Decriminalise Shoplifting

by Seán Ryan Mon Mar 06, 2006 18:22

Two wrongs don't make a right, I know.

However, three lefts do make a right.

The third left in this case being that I don't care for the crocodile tears of capitalism. I don't think shoplifting is the best solution. But it's way better than none at all.

I like the idea of the State having to spend €800+ per week to keep this dangerous 'snickers bar' abducter off our cleaner than clean streets. Not to mention the initial legal costs. (Makes one ponder as to who the actual criminals are.)

Whattabout imprisoning advertisers and the likes of RTE who stole this poor shoplifter's time and who also put a value on the product for him/her.

An interesting story. A little tongue in cheek - I like it.

I hope this story opens up a debate that needs to be opened up.

For example: If a crime is of an anti-capitalist nature, like the theft of a snickers bar, it will produce a faster response from the Gardaí, and one that will more likely result in a court appearence, than a crime comitted against a person or the property of a person who is not engaged in capitalistic exploitation.

We prioritise our response to crime in this country. And in my opinion we don't even begin to get it right.

Would recommend to the author of this article a little book written a while back. Widely distributed over the internet too. Tis titled, "Steal this Book." Gives some good advice on how to aim higher than a 'snickers bar.'

Sláinte

by Hmm - none Mon Mar 06, 2006 18:46

I agree that shoplifters should not be necessarily imprisoned for small levels of shoplifting there should be alternatives including financial restitution. It is however a crime for which there is little excuse and I have no truck with the property is theft argument.

As regards advertising and all that anyone is free not to watch it...

If the logic of the shoplifting argument was to be carried further then anyone's property is fair game. I could walk into where any individual lives who has something I want and carry it away...I wonder if those who espouse the property is theft argument would support this if their own property was being removed ....i think not.

by Seán Ryan Mon Mar 06, 2006 18:58

In fairness I said shoplifting wasn't my preferred modus operandi.

I'm coming at this from the angle that lots of people are marginalised by society and cannot afford to live in a fashion that befits them.

By the very nature of our inequal society, we will have crime.

I say if you are a would be or an actual criminal, 'stick it to your master, before you'd stick it to your brethren in chains.'

I want a no crime society. If I cannot have it I want a society that prioritises its acts of crime and prioritises its response to crimes.

It's all about efficiency and happiness you know. Society.

by guydebordisdead Mon Mar 06, 2006 20:13

http://www.audioanarchy.org/downol/30-Theft.mp3

You might like this, maybe not though.

by Gay Geori Mon Mar 06, 2006 20:52

It really is a tragic indictment of society that we have so many fat kids that they have resorted to a camapiagn to decriminalise the shoplifting of snickers so that they can feed their habit. utterly disgraceful. when will mary harney do something about these poor victims of the "Mammy I want Pop Tarts for brekkie and then a lift to school"....

by Shipsea Mon Mar 06, 2006 22:05

The proposition that we should decriminalise theft is neither sensible nor amusing. It's a cheap joke, at the expense of those who are, in fact, its primary victims: the poorest people in society.

Are we saying there is no such thing as personal property? In any circumstance? Your mother's wedding ring, your family photographs, your gran's old chair, your only car? Theft is a form of naked contempt for your neighbours, your friends and your community. Decency and fairness can never be constructed on a foundation that includes dishonesty. We shouldnt embrace the strategies of the enemy. If we do, we concede the argument completely. Otherwise we are merely saying, that we would be as greedy and unconscionable as the capitalists are, given a fraction of a chance. It's only a few months ago, for example, since we had widespread concern and empathy for a poster on this site who had his bycycle stolen in Dublin.

Theft is not a rational strategy for undermining the ills of captialist society. It's an intellectually lazy and facetious proposition - and hugely offensive to people of real integrity - those who prefer to maintain their dignity and their regard for others: the people who choose the honest course because they know that is the only way things can ever come good for us all.

People who take things when they are in life or health threatening circumstances deserve our compassion and we should all do our honest utmost to challenge every circumstance responsible for creating those difficulties. But let's not allow the insensibility of the greedy to corrupt or dictate the morals of the needy. Their ways should not be ours.

by guydebordisdead Mon Mar 06, 2006 22:28

Do you count squatting as theft of another persons property?

by Shoplifter Mon Mar 06, 2006 23:20

Hello Hmm.
If somebody broke into your flat and stole your laptop then you would be sad. If you needed the laptop it would be a pain in the bum until you got a new one. I think you have not followed the logic of what I said. Shopkeepers are not sad because they don’t miss the runners or sweets that you take without paying, but they do miss the money.

But I think that it is too inconvenient for everybody else in the country to send shoplifters to jail. I think that the shopkeeper can just be more careful with his stock. I don’t think I should have to pay to send shoplifters to jail, I don’t even think shoplifting is that bad.

