Over at Willow Tree, Rachel Ann asks:
Under what circumstances is it okay to break the law? I don’t mean jaywalking, or grand theft auto either, I mean something in between.
Pretty much whenever I think 1) there’s virtually no chance I’ll get caught, and 2) I don’t believe that by breaking the law I’d be making a significant contribution to hurting another person. (Breaking the law in the context of a political protest is a different matter; there sometimes I’d find it worthwhile to break a law even if there’s a significant chance I’d be caught. But I don’t think that’s the sort of thing Rachel Ann was thinking of.)
So, for example, I don’t hesitate to get stoned (or when I do hesitate, it’s not because I’m disturbed by the law-breaking). Nor would it bother me morally to shoplift from a huge corporation. (I don’t shoplift anymore – haven’t for years – but that’s not a moral decision, I’m just not as fearless as I once was. Or as needy).
Of course, I realize that shoplifting – and, for that matter, smoking pot – does contribute in a small way to harming other people. If I was the only person in the world to shoplift, it would be pretty harmless; but the cumulative effect of millions of shoplifting incidents is to raise prices and unemployment by some degree. But to me, this sort of “cumulative” harm is similar to the harm caused by driving when you could walk, or flying across the country, or failing to protest my government vigorously, or not buying the most fuel-efficient car available, or any other activity in which some of the costs are externalized. Yes, it’s the wrong thing to do; but being one of millions who contributes a tiny bit to a larger social harm is something I’ve learned to live with on a day-to-day basis.
Getting stoned is differnet than shoplifting because large corporations are made up of small employees. I’ve worked for large corporations, and theft affects the “little guy”, from the general floor staff to the store manager. All of whom are usualy just people trying to make a living. Moraly, shoplifting does bother me.
I’m not sure how smoking pot has to harm people on even a small scale, though.
I can’t walk into Walmart without stealing something (even something small). I just walk in there, and feel like hitting something, so this is my metaphysical hit. I realize this contributes to all of this, but I’d like to think this says to walmart “Pay your employees a real wage! Stop using slave labor!” I’m willing to pay more for that.
Although, the point is mute, cuz I stopped shopping at Walmart.
I agree. I worked for a grocery store. Raises, hours available to work, the number of new people they could hire or promote to full time was tied to profits. We did store wide inventories every 4 months in the non-perishable departments. Inventories were usually bad. We decided to keep track once. We kept track of all the torn, open packages where folks had opened them up and stolen the product inside to avoid the security beepers at the doors. On the health and beauty aid isle alone there was a $18,000 loss from theft over a 4 month period. That meant no raises. That meant no part time people promoted to full time with health benefits. That meant no new part timers and hours cut for the full time and part time workers every week. It might not seem like a big deal to swipe that $4 bottle of aspirin, but add it up and lots of people get hurt.
I don’t think it’s all that different
Because it creates a demand for an illegal product? Because it’s not just about the nice guy down the street you might buy it from. It’s about the people who smuggle it into the country. The people in other countries that grow it. And all those people aren’t so nice. They hurt, maim and kill to control the supply. A while back there were a series of anti-drug commercials that pointed out how things move up the chain:
“This is Dan. This is the joint that Dan bought. This is the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. This is the cartel that uses the smuggler that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the joint that Dan bought. And this is the family that was lined up by Dan’s cartel and shot for getting in the way.”
Now, those ads were just as ineffective as all the other anti-drug ads that have showed up. But these had an element of truth to them that folks just don’t want to think about. No, by smoking pot a person may not personally be hurting anyone. But by contributing money to an illegal enterprise they are supporting the people out there who will and do harm innocent people.
Shoplifting always made me neurotic, so I really never did it, just once or twice. Of course, I cheerfully have violated Texas laws against sodomy (when it was against the law). And, I know this is shocking, if you buy a vibrator or something here, you have to sign a piece of paper explaining that it’s for educational use only, but I used it for what it was designed for. I am a hardened criminal.
I also have made illegal passes. I illegally passed a cop the other day on accident, but he blew it off.
Mousehounde, if the inherently harmless act of smoking pot causes criminal activity, that’s the fault of the law, not the pot smokers.
And if theft didn’t drain profits so badly, perhaps they could pay a living wage. As a worker who gets paid by the hour, may I request that you quit making a stand against low wages by stealing? Because while you may be able to afford the higher prices stealing causes, I can’t.
I should note, I do not work for Walmart.
I agree. Smoking pot is harmless. Everyone who wants to should be able to grow it in their garden along side the tomatoes and the snap beans.
But at this time, it is illegal. And buying pot supports the people who do terrible things. It is not right or fair. But it is reality.
What mousehounde said about shoplifting–it’s ridiculous and, if I may, a little self serving to think “By getting something I want for free, I am striking a blow for the little guy!” Uh, no, not so much.
Rationalizing theft by saying the people from whom you steal can well afford it, that they deserve it, or other that people make decisions that cause just as much harm, doesn’t change the fact that you are stealing and making up excuses for it.
Most of my “lawbreaking” is in the IP field, and these days is done as much for convenience as for saving money. If I forget to tape a TV show I want to watch, I’ll download it; if there’s an old videogame I want to find, I’ll go to an abandonware site.
I try to be a little better about stuff that’s actually for sale, where I’m hurting the producers rather than the aftermarket, but even then I’ll still commit some infractions where the illegal method is much more convenient than the legal one.
I know it’s illegal; I’m not sure of the impact since IP monopoly power wreaks havoc on economic analyses. Media companies probably lose a bit in sales from me, because my leisure time is finite. (Of course, the same holds true for activities and media made legally available for free.) How does it impact prices? I’m not sure. (I’ve never bought the “companies have to raise prices to make up for the losses” argument; if they could make more money raising prices, they’ll do it anyway.)
Dada, Narcissus and Other Relative Nihilisms Now available at a Stolen Bookstore near you. All the buys are real steals. Also available now The Good German Question: Should I Just Sit by and Watch Big Evil or Should I Do My Small Part by Stealing Some Books Before They Get Burned?
(I’ve never bought the “companies have to raise prices to make up for the losses”? argument; if they could make more money raising prices, they’ll do it anyway.)
There is a point at which they don’t make more money raising prices. At the same time, as mousehounde explains in detail, businesses are there to make money. When theft cuts into their profits, they will try to find a way to eliminate that loss. Raising prices is one way. Understand, also, that the loss is not merely the theft, but the costs of preventing theft; if a store has to hire security guards, install cameras, etc., that’s a cost.
Smoking pot and shoplifting aren’t even remotely the same thing.
Smoking pot hurts no one but yourself. If enough people decide smoking pot isn’t any worse than that, the law will be changed. (Don’t hold your breath. The anti-smokers will combine with the anti-drug groups and prevent it.)
Shoplifting is theft, plain and simple. It’s bogus to draw a distinction between stealing in one building and stealing in another building. I’m hardly a fan of WalMart (I wouldn’t shop there if they paid me) but that doesn’t make stealing from them somehow okay.
The law isn’t some kind of anomalous thing the way this post seems to apply. It’s a social contract, the mechanism that allows several million people to live practically on top of one another without killing each other (much). Breaking the law is a crime against society, which is why stealing from WalMart is just as wrong as stealing from the Mom-and-Pop store on the corner.
The owners of The Stolen Bookstore say, Write on, Mythago. Right on!
The buying drugs contributes to bad people doing bad things argument is weak because it proves too much and too little. The same could be said about buying gasoline, which supports repressive regimes in, for example, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Nigeria. At the same time, it fails to explain why it should be illegal to grow marijuana for private use (a related jurisdictional issue is currently before the Supreme Court).
And, Amanda, are you sure it wasn’t even the slightest bit educational? My eight year old says we learn from everything we do….
Practically every decision someone makes (in America, anyway) harms somebody or another, directly or indirectly. If you have a job, that means somebody else doesn’t have it. If you go to bed at 9pm, you’re using less electricity than you might have if you’d stayed up later, thus you’re depriving the electric company of profit, which it might have passed down to its employees.
So the question is, when does it become too much harm?
It seems to me that shoplifting causes too much harm, because there are measurable consequences. The store owners paid for a product; they have the invoice for it; they have a record of who bought the product; they can tell if the product has, for all intents and purposes, disappeared. They’ve lost real money, regardless of whether or not the company “deserves” it.
Downloading songs and movies does not cause too much harm, in part because there’s no way to tell if someone would have bought the song or seen the movie if she hadn’t downloaded it. The company releasing the song or movie hasn’t really lost anything at all. Neither does smoking pot, which, if you think about it, helps individuals as much as it may support evil ones; without that income, they might be in even worse shape.
What about shoplifting from a place that sells things that were donated to them–Goodwill, for example? That’s much trickier. The company hasn’t paid for it, so they haven’t technically lost any profit, and the object might have ended up in the trash anyway. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
And what role do these kinds of stealing play in the so-called free market? I’m just wondering if the ability to thwart the buying-and-selling process is itself a part of the free market. Not in the sense that companies (for lack of a better word) should expect some losses due to stealing, but more about whether or not stealing is required to keep companies on their toes, to stop them from fully exploiting their customers, to push them to make changes in order to meet their customers’ needs and desires. The way, for example, downloading songs has forced music companies to consider the new ways in which we all produce, share, and listen to music.
Amp, are you serious?
“Nor would it bother me morally to shoplift from a huge corporation. “?
Seriously?
I can only marvel at the irony: Tomato Nation ran a contest that just ended yesterday, for the best Vine advice column letter ever, and “Young Nanna” won. You could be Jack. It seriously pains me to say so.
I won’t even bother pointing out what should be obvious: that stealing from “Huge Corporations” harms, in the end, only the low wage employees and the consumers whose prices get raised, and just say that I’ve just lost an enormous amount of respect for you and a lot of the people commenting here. I really would have thought that you’d know better.
Huge corporations are not inherently evil. Many of them do quite a lot of philanthropical work, both by giving money and also by encouraging their employees to be involved in their communities. Not to mention, of course, that all of the people employed by huge companies pay taxes that pay for the social services that help the people who need them, including you. All of the people who work for those companies, from the very top to the very bottom, work for their money. Just because you can’t see their faces doesn’t make it okay to steal from them. It just makes it easier for you to pretend you’re not hurting anyone. You don’t want to patronize a company? Fine. Don’t shop there. But don’t try to pass of stealing as some kind of morally neutral act, because the store you’re stealing from is owned by someone who worked their ass off and made good. That’s just disgusting.
I realize this. What I’m saying is that there is absolutely no reason for a corporation to price their products *below* this point (excepting bundling, loss-leader promotions, etc.) – they’re missing out on profits they could be making.
Now the only way theft (whether physical or virtual) would impact this pricing is if it changed this price point. Physical theft (actually taking an item) probably does, because it changes the supply. Does theft of IP (beyond a miniscule lowering of price due to decreased demand)?
The impression I get is that a company saying that it’s raising prices to counter theft, rather than saying it’s raising prices to make more money, is just PR – the former sounds better to the consumer.
