[Arcanist]

Hey, if the opportunity presents itself and it's low risk, why not take it? Life isn't fair, so it's my little way of "balancing" things out AND you're teaching the shopkeeper how to be a better shopkeeper.

[mieu]

I actually had a discussion very recently about something like this. My sister just discovered that her ex was arrested for working with two other co-workers to steal over $5,000 in inventory from the chain retail store that they all cashiered at. To me, it was just a case study that teenagers tend to--at one time or another--fall into one of two categories: matches and kindling. To her, she was absolutely appalled because the ex in question was a very kind and gentle soul, an embodiment of 'Good Guy Greg,' who had tons of friends and everything going for him. In her mind it cast some serious doubt about his personality, and she was really in a state of emotional shock.

Having been 18 once myself, I was under the distinct impression that he just made one huge, dumb-ass mistake, and the fact that there was no remorse to stop him from what he did wasn't a huge cause for alarm (at least not moreso than the sheer lack of common sense, but yeah). The store he worked at was part of a huge, well-known megachain. Not one paycheck amongst the store's staff suffered from the missing inventory, and he knew it. Stealing from 'the man' is different from stealing from your neighbor in peoples' eyes because the ramifications of theft from a big company tend not to hurt anyone within one's monkeysphere. So if whether or not the consequences of your actions impact someone outside of your monkeysphere is what shifts a crime from moral to economic, then that's your prerogative. Just don't forget that one chain = many stores = more opportunities for theft = real impact to their bottom line. Every x% decrease in theft could potentially pay a new-hire's salary, or keep someone's position from being eliminated. My sister is a shift key at another retail outlet and is hung out to dry by her superiors if theft occurs on her shift.

Beware the pitfalls of enforced close-mindedness and every-man-for-himself modes of thought. Think about the garbage man next time you throw pieces of broken glass or cracked bottle of potentially toxic chemicals haphazardly into your wastebin. Sometimes an expansion of one's horizons can improve lives, rather than ever so conveniently ignore potential harm. Faliure or refusal to acknowledge the harmful consequences of one's actions makes you human, but it's still an excuse.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by Vermillion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It seems like some kind of surrealist act or something.

I actually agree with a majority of what they're saying though.

I don't see how there is "stealing" and "stealing from a 9-year-old girl". What the hell is that bullshit?

The reporter was so annoying, with an obvious sense of inflated superiority and a "I've never done anything bad in my life" attitude that I ended up siding with the girls, who, despite being idiots, appeared pretty rational "we need money, there's easy money to take, let's take it!" and they took it.

At least I can understand them. I can't understand the "moral" morons that are treating them like the worst human beings in the world over it.

[Zhen]

Originally Posted by mieu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I actually had a discussion very recently about something like this. My sister just discovered that her ex was arrested for working with two other co-workers to steal over $5,000 in inventory from the chain retail store that they all cashiered at. To me, it was just a case study that teenagers tend to--at one time or another--fall into one of two categories: matches and kindling. To her, she was absolutely appalled because the ex in question was a very kind and gentle soul, an embodiment of 'Good Guy Greg,' who had tons of friends and everything going for him. In her mind it cast some serious doubt about his personality, and she was really in a state of emotional shock. Having been 18 once myself, I was under the distinct impression that he just made one huge, dumb-ass mistake, and the fact that there was no remorse to stop him from what he did wasn't a huge cause for alarm (at least not moreso than the sheer lack of common sense, but yeah). The store he worked at was part of a huge, well-known megachain. Not one paycheck amongst the store's staff suffered from the missing inventory, and he knew it. Stealing from 'the man' is different from stealing from your neighbor in peoples' eyes because the ramifications of theft from a big company tend not to hurt anyone within one's monkeysphere. So if whether or not the consequences of your actions impact someone outside of your monkeysphere is what shifts a crime from moral to economic, then that's your prerogative. Just don't forget that one chain = many stores = more opportunities for theft = real impact to their bottom line. Every x% decrease in theft could potentially pay a new-hire's salary, or keep someone's position from being eliminated. My sister is a shift key at another retail outlet and is hung out to dry by her superiors if theft occurs on her shift. Beware the pitfalls of enforced close-mindedness and every-man-for-himself modes of thought. Think about the garbage man next time you throw pieces of broken glass or cracked bottle of potentially toxic chemicals haphazardly into your wastebin. Sometimes an expansion of one's horizons can improve lives, rather than ever so conveniently ignore potential harm. Faliure or refusal to acknowledge the harmful consequences of one's actions makes you human, but it's still an excuse.

