What's wrong with stealing?

[steveox]

This is what i do

Until these people

 

[dahermit]

Do you eat those CDs to keep from going hungry?

 

[steveox]

Do you eat those CDs to keep from going hungry?

No im giving you examples what i do. Im not giving out my secrets but im very successful at it never been caught at it yet. You see i know all about these secrets

Heres a few simple rules to follow when Shoplifting

1.Before shoplifting pick a day to study the cameras and know where they are and memorizing them like memorizing an NFL playbook.And then just walk out.

Shoplifting day

2.Know what to steal before going in the store.

3.Make sure asles are empty cause if theyu have 3 or more people its bad news. Cause chances are you might be appraching undercover security person.

4.Dont look at cameras and look at products before stealing,,Act like your interested at Product and then put it back. Cause if youre not looking at product security people find you suspicious.

5.On a cold day wear a leather jacket with inside pockets cause its harder for detectors to set alarm off.

6.Dont steal big item! EVER! That includes steaks. Make sure item is small enough fit inside you pocket.

7.Finaly put your hand in your pocket cover item and alarm cant set off.

You gotta know ins and outs of the trade to be successful at shoplifting,,You gotta be smart at it,,Only dumb fools get caught at it,,The Smart ones are the low percentage ones get caught.

 

[dahermit]

You should not have to steal. You should have worked your way up from berger flipper to floor swamper in your McDonald's by now. After all, you conservatives claim that the working poor have enough money to live on...on should be able to pay a flat income tax also.

 

[BigRob]

You should not have to steal. You should have worked your way up from berger flipper to floor swamper in your McDonald's by now. After all, you conservatives claim that the working poor have enough money to live on...on should be able to pay a flat income tax also.

Nice distortion there.....Steve has never said he "had" to steal, he says he does because the government is dishonest.

 

[steveox]

You realize the government robs you 50cents a gallon of gas, THATS ROBBERY!!! And 6% Sales tax when you shop. THATS ROBBERY!! And $3 to cross a toll bridge? THATS HIGHWAY ROBBERY!!! And This is Robbery too

Cause if you dont feed them the pigs rob you more

So whos the real thief?

 

[dahermit]

Nice distortion there.....Steve has never said he "had" to steal, he says he does because the government is dishonest.

Just an exercise in rationalization. He steals because he is a thief.

 

[dahermit]

You realize the government robs you 50cents a gallon of gas, THATS ROBBERY!!! And 6% Sales tax when you shop. THATS ROBBERY!! And $3 to cross a toll bridge? THATS HIGHWAY ROBBERY!!! And
Cause if you dont feed them the pigs rob you more

So whos the real thief?

50 Cents a gallon to pay for highway construction and maintenance. $3.00 to pay for the construction and maintenance of the toll bridge. Who should pay for those things if not the people using them? The rich? When the Government takes money from you, it is called taxes. Your only redress is to vote for those who share your beliefs. It is, after all a representative form of government.

 

[BigRob]

Just an exercise in rationalization. He steals because he is a thief.

No doubt, if he in fact partakes in the actions he claims he does we can hope he winds up in jail.

 

[Dr.Who]

You should not have to steal. You should have worked your way up from berger flipper to floor swamper in your McDonald's by now. After all, you conservatives claim that the working poor have enough money to live on...on should be able to pay a flat income tax also.

All the rest of us, liberals and conservatives, seem to be saying that he has no justification for stealing.

The vast majority of the working poor do have enough to live on and virtually all members of society should take ownership of our civic heritage and contribute something.

 

[steveox]

There will never be a tax cut on the middle class peroid,,These politicans will do anything you want to hear just to get elected. Like stupid blacks really belived the bull**** he stood for. If the GOP would put up a better candidate than John McCain Obama would get elected. Hes another reason why Obama got elected THE MEDIA! Remember this footage?

Now when did Jeremiah Wright made those sermons? He made them during In January right before the Iowa election. Now the Media wait after Obama has enough electoral votes then show the videos. Remember Bill Clintons whitewater? Now the Media didnt report this til 11 months after Clinton got elected. And the Monica Lewinsky affair??? Media wait until Clinton got re-elected and reported it. But oh yeah when it comes to a republican like George Bush Dan Rather had to report this false lie on Bush AWOL Memo. So the Media will brainwash you just to keep liberals in office and keep screwing us more!