All right, Jeff, I’ll bite: so okay, let’s assume that the corporation doesn’t raise prices to counter the theft. What do you think happens to the profits that that company didn’t make? Who do you think takes the first pay cut?
Not to mention the fact that companies pay taxes based on their profits. How much money in education funds did Oregon lose last year due to companies writing off theft and not having to pay taxes on the loss? Hmm? How many learning disabled kids had their supplemental programs cut because of lost tax revenue? Sure, the can of tomatoes you stole may only have stolen a quarter of a cent from my friend with Down syndrome who can’t get placed in a public school program, but you tell me that you feel okay about that when you actually go and take the money out of the hand of that kid, instead of hiding behind the fact that the company will just “absorb the loss. “
An unjust law is no law at all.
Just laws protect people’s rights, freedoms, health and safety, and do not cause harm to anyone innocent. They are the only ones that should be followed.
Laws that cause harm or favor the rights of one group over the rights of another group are unjust. For example, various legal things preventing gays from having their relationships recognized by law, or anything that prevents or punishes self-defense, or denies one person a right because of another’s conscience, are all unjust.
Unfortunately, such laws often exist. But, hey, if we didn’t have these laws, we wouldn’t have such fun raising hell when they happen to apply to us. (I’m hoping someday I run into one of those conscience-y pharmacists. ‘Cause it is really quite fun to ruin someone’s day when they really deserve it.)
Then there’s my wish that I could fly around the local highways at eighty or ninety miles per hour, but that law’s not particularly unjust. Just irritating. Oh well.
If you think so, it must be that you’re misreading what I wrote. Unlike Jack, I’m not claiming that shoplifting is good politics, or is not wrong at all. I’m certainly not thinking of shoplifting as “sticking it to the man.” It’s therefore illogical to say that my position is the same as Jack’s.
I’m sure you’re not saying that I should base my views on what garners respect from readers, rather than on what I honestly believe. So although I’m sorry to lose your respect, I’m not sure what you’re hoping to achieve by bringing that point up.
Perhaps not. But they are inherently too wealthy to be bothered much by a single theft of a 60-cent candy bar or even a $24 DVD.
Again, my point is not the “evilness” of the person or entity being stolen from – although that is an interesting other point. My point is the relative harm done by the single, specific shoplifting act, relative to the total wealth owned by the victim of the theft.
Including the security guards and video camera people and other folks employed specifically to deter or catch shoplifters, right? Or do taxes paid by those folks not go to social services?
This isn’t logical. The stockboy at Wal-Mart is not the owner of the candy bar I steal, and is therefore not being stolen from. On the contrary, if the stockboy decides he owns the candy bar and takes it without paying for it, that’s called “theft.” Just like shoplifting.
Furthermore – unlike the people hurt when I buy drugs legally, or buy sweatshop-produced items on sale at Wal-Mart legally – I can see the face of the stockboy. Why is shoplifting any worse than buying cocaine? In both cases, people are harmed (the conditions under which cocaine is processed by third world workers are horrific, and terrible for the health of the workers).
What the two cases have in common is, in both cases, the harm done by any single transaction (buying coke or shoplifting) is an almost inconcievably tiny portion of the real harm caused.
If I choose not to purchase cocaine – or not to shoplift – or not to drive an SUV – I’m not improving the world in any significant fashion. The third world workers will not suddenly have healthful, high-paying jobs if I don’t buy cocaine, and the Wal-Mart employees will not be given raises if I don’t shoplift that candy bar. So what’s the difference?
I’m sorry, but I don’t find your arguments persuasive.
Let’s be clear about my argument: I’m not claiming that shoplifting is “sticking it to the man.” I’m not claiming that it’s “morally neutral.” I am claiming that shoplifting is wrong in the same sort of way that buying cheap clothing (probably made in sweatshops), using drugs (ditto), driving SUVs, and eating meat are wrong. In all those cases, the individual act being discussed is a tiny micro-portion of the cumulative harm done by many thousands of people performing the same wrong acts.
So do I think shoplifting from Wal-Mart is wrong? Yes. (Although it still might be justified if the person shoplifting is desparately poor or hungry).
Do I think that’s it’s significantly worse than eating meat, or doing drugs, or buying stuff (including produce) produced in terrible working conditions, or driving when one could easily ride a bike? No. It’s pretty much the same thing as all those things, logically. It’s a wrong that is so tiny that it’s insignificant on an individual level, but significant when added up across thousands of people committing the same tiny wrong act.
Should we do such wrong acts? No. But probably all of us, or nearly all of us, do such wrong things, or things like them, on a frequent basis.
Now I am at odds with myself–is my not-really-that-educational illegal device made in China by sweatshop labor? If so, is that worse than my totally legal garments that are probably made by sweatshop labor?
Taking the law too seriously when you live in a place that’s “pass a law ag’in’t happy” is hard to do sometimes. I mean, our state constitution has a law against tying up your horse downtown, a law I do see the cops breaking all the time, mind you.
Oh, I totally listen to pirate radio. Is it legal to listen to it? I DJ’d at a pirate radio station a couple of times–is that illegal? The laws on that are sorta hazy.
Frankly, I have no problem with stealing from certain entities. Walmart is a good example. It’s not like 99% of Walmart employees are paid a living wage or treated with respect or have the opportunity to advance up the corporate ladder. It seems to me that Walmart is largely responsible for the long term decline of our economy (drive smaller businesses out, force manufacturers to sell at the price Walmart determines, illegal labor practices, nearly 100% of products sold are made outside the US, etc.). Walmart is evil. So, just the same way that I have no problem with Dahmer being killed by somebody, I have no problem w/ anything that inflicts damage on Walmart. But that’s a whole discussion of it’s own that will entail getting into details about the average Walmart employee’s salary and benefits, their income prior to working there, what a similarly skilled worker could have expected to earn in the days prior to Walmart existence as the 500 pound gorilla of retail and on and on.
Oh, one more thing. I have never bought anything at Walmart. I was in one once about 4 years ago and didn’t steal anything from them.
Here are all the laws I’ve broken:
sped (multiple times)
Ran a red light
Lied to a cop
Shoplifted
Sodomy (oral/anal)
Smuggling (fireworks)
Underage drinking
Theatre hoppping
Disturbing the peace (protest)
Breaking curfew
Vandalism
Cohabitation (still illegal in ND)
And I would smoke pot if I could find any.
The ones I feel bad about? Not a single one. The only one that even *twinges* at my conscience is the shoplifting. And that’s because quite technically, I know it’s bad. Again, I don’t shop at Walmart any more because it raises my kleptomania.
The reason I don’t feel bad? Because I think the law is not the end-all, be all, of a moral society. They’re guidelines, a lot of them are influenced by an entirely different perspective than mine is.
Do any of you play DandD? (I’m showing my nerdiness, I’m sure). I always come up chaotic good. I believe in taking each situation, and doing what’s best for the people involved.
This thread makes me sad. It’s true that we have and have had a lot of laws that do not exactly inspire respect for the law, but it seems that the conversation on this thread really assumes that the law that our community has constructed is irrelevant, the fact that our community has bothered to construct a law is irrelevant. It would make sense if we lived in a totalitarian society where citizens have no impact on the law, and I know a lot of times it can feel like we as individuals have no impact on the law, but it’s not true.
Even if from an abstract point of view, one person shoplifting does no greater harm than one person eating meat, we have illegalized shoplifting and not eating meat in our community, so someone who shoplifts is also disrespecting the community that made (and continues to make) that decision. It might be a big deal or a small deal, but to totally ignore that aspect of it bothers me a lot. It does not sound like citizenship of any kind.
Of course I don’t expect you to change your opinion because readers may lose respect for you. I might hope that if enough people whose opinions you respect stated that their respect for you was diminishing, you might think about why that is, but I was just making a statement of fact.
I think the ultimate point of the Jack letter is not that he does it as a form of protest, but rather that regardless of the reason, it is still wrong.
In your original post, you stated that it does not “bother [you] morally to shoplift from a huge corporation.” I took that to mean that you felt it was morally neutral, i.e., you are not bothered morally because you feel it is not immoral. Your clarification seems to state… Well, I’m not sure what your clarification states. You do think it is wrong to steal, but you think your part of the wrong is so small that it doesn’t matter, because so many people do it? Am I right about that?
“Do I think that’s it’s significantly worse than eating meat, or doing drugs, or buying stuff (including produce) produced in terrible working conditions, or driving when one could easily ride a bike?”
The difference between all of these examples (not including the drug example) and stealing is, obviously, that stealing is against the law. Now, you do not feel that drugs should be against the law. That’s fine, I can respect that opinion without having to agree with it. And, as I think we can all agree, it is always nice when people care to take on additional moral obligations that they feel are the right thing to do, regardless of whether they are required by law, such as not eating meat, or not driving when it is not required. But, from what I understand, you do think that stealing should be against the law. And, as Anne said so eloquently, “The law isn’t some kind of anomalous thing the way this post seems to apply. It’s a social contract, the mechanism that allows several million people to live practically on top of one another without killing each other (much).” The fact that something is against the law is not a neutral fact. Following the law is actually part of our obligation as members of this society. Disobeying the law as an act of protest is, of course, an exception, but it is my understanding that you do not care to protest the law against stealing. You do not feel that it is in unjust law. You think that it is perfectly fair: you just don’t always care to follow it, and you feel no qualms about that, because while it does harm people, you are williing to live with that. (Bully for you.)
So, we do acknowledge that stealing hurts people; we do acknowledge that stealing is against the law; we do acknowledge that stealing should be against the law. But, (and again, correct me if I’m wrong) according to your argument, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with stealing (but only from huge corporations, for some reason that I still do not understand) because so many people do it that, despite the fact that it does hurt people, and despite the fact that it is agaist the law, and despite the fact that that law is a perfectly fair law, you don’t have a problem with it, morally?
“The stockboy at Wal-Mart is not the owner of the candy bar I steal, and is therefore not being stolen from. On the contrary, if the stockboy decides he owns the candy bar and takes it without paying for it, that’s called “theft.”? Just like shoplifting.”
Okay, fine. Are you suggesting that no one owns that candy bar? Clearly, someone is the owner of that candy bar. I brought up the example of the lowest wage employees because I thought that you might have more concern for their ultimate bottom line than that of the owner of the store, or the chain, or the corporation, but it’s not the point. Are you suggesting that if the candy bar is owned by a rich person, it is now more acceptable to steal it? I mean, I assume that you were never is a position where stealing a candy bar was going to be the difference between starving to death and living another day: if you were, then of course, taking something from the person who can best afford it is the lesser of two necessary evils. I am willing to bet, however, that you never found yourself in this position.
So, am I to understand that the fact that stealing is against the law doesn’t make it any worse, in your opinion, than eating meat?
You seem to be arguing against a point I didn’t make. I’m not saying that theft is harmless, or acceptable, or that it doesn’t hurt anyone. All I’m saying is that when companies claim theft is the reason they’re raising prices, they’re probably lying. Theft still harms the company – in fact it’s more harmful, because there’s no easy way to reclaim those lost profits.