exactly, the dude that does the stocking might be accused of stealing and lose his job for every impoverished uni student that nicks off with the drink - he might have ten kids or need to pay for his mum's cancer treatment...somewhere down the line...someone may suffer. so it's nice if people would think outside their own selves for once rather than presuming that their actions won't harm anybody too many people do self-centred things they think are small and trivial but it ends up having big negative repercussions for someone else. It's just like people who get all road ragey on the road - if you look a little closer there might be a valid reason for why there is someone driving all dodgy on the road...it could be that the driver is in the midst of having a heart attack...

anyway there is always so many different possibilities is what I'm saying. Selfish people only ever seem to see one.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wow... THAT was quick. These "property rights" issues can sure be a bitch! Found a better link... edited previous post. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. My French isn't so good, so I can't tell if the subtitle is, "Count the number of dead pigeons," "163 moving vehicle violations and counting," or "Did you remember to bring the tickets, dear?" Could also be "French cabbies don't screw around!"

That was awesome! I'd heard about Rendezvous before, and now I finally saw it
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Answer the question: "Would you have this attitude if someone stole from you, whether or not your stuff was locked up?" If "all resources are heritage to all human beings", send me all of MY cds which you are currently holding. "I was joking relaaaaax" does not invalidate my points.

I'm not talking about taking from another person. Don't be ridiculous, it would cost more than the CDs worth in transportation expenses to send them to you. Well actually the fact that I was joking does invalidate your post, because jokes aren't meant to be taken seriously; I feel like strangling a kitten.

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey, if the opportunity presents itself and it's low risk, why not take it? Life isn't fair, so it's my little way of "balancing" things out AND you're teaching the shopkeeper how to be a better shopkeeper.

That's terrible! You can't just steal because life is unfair.

Originally Posted by mieu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I actually had a discussion very recently about something like this. My sister just discovered that her ex was arrested for working with two other co-workers to steal over $5,000 in inventory from the chain retail store that they all cashiered at. To me, it was just a case study that teenagers tend to--at one time or another--fall into one of two categories: matches and kindling. To her, she was absolutely appalled because the ex in question was a very kind and gentle soul, an embodiment of 'Good Guy Greg,' who had tons of friends and everything going for him. In her mind it cast some serious doubt about his personality, and she was really in a state of emotional shock. Having been 18 once myself, I was under the distinct impression that he just made one huge, dumb-ass mistake, and the fact that there was no remorse to stop him from what he did wasn't a huge cause for alarm (at least not moreso than the sheer lack of common sense, but yeah). The store he worked at was part of a huge, well-known megachain. Not one paycheck amongst the store's staff suffered from the missing inventory, and he knew it. Stealing from 'the man' is different from stealing from your neighbor in peoples' eyes because the ramifications of theft from a big company tend not to hurt anyone within one's monkeysphere. So if whether or not the consequences of your actions impact someone outside of your monkeysphere is what shifts a crime from moral to economic, then that's your prerogative. Just don't forget that one chain = many stores = more opportunities for theft = real impact to their bottom line. Every x% decrease in theft could potentially pay a new-hire's salary, or keep someone's position from being eliminated. My sister is a shift key at another retail outlet and is hung out to dry by her superiors if theft occurs on her shift. Beware the pitfalls of enforced close-mindedness and every-man-for-himself modes of thought. Think about the garbage man next time you throw pieces of broken glass or cracked bottle of potentially toxic chemicals haphazardly into your wastebin. Sometimes an expansion of one's horizons can improve lives, rather than ever so conveniently ignore potential harm. Faliure or refusal to acknowledge the harmful consequences of one's actions makes you human, but it's still an excuse.