Hello Shipsea
I wonder what you are talking about. I said that if your DVD player was stolen from your house everyone would say : ‘Now she feels sad when she goes home in case somebody comes in again.’ That is frightening.

I don't think that alot of people who own shops are the poorest people in society.

You are talking to yourself. Why bother.

by hmmm eile Mon Mar 06, 2006 23:41

shoes are very difficult to get being the other absolute essential. And you really have to be fast and brazen to get both left and right shoe out of the shop. We should ask the ozzies about this. "would your ancestors have genocided the aborigines if you they had been allowed to feck that loaf of bread?

you see it . you deserve it. it was stolen long before you. don't get too hung up on the guilt.

by Paco Tue Mar 07, 2006 05:04

Are you people nuts or something? Stealing is stealing. In older cultures, they cut cut your fingers off for it. You cannot condone these ideals. What deterent would you have for stealing? Tar and feathering? C'mon, get with it. The thieves must love you guys for your ideas which are nothing more than hairbrained. The penalty of going to jail doesn's seem to deter them, so what's the problem? You want to make it easier for them to steal? I am totally confused by the comments on this board.

Many people, including myself, have stolen things as a youth, and later in life we have come to realize how wrong it was to do it and how unjustified our reasons for doing it were. eg. It's a big company. There won't miss it. They're lucky they are rich. We're just helping ourselves to a bit of our share. - None of these ideas hold any water. It's all wrong.

Unless of course you are starving to death and you steal a loaf of bread to keep yourself alive but I doubt any of these criminals are starving to death. But you poeple condoning behaviour like this are starved of ideals. When you grow up, you will see the idiocy of your misguided ideas.

by seedot Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:17

since you start with 'Stealing is stealing, period' and then say 'Unless of course you are starving to death and you steal a loaf of bread to keep yourself alive '.

So there are different grades of stealing, despite your comment title.

And, by your own admission, jailing people for stealing doesn't seem to deter 'them' - which brings up the question in the article - why jail them? Why should my tax euros be spent on an ineffective system of retribution?

Finally - stealing has not always been a criminal matter - in earlier times it was a civil matter where it was not the value of the goods but the injury incurred that was assessed.

I'm way more impressed with the article after reading the responses - it seems to have got the response it wanted.

by eeekkkkk Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:40

15% of stock was written off as shoplifted before it was even stolen.

Was cheaper than paying for a security guard. I generally worked there on my own and for my own safety ignored thieves.

by paco Tue Mar 07, 2006 17:21

You see contradiction whereas I don't. I said stealing is stealing and I still believe that. I also said that if someone is starving and they steal a loaf of bread - I feel compassion for them - and I think the court should too - and probably most judges would have some heartfelt sympathy for the poor devil - so the punishment should be more lenient - but all I'm getting at is that stealing is stealing - you want to make it open season on the Jervis Mall - I don't get it. You have to lay down the law somewhere. Sure there are different grades of stealing - I don't think some thug who wants my cellphone (I don't have one) and hits me over the head for it - can be compared with the Les Miserables poor starving scavenger (of which they are desperately few left in our country). And Seedot - when stealing was a civil matter - that's when they used to cut the fingers of the thieves off - so is that what you want to return to? A bit cruel and harsh, don't you think?

Let's make it simple. If it is not yours, it is simply not yours. You have no right to it. If you take it, you will be punished for the crime as outlined by the law. Most criminals know the law and know the consequences of their actions so it is not a great surprise when they are sent to prison for stealing. Sure it may be harsh in some cases and I certainly don't agree with aligning petty criminals with despicable thugs and perverts and killers - the possibility of sitting in jail with these types is something which the petty thief probably knows beforehand, before committing the act.

Think before you commit the act. And to the judges I might add - think before sentencing - of the severity of the act.

by seedot Tue Mar 07, 2006 17:49

where there was no allowance for cutting off fingers or hands or anything else. In fact, theft was seen as a civil matter, not criminal i.e. an individual could bring an action but the state would not interfere. The penalties were generally based around restitution of either 4 times or twice the value of the item stolen.

Property rights have never been as simple as 'If it's not yours it's not yours' - even if today we find it difficult to think of anything other than an absolute right to property, which is then enforced by the taxpayer.

My point was that we should differentiate between theft which has a clear and direct injury to a person, depriving them of a use right or infringing on their security vs. petty larceny. I'm not sure about the decriminalise argument made above but do know that we already differentiate between different forms of theft (larceny vs. burglary vs. armed robbery are three examples that spring to mind).

I would like to hear a justification for spending money jailing somebody for petty larceny which is not based on retribution.