Shoplifters of the world, unite and take over…
It’s just a metaphor of course.
I don’t think shoplifting is anywhere as serious on the moral wrong scale as tax evasion (that I do mind a lot) or legal sales and purchases of products made by, for instance, child slave labourers, but ok, it’s still wrong. We don’t always know which products have been made with the ‘assistance’ of slave labourers, or other criminal practices, so we don’t always realise what we’re contributing to. But we do realise we’re stealing when we’re doing it. The effects are very different though.
Legal and moral are not always identical, and viceversa.
Jeff,
You were talking about whether there’s an impact on prices from stealing, as part of a larger discussion about whether stealing actually hurts anyone. I assumed that you were talking about it in that context. My apologies if that was not the point that you were making, although I’ll stand by the answer in general, since there are other people here who also seem to erroneously think that “shrinkage” of merchandise doesn’t factor into the price that the market will bear for a product, which is ultimately what merchants price their products at.
I take it you missed the news about marijuana passing corn as the US’s number one cash crop. Of course, then you get into the amoral-karma aspect of it, where saving a child could produce the next Hitler. Ending taxes might cause unthinkable death. Paying them, however, contributes to the violence of Prohibition. (See wheel of karma, value of escaping from.)
For everyone who’s been debating the ethics of Wal-Mart, and the ethics of stealing from Wal-Mart, and its effect on the employees, I submit the following:
1. Wal-Mart makes HUGE profits. Huge. Nobody’s shoplifting is going to cut into that enough to directly affect anybody’s salary. However,
2. The afore-mentioned huge profits do not affect anybody’s salary either. Wal-Mart pays low salaries because low salaries for the workers means high profits for the owners. For an example, giving back ONE PERCENT of the profits back to the employees would pay for free, comprehensive health insurance for all Wal-Mart workers. Instead, they offer badly inadequate company health insurance at prices that 3/5ths of employees cannot afford.
3. If the owners are so tight-fisted with their profits that they’d rather have one more percent profits than provide decent health insurance, then they will most likely find a way to pass on any losses to their employees. It’s not that Wal-Mart doesn’t deserve to be stolen from, but when the people you’re trying to hurt are in charge, they can see to it that the injury goes to someone else.
4. In any case, most of their stuff is made from sweatshop labor. Which means the people who made it suffer, whether you paid for it or not.
Regarding shoplifting in general: bad idea. Whenever you get something for nothing, somebody else gets nothing for something. Aphorisms aside, there are more interesting things to do at Wal-Mart. Like, go up to random customers and inform them of the various nasty things Wal-Mart does (gender discrimination in pay & promotion, anti-union, poor health insurance due to greed, et cetera). Or, attempt to fill a birth control or EC prescription there, and throw a hissy fit when they refuse. Or wear a pro-choice T-shirt or a non-Christian religious symbol and rant at anyone who attempts to harass you for it (most Wal-Marts have a few uber-conservatives on their payroll.) Heck, wear that “Always Discriminates/Always Wal-Mart” shirt and rant at anyone who attempts to harass you for it.
I once went to Sam’s Club with my parents a few years ago, and in the doorway there was some Christian organization asking for donations for something or other, and handing out those cards that have questions & answers about Christianity and salvation and so forth. If my parents weren’t there I would’ve complained that the cards were misleading, portraying opinions as facts, and I was not going to Heaven OR Hell when I died, but to the Summerland and then another reincarnation, and their God sounded like such a nasty, vengeful guy, so why would anybody want to worship him, and so on. But my parents were there so I couldn’t, but if anybody here should ever have the chance to try it, more power to you.
Kyra,
I agree with your overall point, however:
Quite obviously this is not true. Somebody, somewhere, is losing money when something is stolen. You (not you Kyra, but you hypothetical person) may feel that stealing a quarter from Sam Walton is not wrong. But you can’t suggest that you’re not stealing it from him.
That’s all.
ADS, maybe you’re over-analysing a simple, honest admission of something that a lot of people have done at some point in their lives, and while everyone accepts that, except in case of real necessity, it is wrong and ideally shouldn’t be done, it’s not as serious as other offences. I don’t know, I think that was the point of the question.
Like, a lot of people try to avoid paying a tv license, they may do it simply because they don’t want to pay, or because they object to the principle, whatever, but they know it’s wrong, if they actually have a tv… but we can all acknowledge it’s not as serious as massive corporate fraud, no?
Stealing directly from a person, is obviously more icky than shoplifting. Yes, someone “owns” that candybar – the producers, the retailers… but they’re barely going to notice it. Whereas, if you steal a candy bar from someone sitting next to you in the cinema, it’s not just that they will notice, but the fact it’s so personal makes it a little bit more pathetic. It gets even worse if it’s a friend or acquaintance. Unless you’re used to amicably and overtly stealing bits of food from each other, but we’re talking of something you actually want to hide.
I don’t know, I think the difference is intuitive. It doesn’t mean “impersonal” stealing is justified and acceptable, and personal isn’t. Even when the object being stolen is the same, and has a very small value, it’s still different degrees and kinds of stealing.
Tax evasion and fraud is also “impersonal”, but I think it’s worse than shoplifting, because it’s done in much more massive amounts, and because it’s a direct violation of a social duty, not just a loss of a sale for one company.
Again, different degrees of wrong, not a question of what should be legal or not.
Also, there’s a lot of legal practices that have harmful and long-term effects far worse than shoplifting. I think that’s what we all “live with” every day.
I can’t believe people are arguing for support for freaking Walmart.
Walmart moves into an area, and drives competitors out of business by undercutting their prices. How do they undercut prices? By paying starvation wages to their workers and selling goods made under conditions of near-slavery in third world factories.
Part of the way they get away with paying low wages to their workers is that the minimum wage is far too low to actually survive on. Most Walmart workers qualify for food stamps, and Walmart actually issues manuals to its workers on how to apply for food stamps and other forms of public assistance. Shifting their labor costs onto the community at large is a conscious part of Walmart’s strategy.
By driving competitors out of business, Walmart lowers the tax base for a community, and also often negotiates special tax breaks from communities in exchange for all these benefits a Walmart offers. Since Walmart isn’t paying for the public assistance that its workers need to survive, the rest of us are.
In other words, Walmart makes profits by robbing its workers, robbing the workers of the factories that produce the goods Walmart sells, and robbing the communities at large in which they operate. The end result is that Sam Walton gets incredibly rich — and he uses his wealth to support right wing political causes, particularly eliminating any “wealth transfer,” such as public education.
Go ahead and “steal” the candy bar, if you can get away with it. You already paid for it.
Hmmm, commit a crime like shoplifting especially for the rush and get away is one ultimate exercise of white privilage. I don’t know why anyone would want to flaunt it and call it making some sort of statement.
That’s not so tough to shoplift in most outlets. Store keepers are so busy profiling and following every person of color around the store to pay attention to where the white people’s hands are going, and what they are taking. White people are shoppers to be wooed. Black and Latino people are criminals that must be carefully eyeballed before they have a chance to rob the store blind. So if you’re white, and you shoplift, you are at least subconsciously carrying this thought in your head, that you can’t be caught, hence the invisibility aspect.
The ultimate irony was when I tried to report a white couple who were walking out after voiding $400 worth of merchandise at an auto-checker machine while management and the cops were hounding two Black male teens who didn’t do anything except dare to set foot in a store where allegedly two other Black teens had ripped off something like six months ago. No white teens would be held up like this. I didn’t get very far and the couple got away with a lot of goods.
If I was upset at a corporation, I would find another way to protest than stealing from it. Having been totally blamed when someone shortchanged me(another form of theft that’s not really…theft) for whatever reason, I’m not putting that on another employee because I don’t like what Sam Walmart is doing. As a form of protest, especially when among well-off folks, doesn’t wash with me. Sorry.
ADS and Tara, I do plan to respond to both of you, but I’m busy today. So I hope you won’t mind if there’s no further response from me until tomorrow. Meanwhile, I do appreciate and take seriously both your responses.
Edited to add: Same to you, Radfem – I didn’t originally include you because you and I cross-posted.
I appreciate other folks’ posts, too, but I’m not necessarily planning on responding to them all. Not that I wouldn’t like to, but time is limited, alas.
Monica,
Of course there are degrees of wrong. Is randomly punching someone in the face the same as randomly murdering them? Of course not.
However, I will disagree with you about something.
The only difference between stealing from a retailer and stealing from a person – barring, of course, the obvious exception, which is if you are actually, lietrally, starving – is that one is easier for the thief to personalize, and thus, harder to rationalize. Stealing a candy bar is stealing a candy bar, and whether the cost of that theft is covered by one person or spread amongst a hundred, you have still stolen the same amount, and your crime is exactly the same. Stealing from my great grandfather’s grocery store when he was a new immigrant and only owned one, versus stealing from one of his son’s store (my grandfather’s brother) after he’d founded PathMark and co-owned fifty? Exactly the same. No moral, legal or ethical difference whatsoever.
Now, do people make mistakes? Of course. I’m making the point because Amp brought shoplifting from “huge corporations’ up as something that “doesn’t bother him morally.” I’m saying it should bother him morally, and it should bother everyone else, too. Should people be executed for it? Of course not. Should we all be able to agree (and I cannot honestly believe I am having to argue about this with adults) that stealing is wrong without hemming and hawing and rationalizing? Yes.
Radfem, I agree with what you said. I’m more often arguing against petty lawbreaking on the grounds it puts a person at risk unnecessarily, even though the laws are unjust to begin with.
I wrote what I did because at the moment, I am more concerned with the absurdity of arguing against shoplifting on the grounds that you’re hurting profits. People need to get it through their heads that the profit system is the damned enemy.
Brian,
I can’t believe you’re suggesting that not stealing from WalMart is the same as supporting WalMart.
I won’t shop at WalMart. I’d rather go without something than shop at WalMart. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s okay to steal from them.
Sheesh.
ADS, I was countering the argument that stealing from Walmart is morally wrong. It may be foolish, for reasons RadFem lays out. But I don’t believe it’s wrong.
“Not stealing” isn’t supporting Walmart. Arguing that it’s wrong to steal from Walmart is supporting Walmart.
In another sense of “support,” we’re all already supporting Walmart, whether we want to or not. Walmart is systematically, deliberately stealing from us all, collectively — which is why I don’t think it’s immoral to steal from them.
I have more to say, but I got some business to deal with first….
I was mostly thinking of RadFem’s point about the racism of store “security,” but I missed her point that the employees get blamed for shortages and shrinkage, which IS an argument against shoplifting.
“Arguing that it’s wrong to steal from Walmart is supporting Walmart.”
Um, okay?
Arguing that people should shop at WalMart? Yes, that’s supporting WalMart. Arguing that it is wrong to steal from WalMart is simply not the same as supporting WalMart. It’s just arguing that stealing is wrong.
Which, you know, it is. Full stop.
Brian makes many good points, not the least of which is:
…the profit system is the damned enemy.