I agree. It's exactly that kind of attitude that lets people in corporations rape mother earth for profit. Now that I think about it, perhaps they're not psychopaths after all. Perhaps they're just dissociated.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not talking about taking from another person. Don't be ridiculous, it would cost more than the CDs worth in transportation expenses to send them to you. Well actually the fact that I was joking does invalidate your post, because jokes aren't meant to be taken seriously; I feel like strangling a kitten.

An inability to follow a logical discussion, along with a lack of knowledge of how personal property works, isn't going to stand you in good stead dude.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	An inability to follow a logical discussion, along with a lack of knowledge of how personal property works, isn't going to stand you in good stead dude.

I can follow logical discussion, but this entire discussion has been about people explaining that stealing is wrong without explaining why stealing is wrong. It's not illogical, it's just that there isn't any logic. People say it's wrong because that's the general consensus. I really wanted to debate the logic behind when using becomes stealing. It's not stealing to drink water from a puddle, it's borderline stealing to drink water from a tap but people don't treat it that way, and it apparently is stealing to drink water from a bottle just because someone put that water in a bottle and tried to sell it to others. If you analyse it from an economic perspective, when does it become stealing. I wanted a discussion about how the line blurs.

[plotthickens]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can follow logical discussion, but this entire discussion has been about people explaining that stealing is wrong without explaining why stealing is wrong. It's not illogical, it's just that there isn't any logic. People say it's wrong because that's the general consensus. I really wanted to debate the logic behind when using becomes stealing. It's not stealing to drink water from a puddle, it's borderline stealing to drink water from a tap but people don't treat it that way, and it apparently is stealing to drink water from a bottle just because someone put that water in a bottle and tried to sell it to others. If you analyse it from an economic perspective, when does it become stealing. I wanted a discussion about how the line blurs.

You're right! None of these posts discuss that.

Except for these but hey who's counting.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Cognitive dissonance is soooo inconvenient ANYWAY! Because you didn't get the exact discussion you wanted in the way you wanted you are justified in your theft and therefore you "won". Congratulations! I hope you feel all warm and snuggly now. Yeay you!

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're right! None of these posts discuss that. Except for these but hey who's counting. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Cognitive dissonance is soooo inconvenient ANYWAY! Because you didn't get the exact discussion you wanted in the way you wanted you are justified in your theft and therefore you "won". Congratulations! I hope you feel all warm and snuggly now. Yeay you!

I'm talking about higher order logic. Perhaps I should have read what I said back to myself before posting the OP, and thought about all the ways people could possible interpret it. That girl who accused me of having Aspergers Syndrome comes to mind
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[IotaNull]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can follow logical discussion, but this entire discussion has been about people explaining that stealing is wrong without explaining why stealing is wrong. It's not illogical, it's just that there isn't any logic. People say it's wrong because that's the general consensus. I really wanted to debate the logic behind when using becomes stealing. It's not stealing to drink water from a puddle, it's borderline stealing to drink water from a tap but people don't treat it that way, and it apparently is stealing to drink water from a bottle just because someone put that water in a bottle and tried to sell it to others. If you analyse it from an economic perspective, when does it become stealing. I wanted a discussion about how the line blurs.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why stealing *isn't* wrong?

I'm not trying to put the burden of proof on you here, by the way. I'm trying to get you to give an example of a frame of reference in which the merits of stealing can be debated. If you accept that harming others is wrong, the wrongness of stealing follows self-evidently. If you don't, then there's nothing that could convince you, just as any system falls apart when you reject its axioms.

