is not always a crime because I don't define stealing the same way you do.  Repeating "stealing is a crime" does not refute that. 

Stealing is always a crime.  No matter the circumstances.  I don't care what relativist linguistic gymnastics you apply.  Crime is always a crime.

As for knowingly buying stolen goods, well, it is not ethical but I am not sure it is technically a crime.  You will be charged for stealing anywhere on the planet, not so much for buying stolen goods.  So it depends on the jurisdiction.  In any case, buying stolen goods is not a good idea but buying is never stealing.

I don't really care about your relativist, justice warrior bullshit.  It is just that, bullshit.  Stick with the law.

[tvbcof]

The Chabad-Lubavitch people teach it fairly openly these days.

Another jackpot, conclusion or rather solution (uuu dangerous word) appears to manifest itself. If you know what I mean  
...

I think I know what you mean.  For some reason people have a visceral fear of saying anything which is even possibly at all negative about anyone who might be in any way associated with 'Jews'.  Most people who live in any large city in the U.S., or who watch a lot of television, get a jolt of terror when such a thing happens.

It's an interesting phenomenon.  People have the same reaction that slugs have to salt when certain topics are broached.  I used to get have myself but it wore off after a few years of living in an electromagnetically quite area researching reality.

It's actually fairly absurd to be terrified to even repeat things that a certain group teaches quite openly for fear of .  But the U.S. is on the cusp of making it arbitrarily and nebulously illegal in a formal manner under 'antisemitism' laws promoted heavily by Espstein's special friends.  That means that real living breathing thought police (or automated robots) could come to your real door, break it down, and haul you away for 'badthink' and not giving certain chosen people an appropriate level of respect and support.

[poptok1]

That means that real living breathing thought police (or automated robots) could come to your real door, break it down, and haul you away for 'badthink' and not giving certain chosen people an appropriate level of respect and support.

Chilling isn't it? Whoever finds this acceptable, deserves the fate that "nowheretohide laws" have in mind for him.
What is this if not another grand theft? Theft of fundamental right to free speech. My country was robbed of it long time ago.
Claims similar to those from previous post but about general denialism, written with a bit more plain language, have the possibility of driving me straight in front of a judge. Privilege groups are in fact real but for whatever reason, obscured from the public view whatsoever.
It's beyond me, that this theft was allowed to happen. Usury plus all described above and you can basically get away with everything. Still the world? Well go ahead, nothing can stop you now... That's a thought-crime already