And it is the enemy of the vast majority of us – yes, even the “well to-do.” Corporations like Walmart (and banks & insurance companies) are set up to funnel wealth from the many to the few. And if you’re reading this you are not one of the few.
Radfem is absolutely correct when she says:
Store keepers are so busy profiling and following every person of color around the store to pay attention to where the white people’s hands are going…
I’ve seen it in action – it even happens when the people of color are neatly and/or expensively dressed & the white folks are punk squatters. And you know what? I don’t feel sorry for the storekeeper when the squatters wander off with his goods. It’s a moment of instant karma that you rarely ever get to see.
But to get back to the title subject, illegal does not equal immoral. If somebody shoots at you, is it wrong to shoot back? If somebody (or something) steals from you or your community, is it wrong to steal back?
What I see some folks saying is that shoplifting is bad because it is illegal, but tax evasion schemes (which are ways to steal the money owed to our government – us) are just fine because they are not illegal. Piffle & hogwash, I say!
There are lots of laws that I’ve broken that I don’t feel bad about – some of them I was nervous about getting caught, but I didn’t & don’t feel bad.
No. Stealing is not always wrong. So I don’t know that stealing is wrong. You may try to persuade me that your view is correct, but don’t tell me what I know.
We are all economically interlinked, and theft from stores and insurance fraud and the like do hurt regular people–the ones who follow the rules and DO NOT STEAL–but pay higher prices and insurance rates as a result. Of course the costs get passed on–they are a hidden tax on all goods, since all retail businesses incur theft, and we all pay for the theft. As someone who has never shoplifted, I resent those who justify their self-serving acts as such. The point is, I might work as hard as you, but I will have less, not only because I decline to steal but also because I pay for your theft. That’s not fair, and that’s why stealing is illegal.
Which is not to say that there is much that is legal that is completely unfair, nad much that is illegal that corporations get away with more readily than your average person, and of course Walmart steals, too: much in the same way shoplifters do, only on a much larger scale. They don’t clock the workers’ hours completely correctly, they shave off bits and bobs and as such steal from them. Of course, any one theft is only a little bit: a half hour from this employee, 5 minutes from another; perhaps that’s how the Walmart managers justify it, I wouldn’t know. (It’s only a little bit of their paycheck). The end result: billions in stolen profits. I think the people resonsible for this should go to jail for theft, too; the managers for a smaller amount of time and the suits at headquarters who make the managers feel like they have to steal from employees to meet their profit expectations a very, very long time. Cause stealing is wrong.
I’m sorry, who said that?
True and of course, not all things that are illegal are immoral, and vice versa.
However, if you break a law, with full knowledge and understanding of what you are doing, and not out of any dire need on your part (see above re: starving) you’d better be doing it because you believe that the law is wrong. If you are going to argue that stealing should not be against the law, fine. Argue that. I don’t think you’ll find many people to agree with you, but I’m sure you’ll enjoy the challenge.
Now, I don’t see anyone here saying that they think that that cheating the government out of tax money, either through illegal or not yet illegal methods, is okay. Just that stealing (which does, in fact, cheat the government out of tax money) is not.
Jake,
I don’t think the impetus for making the argument that stealing is wrong is on me. I think if you want to argue that stealing is okay in any instance other than the obvious one (see above again re: starving) the burden of proof is on you.
You’re right. Nobody literally said, “Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.” But if you put together the comments comparing pot smoking to stealing & saying that smoking pot is wrong because it’s illegal, you can probably see where I came to that conclusion.
Now, I didn’t say that stealing shouldn’t be against the law. I did say that stealing should not always be against the law. Just like killing somebody is against the law, but not always (see self-defense). Thus, in my view, stealing from Walmart (or most banks or most insurance companies) is not wrong and should not be against the law. They steal from us, we get to steal back from them.
To continue my woefully incomplete first paragraph – also include in the things that factor into my conclusion those comments that talk about laws as societal necessities in such a way as to imply that exceptions to any law are out of bounds.
Damn that’s incoherent, but I think there is enough there to understand.
Jake,
You missed my point. Stealing is wrong because it is wrong to take something that you have not paid for or earned from someone who has paid for and earned it. Stealing is also wrong because it is against the law. The law is an important part of society, and just as mugging an old lady is wrong both because you are taking something from her and because you are injuring her in the process, so is stealing wrong both because it is in and of itself wrong and also because by doing it you are breaking the law.
So, if someone steals from you, what is the proper course of action to take? You take them to court and you get your money back. If when they stole from you they did something illegal (which, by definition, they must have for it to be “stealing”) then that works. If, however, what you mean when you say “stealing” is actually just “engage in business practices that I find less honorable than I’d like,” without actual illegal practices, then no, you have no right to “steal” back from them. You can not do business with them; you can encourage others to not do business with them; you can lobby to make their legal business practices illegal. You cannot steal from them.
I mean, come on. That’s perilously close to the same logic that people use to murder abortion doctors.
Laws against stealing or shoplifting are just because they uphold, rather than constraining, individual natural rights.
Laws against smoking pot are unjust because they constrain, rather than upholding, individual natural rights.
Breaking any law, for any reason, is an intrinsic evil, because the lawbreaker is undermining, rather than upholding, the fabric of social contracts that holds society together without, as has been said, us killing each other much.
The quantity of wrong-ness in an illegal act, therefore, is a constant plus a variable. The constant is the violation of the social contract – smoking pot is speeding is shoplifting is burglary is assault is rape is murder is genocide – you showed a willingness to put your own ends above the social contract, you naughty person you. The variable is the moral consequence of the wrong action – speeding is about the same as smoking pot is less than shoplifting is less than burglary is less than assault is less than rape is less than murder is less than genocide.
Formal laws, being made in an ideal framework rather than an empirical framework, are inevitably violated by us fallible human beings; no human has a legal-moral status of 100% pure. How much impurity we can stand is a question of social dynamics and individual conscience. I can live with someone speeding and loading the occasional bowl. Shoplifting is iffy; I want to know the circumstances. (Starving people stealing bread to feed their children I can live with, even if it’s my bread – but they should have just asked for it.) Past that point and you’re violating the social contract, and the natural moral law, to an extent that society cannot tolerate your continued freedom of action.
The reason that the US has such a high incarceration rate isn’t that we hate criminals and poor people. It’s because we can actually afford to lock up all the people who ought to be locked up.
Really? You find that to be close to the same logic? So the logic that people use to murder abortion doctors is, “He is trying to kill me, so I will kill him?”
The “business practices” that many corporations use to steal are illegal. They just aren’t prosecuted. Why aren’t they prosecuted? Because unless they are overwhelmingly publicized (Enron – hardly a prosecution getting our money back), the politicians that they contribute huge sums of money (but far less than they steal) are able to protect them in return for past & future patronage. They aren’t prosecuted because the IRS has had it’s funding for audits greatly reduced by politicians funded by those same corporations and people. They aren’t prosecuted because congress (funded by the corporations and people stealing billions) has directed the IRS to focus on people claiming the EITC. If you think that the only morally justified response is to lobby the politicians whose careers depend on those doing the stealing – er, ok. But I think it is morally justified to steal back what we can from those companies.
Stealing a candy bar is stealing a candy bar, and whether the cost of that theft is covered by one person or spread amongst a hundred, you have still stolen the same amount, and your crime is exactly the same.
Well, what do you consider the “amount” of a candy bar: how much was paid for it, or how much profit one expects to make on it? Because if it’s the former, you haven’t technically stolen the same amount. A company pays less for the candy bar than an individual does; if that weren’t the case, the company wouldn’t make any profit. And if it’s the latter, then the comparison doesn’t apply to the individual.
Store keepers are so busy profiling and following every person of color around the store to pay attention to where the white people’s hands are going…
I’ve seen it in action – it even happens when the people of color are neatly and/or expensively dressed & the white folks are punk squatters. And you know what? I don’t feel sorry for the storekeeper when the squatters wander off with his goods. It’s a moment of instant karma that you rarely ever get to see.”
———————————————
I don’t feel sorry for the shop keeper either. That doesn’t how the storeowner is going to react to thefts by people not caught in the act. Who is he or she is going to “blame” for thefts that are occuring within the store because of racist stereotypes which penalize and privilage on the basis of race. Because the difference btwn whites and people of color is that it doesn’t matter WHAT people of color are wearing, they’ll be judged as bad or worse. How does a white person of privilage help that situation by stealing from that store?
(and it’s not like I haven’t heard this before. always by white middle-class liberal university student activists, and I support a lot of what they do–not this. )
I guess I’m tired of my friends sons and daughters being harassed by storeowners when all they want to do is look around but are suspected of “casing” for a theft and treated accordingly. I don’t feel like whites shoplifting b/c it’s fun, subversive or anything less than for absolute necessities helps address that situation, or any situation. A white person’s choice of how to rebel against an unfair institution(and I’m not saying they’re not), I think, should be made with SOME consideration of how it impacts either those you purport to “help” or at least people who might have to “pay” for your stealing in a way, if you’re white, you won’t. Because you are not judged on appearance, a thief, or a if-not-right-now-one-minute-later thief.
If you’re stealing for civil disobedience purposes, then you do know that taking responsibility for breaking the law goes part and parcel with this act.
Hey Jake, mind if I break into your house and steal *your * stuff? I understand you think it’s probably wrong, but if you can jsutify stealing from anyone who’s buisness prectices you don’t approve of moraly, I can sure justify stealing from someone who’s in favor of theft as a means of protest.
How much do you think I could get for your stuff on eBay?
Radfem makes a good point about other consequences to shoplifting, and how it’s going to hurt the wrong people. Would I be incorrect in assuming that you mean that the white youth, shoplifting as a sort of civil disobdedience, are partly responsible for the unjust prosecution of minority youth?
I’m reminded of the arguments we’d have about property destruction in anti-globalization protests: many of us opposed smashing Starbucks windows, not because we wanted to protect Starbucks and its holy property rights, but because we were worried about others, particularly minority youth, getting scapegoated, and we were worried about alienating people who lived in the community.
In any case, shoplifting is, at best, an ineffective way to oppose the property system. Organizing a union among Walmart workers, for instance, would be much more effective. And many of the classic arguments against labor unions are based on the assumption that they’re cutting in on profits without any right to do so.
ADS and Robert seem to be coming at this both from the point of view that property rights are intrinsically good and must be respected. I don’t accept that it is so. We’re coming at this problem from different ideologies; different schema of right and wrong.
Robert and Hestia also make arguments about how violating laws, which are part of the social fabric, hurt society as a whole. This is a profoundly conservative argument — the nod towards the existence of procedures to change the law notwithstanding. The abolitionists who operated the Underground Railroad were violating the law, when there were, ostensibly, procedures for changing the law. But it took a war to end slavery. Did they hurt society by helping slaves escape slavery?
Sorry, I meant Lisa, not Hestia.
Radfem makes a good point about other consequences to shoplifting, and how it’s going to hurt the wrong people. Would I be incorrect in assuming that you mean that the white youth, shoplifting as a sort of civil disobdedience, are partly responsible for the unjust prosecution of minority youth?