I don't understand how you intend to discuss stealing "from an economic perspective". It necessarily contains a component that economics doesn't directly account for: consent, or lack thereof.

EDIT: This "higher order logic" thing is vacuous, sophist bullshit.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why stealing *isn't* wrong? I'm not trying to put the burden of proof on you here, by the way. I'm trying to get you to give an example of a frame of reference in which the merits of stealing can be debated. If you accept that harming others is wrong, the wrongness of stealing follows self-evidently. If you don't, then there's nothing that could convince you, just as any system falls apart when you reject its axioms. I don't understand how you intend to discuss stealing "from an economic perspective". It necessarily contains a component that economics doesn't directly account for: consent, or lack thereof. EDIT: This "higher order logic" thing is vacuous, sophist bullshit.

*googles it* Hey, sophists sound awesome
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I know stealing is wrong, but I'm saying when does it become stealing.

If I walk into a building, that's not stealing, and yet the building cost money to build, the land to be cleared, the country to be conquered. If I wash my hands with the tap, someone is paying for the water, the pipes, the connection. If I use soap out of the soap dispenser, someone paid the wages of the cleaner lady to fill it up, paid for the soap, the fuel to transport it. Presumably all that is covered in the tuition fees, and so is the internet connection. If I use the net, that's not stealing. How about if I download a movie? How about if I extort a friend a few bucks to give him a copy of that movie because of the effort I went into finding a download link?

If it's sellable, does that make it property? Does that make taking it stealing? The uni sometimes hosts events, and there's free food and free drinks. If I choose not to take a coke from there, but take one from a store room, is that stealing, or is it just resources being shifted around?

They have hot water on tap in the staff room. Hot water is just water + electricity to their expenses. The lights are for me and the taps are for me, so is taking the hot water for a coffee stealing? If the uni is investing money to make one comfortable with heating, and heat is spontaneously flowing into my colder body, I am essentially taking their money? If I take the coffee powder and milk for the coffee, the equation is still them paying money for my enjoyment, and I pay tuition which pays their money.

They must have calculated the expenses already. Surely there's chance involved. If all the students suddenly choose to use the toilets, or throw their rubbish on the floor, it constitutes a greater expense to them. If you pick up rubbish and turn lights off, the cleaner gets paid less, but the uni saves money.

If I can have this whole discussion on my head, why did I start this thread? I wanted to see if others could follow, but I got others reactions, and it appears that others are at least unwilling to follow. That's good feedback I guess. I can see the limitations of others, and it helps me identify at least where my limitations are not. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle said that. Does that make the other INTJs uneducated? Perhaps education has varying degrees, and all one can determine is relative levels of education. Even I would not be able to entertain thoughts that are beyond my level of education.

I'm interpreting a lot of patterns from the people on this forum. I posted a thread about it called the INTJ Organism. I also gained an understanding on how Te can be abused to quickly dismiss ideas without properly assessing them, in an attempt to limit the overwhelm imposed on the Ni. Are my ideas just too overwhelming for others? If I try and think of anyone on this forum who appears to actually consider ideas, all I can think of is Scorpiomover, and he's a self professed INTP. I wonder if I can devise an experiment to derive the relative strengths of INTJs Ni with respect to their Te, and collect statistics. Was it INTJs that don't get along, or was it INTJ and INTP?

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm saying when does it become stealing.

You're looking for a definition?

Off the top of my head: stealing is the taking of resources from someone else without their permission. A few notes:-

- Whether they're harmed by the taking or even aware of it is not a factor.
- Scamming is not stealing, because you still have the permission of the other person. Instead, it's fraud, which is a matter of uninformed consent rather than no consent at all.
- Permission can be either implicit or explicit.
- Acts of stealing are independent of each other. Stealing for a "greater good", perceived or actual, does not by vartue of this fact become not stealing.
- Stealing is an action, and thus mutually exclusive with passive processes (unless an action intentionally enabled said passive process).
- I'm not sure whether it's stealing if you take something without being aware that it's private property.
- From a personal standpoint, I'd say that if something left lying around with no intention of ever recovering it, taking it isn't stealing: without an intent to recover it, it's no longer yours.