 

[GenSeneca]

You have a natural right 'to acquire...property'. You do not have a natural right to property.

Acquire:
1. to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own: to acquire property.
2. to gain for oneself through one's actions or efforts: to acquire learning.​

So an individual has a natural right to acquire property, but no natural right to keep the property he acquires... Interesting viewpoint you have there.

Dr. Who, according to Numinus, you do have a natural right to pluck an apple from a tree but the moment you take possession of that apple, you have no natrual rights to keep or use that apple. Does that sound right to you?

That is how locke defined private property -- that which you take from nature and imbue with your own labor.

Not sure what Locke has to do with anything but lets look;

Two Treatises of Government, Sec. 27: Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body had any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.

Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property.

It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men.

For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.​

It appears by your next statement that you radically disagree with Locke...

What you take from nature is owned by the state

Forget the fact that Locke said no such thing... Exactly where is that written in the US Constitution?

Again, Dr. Who, you do have a natural right to pluck an apple from a tree - but - you have NO natural right to keep or use the literal 'fruit of your labor' because, according to Numinus, once plucked, that apple becomes property of the state. Does that sound right to you?

 

[Dr.Who]

There will never be a tax cut on the middle class peroid,,These politicans will do anything you want to hear just to get elected.

The Bush tax cuts for the rich benefited the poor most, the middle class second, and the rich third. They were progressive. The reason we hear so manay complaints about them is that they also helped the rich rather than punishing the rich. When president Obama extended the Bush tax cuts he specifically said he was doing it to help the middle class.

 

[GenSeneca]

You can in theory have all of these rights, but if they are not recognized and protected under the law, then it does not mean all that much ultimately.

I agree but that is not what's at issue here. In reality, our individual rights are supposed to be protected by law but are instead violated by other laws which supposedly create "Rights" out of thin air.

For example, John believes it's his "Right" to force Bob to pay for his health care, his housing, his food, and so much more. Numinus refers to these as "statutory rights", thinks they are perfectly legitimate, and doesn't believe they conflict with individual rights.

I, on the other hand, consider individual rights as the only legitimate kind of rights and consider many of the so called "Rights", be they statutory, civil, or some form of group "rights", are illegitimate because they violate individual rights.

If you went to court and argued you had a natural right to x, but it was not recognized under the laws of society, then your case is over before it started.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson​

Additionally, I am not sure I would agree property rights are necessarily inalienable, such as the right to life would be, for many reasons numinus has spelled out.

Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things. - Wiki​

Now there is more than one school of thought concerning the source of property Rights;

Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law. - Wiki​

Numinus would fall into the first category and myself the latter.

So now, BigRob, I have but one question for you...

Which is superior, Natural Rights (Individual Rights as I refer to them) or Statutory Rights?

One of them has to take precedent.

This matters because John believes his statutory rights outrank your natural rights and he's trying to rewrite the laws to make sure that when you get thrown in front of a judge, to defend your natural rights, they aren't recognized by law.

And BigRob I'm curious... I know your position on rebellion and succession, so at what point would you decide the laws of John to be illegitimate?

 

[Dr.Who]

you do have a natural right to pluck an apple from a tree but the moment you take possession of that apple, you have no natrual rights to keep or use that apple. Does that sound right to you?

Forget the fact that Locke said no such thing... Exactly where is that written in the US Constitution?

Again, Dr. Who, you do have a natural right to pluck an apple from a tree - but - you have NO natural right to keep or use the literal 'fruit of your labor' because, according to Numinus, once plucked, that apple becomes property of the state. Does that sound right to you?

Prior to becoming a member of a governed society what I pluck is mine to pluck and keep. But I am all on my own to try to keep it. Any bully can take it from me.

When I agree to become a member of a governed society the government protects my right but I agree to give up some of my freedoms in order to support that government. In some bizarre theory anyway, since none of us ever signed that contract. I do not agree that simply failing to flee government oppression is proof of accepting the contract.

However, for those who do agree to be governed, in the US we have a constitution that spells out what powers the government has to opress me and seeks to limit that oppression. Keeping my property is still a right and it is a responsibility of government to protect that right - even from itself. Because governments have jurisdiction they do claim to own all the land within their jurisdiction. That just may be an example of goverrment overstepping its bounds.