———————–
Not as much for the storekeeper’s actions(not to mention a supervisor who might expect that behavior of store workers) except that if that white person steals, and gets away with it, then the shopkeeper if they notice the thefts might use racist stereotyping(which is their bad as it’s their behavior) to be even more persecutory. So in an indirect way, yes. That’s what I told students who wanted to shoplift at a campus bookstore in protest of the posting of pictures of suspected shoplifters, mostly nonwhite. But I think if you do that, then you should do it, and get your picture up there too(of course, you would have to be much more than “suspected”). Or work together with other students to protest that practice and end it. You get a free candybar, no penalty and you get to tell yourself you’ve stuck it to the man. Only you haven’t, not in any way that makes any difference except possibly to reinforce racial stereotyping.
The Black student Alliance opposed the shoplifting as protest idea, and gave several good reasons why.
If you steal and don’t get caught, well, you’re helping yourself feel better, because there’s no consequences for your action, and you know it, and you know why. And you know that when you do it. And you may or may not know or think of the consequences it has on others, but then again that’s also privilage at work, because Whites don’t have to consider consequences. And even among white activists, often it doesn’t even dawn on them that our actions can harm.
One of the troubles I run into with activism is white people not understanding why there aren’t more minority activists at their events — when the liberals are talking about collaborating with the police to make a demonstration run smoothly, and the anarchists are planning to throw rocks at the police and run away.
Robert and Hestia also make arguments about how violating laws, which are part of the social fabric, hurt society as a whole. This is a profoundly conservative argument…Did [abolitionists] hurt society by helping slaves escape slavery?
Yes. It was just worth the cost. It’s wrong to break the law to steal food to feed my starving baby; it’s worth it, however. It’s a morally perilous track – at the end of it are death camps and gulags – but we are morally responsible beings and sometimes we have to do wrong in order to do right.
ADS and Robert seem to be coming at this both from the point of view that property rights are intrinsically good and must be respected. I don’t accept that it is so.
There are philosophies that do not contain the concept of property that can lead to decent and good societies. Once the concept of property is articulated and part of the social fabric, however, then there are no philosophies which do not uphold property rights as intrinsically good that lead to such societies.
Taking your own political philosophies as a starting point, there’s a reason that nations which implement your ideas and which have a basic concern for property rights end up being relatively decent, if economically stagnant, places to live, and that nations which implement your ideas without a basic concern for property rights end up being totalitarian shitholes. Sweden vs. Cuba, amigo.
In our city most of the anti-war/peace movements are white b/c most of the activists in our city who are Black or Latino are already spending most of their available time on issues pertaining to community(which is hard when the city is trying to destroy, otherwise known as gentrify, your community. Businesses, small v large, etc.
Activism among upper middle-class(economically) African-Americans and Latinos in my city is more geared towards politics and getting involved with political campaigns. Most of the major organizations citywide have formed a coaltion to put together candidates to change the alignment of the current “good old white boy” council currently in place. They are still fairly grass-roots but also have connections.
Access to city resources. community block grant funding. Eminent Domain. Police issues, both in terms of violent crimes and police misconduct. Today, saving a gang intervention program which has helped many teens, which kind of went well, but very contentious. Takes a lot of guts to speak in support of gang intervention and prevention in front of the police union board, who’s probably got a guy out writing down plate numbers in the parking lot, but it worked.
The policing issues in my city draw on all class lines though, because more money, doesn’t get you away from being followed or pulled over, or harassed by police or your kids. The racism is still there, although it’s impact and how it’s manifested may be similar but also different. That happened in a big way, six years ago after a young Black woman was shot to death in her car by four white officers. Latino activists who’ve also been active in police issues joined up, which before this shooting was rare b/c usually communities protested the shootings within them, except for whites who don’t protest shootings of whites but expect African-Americans and Latinos to do that for them. Whites joined, but for the most part, you had the “letter from a birmingham jail” situation especially among the White ministers and the academics from the local university. It’s also hard for whites to be part of a political movement they can’t lead or dictate.
In activism, although I’ve focused mostly on police issues, because it’s hard to spread out too thin, and that’s where I’ve been most effective. So I do other things, like courts, but mostly police.
I haven’t been involved in working protests out w/ police or DOJ CR folks. I will keep an eye on them, and if someone has a problem with them, i.e. failure to take a report on assault and battery against a peace demonstrator by a counter-demonstrator and the cop says, “if you don’t like it, go home”, I’ll just explain about the civilian complaint system and b/f four words are said, the note pad will come out and the officer will apologize. And I will assist people who want access to complaint process.
OTOH, I don’t advocate any violence except self-defense against officers. The law allows this, at least in my state but it’s difficult to win on this. Throwing rocks is asking for brutality against everyone there, and I say asking only because it won’t just be you affected, but other people who aren’t doing anything but being peaceful. That doesn’t excuse a cop clubbing or running horses over kids, but again, you have to think of the potential consequences to other people besides yourself who might suffer injury or death b/c of what you do. Is a kid that might get clubbed worth that rock you just threw?
OTOH, police often act brutalily w/o provacation and then use a bottle or rock that doesn’t exist as an excuse later on. That’s why video cameras by activists at protests is so very important and mandatory. I’ve been hit by a baton, pepper-balled, and hit by rubber bullets just by being there, and so have many others. The LAPD are really bad at demonstrations, for example, especially police brutality ones. There’s a difference in how anti-war demonstrations are viewed by them, and police brutality(i.e. Oct22 day marches) that hits more where it hurts.
What does shoplifting as a form of protest have to do with the Underground Railroad, as a means of escaping and resisting slavery?
Hmmm, that’s a bit of a reach don’t you think?
I can’t see how any of the people who’re advicating stealing from large, even evil corporations like Wal Mart manage to (presumably) not be OK with getting mugged by a member of a poor minority group that’s opressed by the US.
After all, you’re citizens of *some* country, and that country probably does bad things. So it ought to be OK for the citizens of an opressed country to stick up citizens of an opressing country.
Right?
There’s a karmic lesson here none of you are learning.
Josh,
I am OK w/ getting mugged. I have been mugged. I have been burgled. I wasn’t mad at the muggers or the burgler. I don’t know much about the muggers, other than they were minority. I do know that the burgler was/is a heroin addict. I understand that he takes what he steals, sells it cheap and buys heroin. I feel sorry for him and sympathize. If there were a legal way to get heroine or a viable rehab system or affordable, legal heroin I wouldn’t feel for him.
I only got mad at him when he tried to sue me & when he tried to harass my family.
So, yes. If you feel that I am stealing from you & you need the money, I won’t be mad at you if you try to burgle my stuff. But I will try to prevent you from succeeding. Two vaguely contrary positions, but there you have it. So have at it.
Radfem,
In the example I gave, it seemed to me that the punks were shoplifting for survival – maybe not the best choice -, not for the thrill or for civil disobedience. I can see the validity of the point that you are making, though. I can also see the truth in it.
Josh,
Too bad karma doesn’t exist. At least not within individual human lifetimes. You have no idea how much I wish karma was a real thing (for personal reasons). Anyway, if it did exist, US citizens would be up shit creek.
Radfem, that was a pretty flip comment I made about race relations and police — I was thinking of some specific experiences, but you did a good job of addressing some fo the broader issues. I have seen more integration in anti-death penalty work, by contrast — largely because the anti-death penalty groups I work with make enormous efforts to involve the families of people on death row.
I brought up the Underground Railroad because I wanted to respond to Robert’s argument about the nature of law, and I thought we should move past the “shoplifting as civil disobedience” discussion, which I thought had been run into the ground, and bring up an example of deliberate law-breaking that most would agree was principled and moral.
But they are inherently too wealthy to be bothered much by a single theft of a 60-cent candy bar or even a $24 DVD.
Who is this “they”? The corporate entity (which can’t feel anything)? The shareholders?
Here’s who is bothered much: The employees of that store, who have to account for what happens on their shift, the ones who aren’t wealthy (let alone “inherently too wealthy”) to shrug off the consequences of your theft.
May I say that it’s especially pathetic to justify the theft of a “60-cent candy bar or even a $24 DVD”–these are hardly survival items stolen by people desperate for a meal.
Argh! I agree with Mythago! It burns!
At last, you begin to see reason.
I am OK w/ getting mugged.
Good for you. You must be one of those people with generous disposable income.
I don’t feel sorry for the shop keeper either. That doesn’t how the storeowner is going to react to thefts by people not caught in the act. Who is he or she is going to “blame”? for thefts that are occuring within the store because of racist stereotypes which penalize and privilage on the basis of race
You do mean white shopkeepers, right? Because you couldn’t possibly be suggesting that, say, African-Americans are not shopkeepers and do not have to worry about theft.
Aiee! She’s applying a coherent moral value system to people without concern for their external group identities! Make the agreeing stop, Barry, make it stop!
The only difference between stealing from a retailer and stealing from a person – barring, of course, the obvious exception, which is if you are actually, lietrally, starving – is that one is easier for the thief to personalize, and thus, harder to rationalize.
ADS – but that’s basically what I meant. I wasn’t claiming one is more objectively morally justifiable than the other, of course the act is still theft – just saying, we view these acts differently also because of the degree of impersonality and direct consequences involved. I am not preaching about morals here, I think we all know the basics already there. But there is a cognitive difference, if you like, you can call it rationalisation, but it’s a perception of a difference in terms of other factors besides the act of stealing itself. Normally, people are less bothered by a petty theft from a big corporation simply because the effect of that stealing is so spread out you don’t feel like you’re hurting anyone directly. Nevermind any “political” factors of protest and such – I also this it’s not a valid method of protest, well, except perhaps when it’s an organised expropriation done publicly with a specific protest intent – doesn’t make it “right” but at least the act of defiance is overt and the protest intent, gneneral or specific, is declared, and may have an effect in terms of provoking debate. (I’m thinking of a recent instance of this, where I live in Italy a group of activists broke into a supermarket chain and overtly stole a few shopping carts of goods, from diapers to food to mobile phones – to protest the raise in prices and the failure of ordinary wages to match that raise. This was done more often in the 70’s, it was a classic technique. I’m not saying, oh what a clever and morally justifiable thing to do. I don’t even want to express a judgement per se on the act itself. But what was interesting was, it did spark a lot of debate in the press on wages and prices and the rising cost of life, and it served a political purpose, whatever one thinks of the method or general politics of that kind of activists. Individual shoplifting cannot really be rationally justified in terms of political protest, because you’re never doing it publicly or overtly, and you’re never really stating an intent. The ‘political protest’ in that case will be pure rationalisation).