P.S. Please use paragraph breaks; that wall of text is a borderline-illegible eyesore.

[frontaLobotomy]

Setaling a powerade to hit back at the gobal soft drinks monopoly? It doesn't sound like you'd be advancing any struggle, or drinking a quality beverage.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're looking for a definition? Off the top of my head: stealing is the taking of resources from someone else without their permission. A few notes:- - Whether they're harmed by the taking or even aware of it is not a factor. - Scamming is not stealing, because you still have the permission of the other person. Instead, it's fraud, which is a matter of uninformed consent rather than no consent at all. - Permission can be either implicit or explicit. - Acts of stealing are independent of each other. Stealing for a "greater good", perceived or actual, does not by vartue of this fact become not stealing. - Stealing is an action, and thus mutually exclusive with passive processes (unless an action intentionally enabled said passive process). - I'm not sure whether it's stealing if you take something without being aware that it's private property. - From a personal standpoint, I'd say that if something left lying around with no intention of ever recovering it, taking it isn't stealing: without an intent to recover it, it's no longer yours.

O'kay, does that mean soft drink companies are committing fraud?

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	P.S. Please use paragraph breaks; that wall of text is a borderline-illegible eyesore.

Done.

	Originally Posted by frontaLobotomy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Setaling a powerade to hit back at the gobal soft drinks monopoly? It doesn't sound like you'd be advancing any struggle, or drinking a quality beverage.

Get up to date with the discussion
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[mieu]

If you'd just used the example of drinking water from a tap or using a toilet to begin with, you probably would have gotten a better discussion. Instead you based your OP on the theft of a material good meant for retail sale, with rhetoric about sticking it to KO, the big evil corporation.

Anyway, drinking from a tap or using something that is set out for public use isn't stealing in the same sense that taking a gift isn't stealing. Someone is giving it to you. Where the line is drawn between 'reasonable use' and 'some dick took all the toilet paper' is based on etiquette--'it's not all just for you,' 'you're supposed to share with others' and all that sunshiney crap.

Here's an even better one: if someone leaves a basket of Halloween candy out on their porch and you're a trick-or-treater, is it stealing to take the whole thing? What if the person is your neighbor, a nice little old lady who can't be getting up and down to answer the door all night. What if she's the nice little old lady who found your runaway kitten and brought it back to you?

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know stealing is wrong, but I'm saying when does it become stealing.

Um... stealing ... becomes stealing ... the moment you steal something.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Sounds a little like your trying to find a way to logically pull off a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
here.

As in, "I stole something... now... how do I redefine stealing to exclude what I did?"

It's also known as
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	O'kay, does that mean soft drink companies are committing fraud?

If they're actively misrepresenting things in a manner intended to be taken literally, sure. But that doesn't justify theft.

[Autumnleaf]

You been attending Jordan Chase seminars?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Take it!

[Storm]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I walk into a building, that's not stealing, and yet the building cost money to build, the land to be cleared, the country to be conquered. If I wash my hands with the tap, someone is paying for the water, the pipes, the connection. If I use soap out of the soap dispenser, someone paid the wages of the cleaner lady to fill it up, paid for the soap, the fuel to transport it. Presumably all that is covered in the tuition fees, and so is the internet connection. If I use the net, that's not stealing. How about if I download a movie? How about if I extort a friend a few bucks to give him a copy of that movie because of the effort I went into finding a download link? If it's sellable, does that make it property? Does that make taking it stealing? The uni sometimes hosts events, and there's free food and free drinks. If I choose not to take a coke from there, but take one from a store room, is that stealing, or is it just resources being shifted around?

It's sort of funny, you claim to be stealing out of economic principle, but all of these actions you describe are perfectly understandable using a free market economic system of reasoning. Free markets only work if people can have control over their property so they can use it to make a profit. However, it's a bit more complicated than that because there are some things which can not easily be controlled through private property, or which benefit from group ownership. Now, which specific items are best in the hands of public, private, or even no ownership gets a bit tricky, but it's not necessary to get into that level of detail when we're just discussing stealing. The point is that each piece of property has designated ownership within the system. Your university example is perfect to illustrate kind of a mini-government.

All students pay tuition, and that money goes toward expenses the school figures out - upkeep of buildings, lights, water, professor salaries, etc. It gets a bit more complicated if you think about endowments and such, but again that level of detail isn't necessary for the thought-experiment. Why does the University not charge people individually for the light they use? Partly just a practicality, it's hard to tell how much exactly each person is using, and you'd have to implement an expensive system to keep track. There are also other benefits to keeping the lights on - security, convenience, aesthetics to attract more students, etc. All of these benefits are hard to divide up. Much easier to just include it in tuition. Other items the University owns are not covered by tuition - such as food. This can much easier be divided up by student, and few outside benefits are provided. Again, don't focus on whether this is actually optimal, the point is that there is a system of ownership and rules. If everyone follows the rules, it works out and the school can calculate its expenses and offer lower prices. However, when people upset these ownership rules, the University now has to change its balance sheet. They have to hire more guards, charge higher tuition, etc. The court system gets bogged down with more criminals. Costs go up and fewer people can go to the University.

If you want the privileges of living in a peaceful society, you have to accept the responsibility of living in a peaceful society - which means not stealing stuff just because you can.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by mieu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you'd just used the example of drinking water from a tap or using a toilet to begin with, you probably would have gotten a better discussion. Instead you based your OP on the theft of a material good meant for retail sale, with rhetoric about sticking it to KO, the big evil corporation. Anyway, drinking from a tap or using something that is set out for public use isn't stealing in the same sense that taking a gift isn't stealing. Someone is giving it to you. Where the line is drawn between 'reasonable use' and 'some dick took all the toilet paper' is based on etiquette--'it's not all just for you,' 'you're supposed to share with others' and all that sunshiney crap. Here's an even better one: if someone leaves a basket of Halloween candy out on their porch and you're a trick-or-treater, is it stealing to take the whole thing? What if the person is your neighbor, a nice little old lady who can't be getting up and down to answer the door all night. What if she's the nice little old lady who found your runaway kitten and brought it back to you?

Yeah, maybe I have Aspergers. Some chick told me IRL that I may have Aspergers. I tried to tell her she was wrong, but I lacked the social skills to communicate that to her.

She said some other stuff, but I wasn't paying attention, because I was too busy repetitively stirring my coffee 137 times.

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's sort of funny, you claim to be stealing out of economic principle, but all of these actions you describe are perfectly understandable using a free market economic system of reasoning. Free markets only work if people can have control over their property so they can use it to make a profit. However, it's a bit more complicated than that because there are some things which can not easily be controlled through private property, or which benefit from group ownership. Now, which specific items are best in the hands of public, private, or even no ownership gets a bit tricky, but it's not necessary to get into that level of detail when we're just discussing stealing. The point is that each piece of property has designated ownership within the system. Your university example is perfect to illustrate kind of a mini-government. All students pay tuition, and that money goes toward expenses the school figures out - upkeep of buildings, lights, water, professor salaries, etc. It gets a bit more complicated if you think about endowments and such, but again that level of detail isn't necessary for the thought-experiment. Why does the University not charge people individually for the light they use? Partly just a practicality, it's hard to tell how much exactly each person is using, and you'd have to implement an expensive system to keep track. There are also other benefits to keeping the lights on - security, convenience, aesthetics to attract more students, etc. All of these benefits are hard to divide up. Much easier to just include it in tuition. Other items the University owns are not covered by tuition - such as food. This can much easier be divided up by student, and few outside benefits are provided. Again, don't focus on whether this is actually optimal, the point is that there is a system of ownership and rules. If everyone follows the rules, it works out and the school can calculate its expenses and offer lower prices. However, when people upset these ownership rules, the University now has to change its balance sheet. They have to hire more guards, charge higher tuition, etc. The court system gets bogged down with more criminals. Costs go up and fewer people can go to the University. If you want the privileges of living in a peaceful society, you have to accept the responsibility of living in a peaceful society - which means not stealing stuff just because you can.