That’s my impression at least. I’m not saying this to “defend” what Amp wrote, it’s just, from my perspective, I didn’t read it as an endorsement or invitation to go stealing en masse from big corporations – but as a realistic observation of that mechanism by which we perceive a difference and why shoplifting from a supermarket bothers us less than personal theft. I just don’t see the need to get all that serious and preachy about a candy bar, really. I think the question raised was more about that degree of “bothersome” in personal experience, than advocating a redefinition of what’s absolutely right and absolutely wrong…
Jake: So, yes. If you feel that I am stealing from you & you need the money, I won’t be mad at you if you try to burgle my stuff. But I will try to prevent you from succeeding. Two vaguely contrary positions, but there you have it. So have at it.
Oh, but if I try and sue you and harras your family, you’ll be mad? Well, I fail to see the difference between the two actions. for that matter, I fail to see a difference between mugging you andf taking *everything* you have.
Too bad karma doesn’t exist.
Oh, it does, just not the way most westerners understand it to work. It’s not a force of ballance or punishment. It just means, at the core, that actions have consequences.
Mythago: I don’t think Jake really wants to care about the employees. They’re somehow culpable in his eyes.
Jake, it would do well to remember that it’s easier to feel sorry for a mugger when all he takes in your money. From what I understand, when women are mugged, rarely does the mugger not take advantage of the moment to sexually assault on one level or another.
I think that there’ s a way both to critique a system that encourages mugging and hold muggers responsible for their actions.
That being said, there are times when I feel shoplifting in not reprehensible, though usually it bugs the shit out of me since my mother owned a small clothing store and had to always fend off shoplifters, lest they drive her out of business. But, I do recall a friend of mine in high school whose dad would always leave town for days and not leave him any money or food. And sometimes he would steal food because he was hungry. I think shoplifting is bad, but in his case, I think it’s understandable. In a way that mugging is not.
*alot of those “in”s are supposed to be “is”. New keyboard, sorry.
Mythago,
I wouldn’t say that I have a generous disposable income. But I do have far more than most people in the world. I don’t want to be mugged/burgled, but I understand the normal motivation behind theft & do not condemn it.
Josh,
You don’t see the difference between theft & physical violence? You don’t see the difference between taking $100 and taking everything that a person owns? Wow, I hope that’s hyperbole.
As to employees, they’d be better off if Walmart ceased to exist – the higher paying/better treating jobs that Walmart extinguished might exist again. But, no, I don’t see the employees as culpable. I’m not sure where you got that from.
Amanda,
I agree w/ you about the violent aspects of mugging. I, perhaps foolishly, was addressing solely the thievery aspect of mugging.
Here’s the big point of contention between me & those arguing from the other side. I don’t think that we have the right to own/have as much as we can get – no matter the rules of the game that we are born into. I believe that as long as the vast majority of people don’t have enough food, shelter & medical care to have a decent quality of life (nor the system or rules to even allow for that possibility), we are stealing from those with less than us.
(I know, you’re going to say, “Then give all your stuff away and take a vow of poverty.” The problem with that is, if only I do it then I just suffer for it & no change is made. My stuff will just wind up w/ the Gates’ & Bush’s & Soros’s of the world. It doesn’t seem like a viable strategy to me. I’d rather do what I can to advocate for a change to the system.)
I do, however, live in our economic system & I’m not going to ignore that. I will take what I can for me & mine while denouncing the built-in unfairness of it.
But, holy fuck, you people care so much more about keeping those w/ less than you from stealing your stuff than you do about those with unimaginably more than you stealing your stuff. And, it seems to me, just because those w/ unimaginably more stuff have arranged for their method of theft to be legal. Wake up & see where the threat to your economic well-being is coming from. It ain’t from shoplifters & petty thieves. How much did the S&L scandal cost us? If the IRS was funded & empowered to collect the easily identifiable $300 billion a year that tax cheats avoid by using off-shore accounts & shell corporations, we could still break even if we exempted those earning less than $532/wk from income taxes & gave the rest of us a $4,000/yr tax break. But, no! You’re worried about shoplifting? Give me a fucking break.
Wake up & see where the threat to your economic well-being is coming from. It ain’t from shoplifters & petty thieves.
Hear, hear…
Jake, I think the difference here is that you think that because there are things in the world that are worse than shoplifting means that we shouldn’t care about shoplifting. I don’t take advantage of the fact that people murder each other to suggest that no one should take it seriously if I assault little old ladies.
Now, you don’t mind being mugged. Bully for you. Maybe I do. Do you think I should have just been happy the last time I was asaaulted and mugged that the people trying to take my stuff probably needed it more than I did? As opposed to feeling like the fact that I get up early every morning and work my butt off all day for my paycheck to buy the things I need and want entitles me to keep it? Does the fact that I give a good ten to fiifteen percent of my gross pay to charity even before anyone takes taxes out of it mean that I should be immune from mugging? Maybe we should all have little signs to wear that state whether we’ve already given away enough of what we’ve earned, so that the people whose job it is to violently redistribute the wealth as they see fit know to go after my sister instead.
How do you determine how much any particular huge corporation has “stolen” from you, personally? A lot of people seem to think that Barnes and Noble is the ultimate evil, but they give mililons and millions of dollars to literacy programs, especially to inner city literacy programs, every year; not to mention the fact that B&N is basically a success story of a public school kid who managed his independant bookstore so well, and treated his customers so fairly, that he made it big. You may think that the world would be better off if no one ever made enough money to help as many people as they do, but I think that’s just naive and shortsighted.
Big does not equal evil. Without property rights all you have is a society in which women, children, the disabled and smaller men are subservient to the biggest male around. We’ve spent the last thousand years developing a society where everyone is treated fairly. Is it perfect? No, of course not. Should we accept its imperfections passively? Of course not. But I don’t particularly care to go back to the dark ages just because you don’t think we’re not perfect enough.
this whole setup is lovely, really.
Nothing like hearing a bunch of Legalists set up a strawman, and then have people argue to defend that strawman for no particularly good reason.
neither Amp, nor anyone else in the original discussion, was saying that theft is a moral act, or even amoral. They merely stated that theft from, for example walmart, who is the entity you’d steal from, not a stock boy, and not even a manager or CEO, the actual wrong perpetrated is on the same scale as eating meat, or using gasoline.
The argument that “violating the law damages social fabric” is ludicrious, as that requires a declaration that a person who parks without feeding the meter is immoral. such a claim is ridiculous.
Walmart is the entity being stolen from in the example. Walmart, like all corperations, has citizenship rights to a disturbing degree, including property rights. Without question, theft eats into their bottom line. But they cannot, and will not, raise prices to counter it. If the ideal price to maximize profit on a candy bar is 60 cents, they aren’t going to to charge 50 cents unless there is theft, they’ll charge 60 cents regardless of theft. it’s basic microeconomics.
Josh, you seem to be arguing that legality is the sole determining factor in the morality of an act. Daimonds are legal, but marijuana is not, so buying daimonds is an amoral act, while buying pot is immoral, even though any sort of negative cost there is idenitical.
Morality and legality are independant concepts. The weight of the individual act must be weighed independant of others. The categorical imperitive is bunk. bunk I say!
and if Kant doesn’t like that, he can bring his obsessively punctual ass back from the grave and tell me himself.
Barnes and Noble doesn’t give to literacy programs out of the goodness of its heart. It’s a corperation. By design, it isn’t supposed to act on any motivation other than rapacious greed. The only reason a company does anything philanthropic is because they believe the positive effect it would have on their name counterbalances the cost.
Exxon wouldn’t even be in the business of cleaning up their own oil spills if they didn’t believe (and rightly so) that the damage to their reputation would hurt their profits.
barnes and noble gives to literacy programs because: 1) it’s good publicity (it got you saying nice things about them, didn’t it?) and 2) because any of those educated little readers may in a few years show up and spend 20 bucks for a copy of some book already in the public domain.
I don’t actually make a moral judgement in that fact. Corperations are entities of greed by design, and it would be just as irresponsible for them in a capitalist system to start acting like non-profit charities. But a corperation doesn’t have morality. They have costs and income, and they are driven solely by what minimizes the former and maximized the latter.
ADS,
How much has been taken from you by burglars and muggers in your life? Is it more than 7% of all the taxes that you have paid? I ask this because 7 cents of every dollar in taxes that you pay is to cover the money being stolen by the big tax cheats.
That is my point. You’ve fallen for the slight of hand that allows the Walton family, among others, to continue to rob you blind.
Dude, that’s exactly where we are right now. You just don’t want to see it. The biggest male around is the one who made his form of theft legal. But all you can do is say, “That’s legal, so that’s okay.”
People, generally speaking, steal because they need to survive. Not because they are modern day Robin Hoods. Maybe we should all advocate for a society in which everybody has sufficient food, shelter & medical care. Maybe that would result in the biggest reduction of theft crimes possible.
But nooooooooo. You want to follow the same logic that puts somebody who steals a car in prison for 4 to 10 yrs, but only gives 6 months or less to somebody who embezzles $750,000 or more. And that, sir or madam, is a losing proposition for all of us who don’t have millions of dollars.
If you want to have the vaguest chance of convincing me that your views have validity, how about giving me some numbers instead of hysterical fear of being robbed on a more personal level rhetoric.
Let’s start w/ B&N. How many millions have they given and to what and what measurable good has that done? How much have they paid in Federal taxes in that same time period? How much was the actual Federal tax that they should have paid? Using the old, time-tested method of underpricing until the competitor goes out of business, how many small, local bookstores w/ better pay and better working conditions did they drive out of business? What damage did that do to the Federal tax base?
It’s a little more complex than, “But they gave millions to the charity of their choice.
This just amazes me to no end. As long as you don’t see the person who is taking your money, you’re okay with it. I’m flabbergasted. How come you don’t mind it when Walmart takes your hard-earned moolah via tax fraud & illegal/immoral labor practices but you do care when people w/ less than you steal from Walmart?
Look, over here! Baseball players use STEROIDS!!! Don’t pay any attention to the various frauds going on w/ huge companies & the ultra-wealthy. Because, look!!! Britney Spears is pregnant! That’s so much more important than the money the truly, absurdly wealthy are taking out of your pocket.
Pay attention, wake up & do some research to see where most stolen money & goods go. It’s not to the poor. It’s not even to the relatively well-off like me. It goes to the people who pay for the campaigns of your elected officials. Publicly funded elections might change that.
You are waaaaay more concerned with the poor getting your stuff than you are with the rich getting your stuff. And that makes no sense since the ultra-rich take far more from you than the poor do.
“I don’t feel sorry for the shop keeper either. That doesn’t how the storeowner is going to react to thefts by people not caught in the act. Who is he or she is going to “blame”? for thefts that are occuring within the store because of racist stereotypes which penalize and privilage on the basis of race
You do mean white shopkeepers, right? Because you couldn’t possibly be suggesting that, say, African-Americans are not shopkeepers and do not have to worry about theft. ”
Of course they own shops. We have two downstairs from our building. Of course they worry about theft. One of many reasons they attract African-American shoppers is because FTMP, there’s not the same type of scrutiny. It’s not easy to own a Black business downtown though there’s two restaurants, an antique store and a clothing store in the pedestrian mall area. There’s still a lot of racism particularly in redevelopment loans downtown. The supper club below us went through two years of the worst red tape to get a loan($150,000) for their business much smaller than one given to three white owned restaurants, one Italian, one English style and a deli/bakery. These three latter businesses have gotten loans btwn half a million and three-quarters of a million. The Black-owned soulfood/bbq place had to relocate to make room for one white-owned restaurant b/c the city’s largest hotel(owned by one of the city’s most powerful white businessmen) didn’t want the restaurant across from the front-side of his hotel.