I waste time thinking stuff like they could save heaps of money if they paid someone to walk around switching lights off. The place is usually deserted by 4pm, less on Fridays. I wonder why they can't see it, and yet they installed a wind turbine on the roof.

[IotaNull]

For reference, CH, what mieu is talking about has absolutely nothing to do with Aspergers. It has a few symptoms, but "sucking at analogies" isn't one of them.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For reference, CH, what mieu is talking about has absolutely nothing to do with Aspergers. It has a few symptoms, but "sucking at analogies" isn't one of them.

If you read all the analogies I make, and take the average, you would not conclude that I suck at analogies. You would conclude that the quality of the analogy in my original post is inconsistent with the standard I maintain, and infer that there must be a reason for it. You may even make the connection that the tread is an experiment, and that it's actually testing for a very different thing than what it appears to be testing. I hate pulling all the strings, it's no fun. I know for instance that others knowledge of this won't effect the outcome of any subsequent responses.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you analyse it from an economic perspective, when does it become stealing.

Economically, it becomes stealing when you take anything of value without consent. Value is determined both by the owner and the amounts of goods other would exchange for the said object of value.

In your case, you're directly hurting the company/organization that sells the powerade, the company that makes the powerade, and all the employees and shareholders of said companies/organizations. Your indirectly hurting all of their paying customers, by driving up the cost to produce powerade (theft is an expense upon producers).

And given that you'd rather steal than pay for the powerade, you obviously value the item less than people regularly buy powerade and people who sell powerade. Which means, in net, you are shrinking the economy (turning high-value powerade into low-value stolen drink).

Shrinking the economy to benefit yourself is most certainly unethical, and is termed rent-seeking behavior in economics. Economists work to limit rent-seeking behavior wherever possible, to promote growth and development.

---

This phenomenon of rent-seeking behavior is why countries built on diamond mines (like in Africa) can still be dramatically poorer than countries built on tiny resource-less islands (like in Asia). People are too busy fighting wars to steal all the powerade, rather than actually building their country.

Hmm...according to this study:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Americans would be 45% richer if we somehow eliminated all rent-seeking behavior. Put another way, Americans spend roughly 31% of our national resources stealing/defrauding/politicking eachother. Your stealing that powerade is part of the wasted 31%.

On a global scale, however, that's quite low. Back in the olden days, the vast majority of human effort was spent on conquering eachother...leaving the vast majority of humanity as nearly-starving peasant farmers.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I waste time thinking stuff like they could save heaps of money if they paid someone to walk around switching lights off. The place is usually deserted by 4pm, less on Fridays. I wonder why they can't see it, and yet they installed a wind turbine on the roof.

Irrelevant. The fact that maybe their accounting isn't the best in the world has nothing to do with you adding yet another expense by stealing their stuff.

Anyway, lights are left on to partly to help prevent theft. They probably could save heaps of money if they could turn them off without worrying about somebody breaking in to steal their expensive computers (or stocks of Powerade, as the case may be). Hopefully this helps you see yet another direct expense that theft causes.

[Sk8ordude]

Yes its stealing, but fuck colleges and universities, I'd Oceans 13 them in a minute if I thought I could get away with it. $50,000 to tell you what books to read so that you can a stinking paper to get a job is robbery.