What I’m referring to is a neighborhood of predominantly Latinos and African-Americans where few businesses are owned by people in the neighborhoods except for several small restaurants, speciality grocery stores(Mexican, Pakistani for example) and barbershops/salons. There is one large chain market that’s regional and has a horrid record of racial discrimination among employees and has been sued and settled. KMART, the supermarket, Thrifty and other businesses, including some larger clothing places are owned by Whites almost exclusively. KMART, the market. FOOD 4 LESS and the 99 cent store also owned by a white man get the most complaints of racial profiling among the businesses.
Fastfoods are prevalent given the proximity to the freeway and the uni. All from major corporations, like McDonalds, Carls, Jr. and BK, KFC and Popeyes. Women and men of color have better opportunities for management in these businesses and even ownership of franchises. They employ within the area, but more and more are phasing out FT(they’re aren’t really that many) positions and making more PT and more students are taking those jobs.
No Walmart or Target, b/c Kmart had enough votes on the city council to keep them from building across the street.
Most of the gas stations, liquor stores, convenience stores of which they are a high number of each are owned by Arab-Americans, Korean-Americans and Indian or Pakistani Americans respectively. They usually hire within their own racial or ethnic groups although the more years they have in the neighborhood, the more they hire within the neighborhood. And none of these business owners live within the city b/c I know a lot of them. They are involved in varying levels with the community and the city.
Complicating things further is a student population from the nearby University of about 13,000 people. Mostly White, and Asian, or Asian American(mostly from Southern Asia, Pacific Rim and Taiwan), and the inevitable gentrification when white middle-class people need housing. The long-range plan is to phase out the community I just spoke of above. Most of the people who won’t be able to afford staying or who will face Eminent Domain(the city’s already lettered some families near downtown’s border), will probably go to MoVal, Rialto, San Bernardino, or Perris if they’re poor and Black. If they’re middle-class, maybe to my current neighborhood. If they’re Latino, probably Norco, San Jacinto, Perris, Hemet or Mo Val.
Btw, I’ve been almost mugged four times, but fortunately got away. I’ve never particularly liked it. I’ve ran off people trying to break into my apartment at night, and escaped from a guy who grabbed me at gunpoint at the community college. All I remember is being scared.
Jake,
So, what, you’re just making things up now?
Since you seem to have missed the point of everything I’ve said, again, I’ll put it even more simply.
I am not saying that I think that cheating on your taxes is good, or unimportant. I am saying that the fact that you don’t like the tax system, or that there are corporations, or that some people make and have more money than others, does not in any way give you the right to take things that do not belong to you.
You want to organize a symbolic shoplift from WalMart day to make your point? Go ahead. If you’re just shoplifting stuff that you want from a store that you don’t like, you’re not making any difference. You’re not striking a blow for socialism or poverty awareness or human rights. You’re just being a thief. Rationalize it all you want, say that they do worse to you and other people, say that they deserve it for being nasty horrible evil greedy people, say that the system is unfair, but in the end, you’re still just a thief.
And, Jake, this time, before you reply, please actually read my post, because I’m really sick of you arguing points I haven’t made, okay? Thanks.
“How come you don’t mind it when Walmart takes your hard-earned moolah via tax fraud & illegal/immoral labor practices but you do care when people w/ less than you steal from Walmart?”
—————————————————
So you have to shoplift to care about these issues? You can’t advocate fighting them in other ways, that hey, might be a hell of a lot harder than lifting a candybar or an outfit a couple times a week…Maybe working with people adversely affected by Walmart rather than stealing for YOURSELF to make YOURSELF feel useful, at their expense.
Hell, that makes a ton of sense that you can’t care if you don’t rip corporate america off. Show your concern towards the exploited labor force by stealing which will come back and bite them, and it will bite the customers of Walmart who might just go to Walmart, b/c it’s all there is, and maybe they can’t commute to more progressive stores(let alone afford their higher prices…elevating ones conscience often means elevating prices to pay for items which makes the whole sick system bite even more)
“Look, over here! Baseball players use STEROIDS!!! Don’t pay any attention to the various frauds going on w/ huge companies & the ultra-wealthy. Because, look!!! Britney Spears is pregnant! That’s so much more important than the money the truly, absurdly wealthy are taking out of your pocket.
Pay attention, wake up & do some research to see where most stolen money & goods go. It’s not to the poor. It’s not even to the relatively well-off like me. It goes to the people who pay for the campaigns of your elected officials. Publicly funded elections might change that.
You are waaaaay more concerned with the poor getting your stuff than you are with the rich getting your stuff. And that makes no sense since the ultra-rich take far more from you than the poor do. ”
———————————————-
Oh, so if we don’t agree with you, we’re part of the uneducated unclean masses who OD on Britney Spears and baseball, whoever the hell these people are. The above is code for basically thumbing your nose at the rest of the population who doesn’t share your ideals, and I think we all succumb to that. I’m not saying don’t criticize mass consumerism and its affect on people. But to assume people who disagree with you fit some negative stereotype assigned to people “in the know” activists thumb their noses(while trying to help, go figure) at, because after all, they know better.
I’m not as well-researched on Walmart as I should be. However, I think if I were, I would come up with an alternative to ripping them off.
“You are waaaaay more concerned with the poor getting your stuff than you are with the rich getting your stuff. And that makes no sense since the ultra-rich take far more from you than the poor do. ”
Oh, and news flash…there’s people that are way poorer than you that are worried about YOU getting all their stuff.
As far as B&N is concerned, agreed. But don’t rip off their books or their java. Why not do your shopping and support independent bookstores? They need it, and they appreciate it. If they have volunteer positions and you have some time available, think about helping them.
ADS,
But would I feel bad about shoplifting/stealing/mugging/burgling if that was what I needed to do to have a place to live and food? No. No, no, no, no, no.
Do I feel bad when people rip off Walmart? No. Why? Because Walmart is stealing from me & every other person in our country. Because Walmart is a huge part of the reason that people need to steal stuff. Reap what you sow and all that. We live in a theft-based society. We’re all thieves in one way or another. So call me a thief and deny that you are a thief – it just makes you naive or lying. You draw a hard line between the morality of legalized theft & illegal theft and I don’t. My line is necessary/unnecessary.
It’s not that I don’t like our tax system. It’s that our tax system is created & maintained by those who have made their type of theft legal. I’d love to change that, but I don’t have the money necessary. And, you know what else? I don’t care that that form of theft is legal. It is wrong, not least because it forces others to have to steal. So, tell me again why stealing from thiefs is wrong. I’m just missing that entirely.
Talking about missing points, how many times must I say that most people steal out of need, not just for “stuff that they want.”
I’m not going to organize a shoplifting day. I merely encourage everybody I know not to shop there.
But…. I would not feel bad if I had stolen from Walmart. I don’t feel bad that people steal from Walmart. If Walmart wasn’t economically destructive, fraudulent, etc., I might feel bad about stealing from it.
The fact is that as long as there are people who are unable to provide for their own food, housing & health care via legal means and there is no support system to provide these essentials for those people there will be theft. And I’m okay with it. I’m not going to insist that people go without food, housing or medical care because they can’t earn enough money legally to pay for it.
Nobody likes getting mugged or burgled. It’s scary, often things of value only to you are taken. But, fuck, I can replace my TV or CDs or computer or clothing or jewelry or prized stamp collection (although I couldn’t replace my wedding album). As long as I am not physically injured it’s merely an inconvenience. I don’t need a TV (although my TV & I have a very close, loving relationship) to live well.
Stealing is not always wrong. That is my opinion. You think that stealing is always wrong. Fine. So, under no circumstances would you ever steal? Okay, good for you. I’ll shoplift if I ever find it necessary to my well-being and I won’t feel bad about it. I’ll burgle if I ever find it necessary to my well-being and I won’t feel bad about it any more than I feel bad about buying clothing produced by slave labor. In fact, I feel worse about buying slave-labor produced goods than I would about burgling for my well-being.
Pssst… I don’t think that I was making anything up. You railed on against shoplifting from Walmart without ever (unless I missed it) acknowledging that Walmart is a thief of the highest proportions. IOW, you never mentioned being upset by the theft of 7% of your taxes while using highly emotional statements about being mugged or burgled. To me, who cannot read your thoughts, that sure looks like you only care about being stolen from when it is a person you can see. If I missed your equally emotional statements about Walmart stealing from you, I apologize & will go back & read them if you can tell me which comment they are in.
Pssst, Pssst…. if you’re wealthy enough, cheating on your taxes is perfectly legal – or at least breaking laws that are never enforced. So it’s legal & therefore not legally theft.
Pssst, pssst, pssst…. it’s fine for some people to have more than others. It’s not fine that some people have billions while others are homeless.
Pssst, pssst, pssst, pssst…. no, I’m not striking a blow for any socialist or other cause and I am rationalizing most shoplifting & theft. However, I am trying to raise awareness that shoplifting and petty theft are minor when compared to (and possibly caused to some extent by) the stealing done by the ultra-wealthy. Can you see the difference? Rationalizing in this case does not mean “making up a reason that it is OK,” it means, “explaining why it happens and how it is not of great substance/import on a national/global/societal level.”
Tell me again how good B&N is. Oh, you didn’t say that? I refer you to comment #80. Tell me again how I’ve missed the point of everything that you’ve said. The fact is that this discussion has wandered off down Tangent Blvd and you have refused to answer refutations or questions about your own tangents.
So, if I steal Jill’s TV nobody has the right to steal it from me? What if I steal Jill’s TV in exactly the same manner, but under the legal system it’s not a crime? Then does anybody have the right to steal it from me?
My problem with you is that you are taking an extremely complex moral issue and saying that it is simple. You appear to see no shades of gray on the issue. I find that frightening.
I’m done discussing this with you. If anybody else would like to argue from ADS’s position, but using facts and logic rather than emotional rhetoric, I would love to continue. It’s possible that my position on this can change, I just haven’t seen an argument other than the old, “how would you like your stuff to be stolen?” one.
Damn, that was long. Thank you and good night.
Radfem,
I agree with so much of what you are saying. I obviously did not write some things clearly enough.
The bit about steroids & Britney was mostly about how the political donor class gets away with stealing from us – they divert our attention. I include myself in “us.” Although, in this case, it was an active dig at ADS who, in my opinion, was railing against shoplifting while silently accepting as OK the huge losses incurred by all of us as a result of our system that allows massive theft by the ultra-rich.
I’m not advocating shoplifting from B&N or anywhere else, but I do refuse to condemn it. I don’t believe you have to shoplift to care about these issues, but I do believe that if you find shoplifting to be a more major issue than the harms done by Walmart, et. al., that you are pointing your efforts in the wrong direction on a societal scale.
And they should be. I’m taking lots of stuff from residents of the 3rd world. I’m taking some stuff from the poor in the US. Citizens of the USA, however, should worry much more about the political donor class taking from them than they should worry about people earning even the huge sum of $300,000 a year taking from them. The scale isn’t even close.
And just to make sure I’ve made this clear: I don’t shoplift. I honestly don’t know if I have ever shoplifted, although I can’t imagine that I haven’t when I was younger. I won’t shoplift as long as I don’t need to for my survival.
IMO, all people are adversely affected by Walmart – except, possibly, the owners. What do I do? I actively (and often unwelcomely) urge people to never, ever, ever buy anything from Walmart. We all put the resources we are capable of into supporting the causes we think most important. If you have other suggestions on what to do in opposition of Walmart, I’m open to hearing them.
Oy.
I’m not railing against WalMart because this is a thread about shoplifting, and the original point was not about stealing from companies that employ legal labor practices. It was about stealing from “huge corporations.” I have stayed on topic.
I have, more times than I can count, made the point that all of this is moot if you’re stealing something that you need – e.g., food when you’re starving and have no other way of actually getting it. I haven’t heard a single person in this thread who says they have no problem with having shoplifted from stores, say that it was because they were starving. No one steals a DVD because they are starving.
Shoplifting, as a moral issue, isn’t that complex. Tax codes, balance of power in society, legality of business having individual rights – those are complex issues. Unless you are starving, or in some other similar dire need that cannot be filled any other way, shoplifting is wrong. No, I do not think that shoplifting can be rationalized by saying that “the company stole from society first.” I do not think it can be justified based on such reasoning. I won’t apologize for that.
This is simply not true.
No, I don’t think it’s fine either. But we’re not talking about homeless people stealing food. We’re talking about people stealing DVDs from WalMart and trying to justify it based on the fact that Sam Walton has more money than they think is appropriate. If you were giving the DVD to a homeless guy, you might have a point, but no one here has suggested that they’re doing anything other than keeping the stuff that they steal.
Who on earth is suggesting that it is more impotrant than the abuse of power by the wealthy? All I’m saying is that it’s still wrong.
Now you’re just being silly. Yes, I said that B&N gives millions to literacy programs. I was pointing out that not all corporations are giant soul suckers of greed and evil. What’s wrong with that? Is it not a valid point?
Now, if I understand you correctly, you don’t think that stealing is always wrong. Fine. I don’t either, as you can see above. I do, however, think that stealing when you don’t have a dire need for the object that you cannot satisfy any other way, even if you don’t like the company that owns the item, is wrong on a moral level. I don’t think that it’s worse than the company employing illegal labor practices in the first place, but I do think that it is still wrong. Do you agree, or disagree?
Jake: You don’t see the difference between theft & physical violence?
Muggings *are* violent. Otherwise it’s just agressive panhandling, or you’re playing semantic games with shifting rules.
You don’t see the difference between taking $100 and taking everything that a person owns? Wow, I hope that’s hyperbole.
How do you expect a mugger to know how much a person has? Yet you seem to be OK with them doing it anyway. $100 might well eb the most that merson ahs ever hadd. And muggers tend to mug the poor. In fact, they mug the poor enough to be a real menace. Not like Wal Mart.
As to employees, they’d be better off if Walmart ceased to exist – the higher paying/better treating jobs that Walmart extinguished might exist again. But, no, I don’t see the employees as culpable. I’m not sure where you got that from.
Because you treat them as if they were by stealing, or endorsing stealing.
My understanding is that medieval Christian theologians argued that a person has the right to steal food to avoid starvation, if there’s no other way to obtain food. And it seems like we all agree that, under some circumstances, but not all circumstances, theft is justified — and by extension, lawbreaking is justified. The question is — and I thought this was the original question — under what circumstances is lawbreaking justified?
Part of the reason I brought up the Underground Railroad is that, at the time, there were many people who were opposed to slavery — but it wasn’t clear that a majority were opposed to it. Many people believed that slavery was right and proper, and an expression of the natural order — and the law backed up that opinion.
In other words, black people were escaping from slavery, and others were helping them to escape, when this was widely held to be not only illegal, but immoral, and a threat to society and to peace and stability. Slavery was a significant part of the economic, political, and ideological structure of the US.
The Underground Railroad, and the abolitionist movement in general, struggled against these attitudes for years. And here’s the critical thing to understand: popular sentiment shifted against slavery, and slaves were liberated en masse, before slavery was actually made illegal. (Notice the careful wording of the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery was still legal in the “border states,” under Union control, until the Constitution was amended, after the end of the Civil War.)
The point is, there was a progression:
1) A minority believed slavery was morally wrong, and a minority of that minority acted upon that belief;
2) In part because of the actions of that minority of a minority, the belief that slavery was morally wrong spread beyond that minority, and slavery was ended;
3) Slavery was made illegal.
Now, getting back to shoplifting: I’m not crazy about it as an example of violating an unjust law, since we seem to agree that people stealing things they need to survive is justified, and stealing things you don’t need to survive is a rather pathetic way to protest an unjust social structure.
However, it has brought up the point that some of us object to the profit system, and others of us endorse it, and we vary in how much we object to it or endorse it. There’s an underlying social conflict here, which precedes our acceptance or rejection of the law.
From my point of view, the structure of society is based upon the profit system. The point isn’t whether Barnes & Noble is a good corporation because it donates money to charity, or an evil corporation because it cheats workers on their timecards. The problem is that it’s a profit-seeking enterprise, which I believe is both very harmful, and also perfectly legal, and widely considered natural, moral and good.
The challenge for me (and those who believe as I do) is how to convince people that the profit system isn’t natural, moral, or good, and should be dismantled. I do not think shoplifting is an effective approach, for several reasons. I do think that organizing labor unions (which were once illegal, and sometimes still called immoral for harming the profit system) is an effective approach; violating laws that restrict the actions of labor unions (the ban on sympathy strikes, among other features of Taft-Hartley, for instance) may be in order.
Brian,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I think I made a similar point above, just slightly differently. The original point, after all, was not about whether shoplifting is or should be against the law, but how Amp felt about it, morally. He compared it to several other things, most not against the law, and one that was against the law, (drug use) that he felt similar about on a moral level.
I made the point that he thinks that drug use should not be against the law, and I can respect that opinion, and can see why he would, therefore, group drug use with the other things that he finds similarly immoral (like eating meat and driving cars unnecessarily.)
However, from what I continue to understand, he does believe that stealing should be against the law. That was my issue: not feeling bad, morally, about breaking a law that he does in fact believe should apply.
People who break slavery laws did so because they believed that slavery should be against the law. I can understand the logic behind that reasoning. However, I do not see any reasoning other than rationalizing behind an argument that stealing should be against the law, but not feeling bad, morally, about doing so yourself. (Assuming, of course, for the umpteenth time, the example of the starving person.)
Now, a person who opposes the profit system as it is: interesting case. I think, though, that there is a clear distinction to be made between opposing the profit system and stealing as a way of trying to right that “wrong”. (Put in quotations only because not everyone will think it’s a wrong – I’m not going to argue here whether it is or not.) I don’t think that anyone is going to argue that stealing somehow is going to bring down the profit system: certainly not on the level that anyone here is doing it. Nor, I think, can anyone argue that stealing is somehow benefiting anyone who is suffering under the profit system, since we all know that stealing only increases prices for those who do pay for their necessities and lowers the wages of the lowest employees. Therefore, I do not think you can draw the analogy between those who oppose slavery illegally freeing slaves, and those who oppose the profit system taking things that don’t belong to them. One has a clear effect on the lives of the people who you’re trying to help; the other only hurts those people, and ultimately benefits no one but you.
People, generally speaking, steal because they need to survive.
People, generally speaking, do everything that they do because they need to survive.
People who steal for a living are generally doing it in preference to working for a living. Not because they CANNOT work for a living, but because stealing for a living is less work for more pay than an honest job. The idea that people living in a country so fantastically rich that our poor people have cars and air conditioning are somehow REQUIRED to steal in order to survive is fantasy.
The Proudhonian property-is-theft-therefore-theft-is-OK argument is tedious and is basically a failed argument. People who think that theft is wrong aren’t idiots who aren’t able to wrap their minds around the genius of the profits-are-evil philosophies of the hard left; they’re people who think those philosophies are stupid. If you want to convince me (or anyone) that theft is OK because the whole system is a criminal enterprise, you’re going to have to start with first principles and prove your case, not just insult us by saying we’re ignorant of your higher truth. I’ve studied your higher truth, and I think it’s a load of self-indulgent garbage.
Thank you, Brian, for re-stating what the original post was about.
Although you & I & everybody else on this thread may agree that shoplifting & other forms of petty theft are ineffective in ending, or even making a statement against, the profit system there are people who think otherwise. I’m not going to condemn them for shoplifting because I don’t think that shoplifting really has a big impact on society. Clearly it can have a large impact on individuals. karpad noted how theft does not really affect retail prices.
In your opinion, does shoplifting affect retail prices more than if those stolen items had been purchased? Isn’t it just part of supply & demand determining market prices?
I guess that when I see/hear about stealing from the Walmart’s of the world that I think to myself, “Good, they deserve it.” Two wrongs don’t make a right, but it’s nice to see folks get back (some) of what they give. But, of course, the answer to Amp’s question will vary by person. It’s an opinion, not an absolute truth.
I do think that it is theoretically possible for theft to bring down the profit system, but I don’t believe that it is something that is going to happen.
I disagree w/ Robert on his assertion that “property-is-theft-therefore-theft-is-ok” is a “failed argument.”
That’s crap. It’s the same argument that’s used against welfare. The junky who burgled me CANNOT work for a living (drug testing, inability to keep a regular schedule, etc.), although I’m sure it’s your position that he CHOOSES to be a junky, therefore CHOOSES not to work. This is a point on which we will never agree.
I don’t think that theft is a good thing, but I do think that to live (and live well) in our economic system that theft is a requirement. You do better if you can steal massive amounts by manipulating laws & enforcement agencies, but you can do OK on a much smaller level. That much smaller level is how both you and I are making our living, most people just don’t want to see what they are doing.
The junky who burgled me CANNOT work for a living (drug testing, inability to keep a regular schedule, etc.), although I’m sure it’s your position that he CHOOSES to be a junky, therefore CHOOSES not to work. This is a point on which we will never agree.
Yes, because your position is quite literally insane.
That much smaller level [of theft] is how both you and I are making our living, most people just don’t want to see what they are doing.
Not only is this crap, it’s insulting.
I work for a living. I trade goods and services for money, and I provide value for money received.
Maybe YOU’RE a thief; speak for your own damn self.
Well, I could see how me working is theft.
I’m hired to do a job. The amount I get paid is not what my labor is worth. Therefore, my employeer is stealing from me. Because I am working at a lower rate, and I’m not doing anything against it (besides taking office supplies) I am enabling the theft.
So, working is theft.