Surely we are allowed to consider whether the criminal justice system should exist to protect people or property?

by Fatwaboy Tue Mar 07, 2006 18:04

Under the Sharia Law those convicted of stealing have a hand amputated. As this is part of Islamic Culture surely its introduction should be supported. Anyone who opposes it is obviously Euro-Centric and intrinsically prejudiced against Eastern Values.

by Jenny Tue Mar 07, 2006 18:19

If its a big chain store then its ok, but not if its a small local store. Charity shops should be off limits. Workers Co-ops should also be regarded as sacrosant.

by Gay Geori Tue Mar 07, 2006 19:51

Would car showrooms be OK? I sure Joe Duffy won't miss a mini... or a bmw even. So I think car showrooms are OK targets too... and any other company that does not use the latest JIT (Just in Time) inventory management techniques - cos then they would miss them... so Dell and Intel are out...

U

PS: In the interests of fairness I also think it's ok if the shopkeeper steals from my house to recoup the warehouse price of the goods ONLY. but not a profit.

by Gay Geori Tue Mar 07, 2006 19:52

mean to say ... ultimately shoplifting is just a market correction technique

by Seamus Tue Mar 07, 2006 20:52

Forget straight shop lifting, discounting is where its all at. Let me give you an example, go into Tesco and do your shopping. Now you might be paying lets say €50 for a few measly items. We know Tesco is making a huge profit on these goods.

If you buy cofee for example the supplier of your coffee is probably only getting 0.5c from the €4.99 cost of it in Tesco. Tesco bags most of the profit and screws the poor supplier and you at the same time.

Sooo, the trick is to look at your trolley of goods and pick out the small but most expensive item or to. Pocket these and pay for the rest. Thereby you get a small discount and avoid being totally screwed by this multi billion capitalist outfit. Ok it doesnt unfortunately help the small supplier but if you buy fair trade goods then it does. I think its a good system, everybody gets something and you get the satisfaction of not feeling as ripped off as you otherwise would have if you hadnt discounted a few articles.

Nice and simple, been working for me for years....
S

by Gaz B Tue Mar 07, 2006 21:07

Tescos have started introducing self-scan checkouts which means that one employee can look after up to four checkouts. The idea is obviously to cut staff hours and ultimatley jobs themselves. The unions, as usual don't seem to mind.

by Paco Tue Mar 07, 2006 21:35

give this guy, shoplifter, a Snickers bar, and tell him to shut up. This whole topic has gone too far. There are far more interesting things to discuss. If you want to talk about the time fitting the crime, then I'm up for that one - but this idea of getting leftists worked up thinking it is justifiable to rob people and stores is quite demeaning and I'm with Shipsea on this one. I also feel Shoplifter was quite rude to him/her in the response...so basically the standards have been lowered here.....

by Indyuser Tue Mar 07, 2006 22:50

This thread demeans Indymedia.

by Gay Geori Tue Mar 07, 2006 22:51

impossible

by shoplifter Tue Mar 07, 2006 23:46

When people say that criminals should be locked away forever they always say that we should think about the victim. HEY I do think about the victim and there is no victim when you shoplift. It costs money to put people in jail and to keep them there and it is very upsetting for their family.

Stealing should be between the person stole from and the stealer.

There could be a new crime 'upsetting people by stealing from them' it would be like thumping someone but in their brain and that is why it would be punished.

If you jumped over the counter and thumped the shopkeeper you could be charged with 'jumping over the counter and thumping the shopkeeper' they should send you to jail for that.

I used to work in a 24 hour shop and the unfortunates would come in and steal.
Nobody stopped them.

Also we didn't ever throw food away.

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 08, 2006 02:14

Where do some of you learn about how the world works? From children's stories and cartoons? The babblings of schizophrenic street prophets?

First of all, anyone who thinks shoplifting doesn't hurt anyone when the victim is a large store doesn't understand the first thing about business or reality. No matter where you shop you're paying for that thieve's snickers bar or flaggon of cider. FULL STOP.

Do you really think these big companies just give away their profits to thieves? Big corporation like Tesco doen't pay for loss of stock out of their profits. The cost of pilferage is spread across the price of all goods sold, so you and I pay for it one way or another. Whenever you buy something from these shops you're subsidizing thieves. You're also likely paying for it even if you don't buys from the bigger stores. Pilferages also affects insurance costs - which are spread across all merchants. So the nice little mom & pop corner shop is paying money (via inflated insurance premiums) to subsidize the scumbag thieves who only steal from the big stores.

So in a word, if thieves were prevented from stealing, prices of goods and insurance would drop. You and I would keep more of our money to spend on ourselves rather than subsidising sweets and booze for greasy lazy thugs.

But maybe shoplifter has got something with this notion of leaving the matter to be resolved by the "stealer and stealee". In the disfunctional Irish justice system a shopkeeper could beat at thief into a red puddle on the pavement and spend less time in the klink than a convicted shoplifter would.

Mr. T.

by seedot Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:47

Tesco is of course a mere pawn of the market with no power to set prices and merely prices on the basis of costs. The market clears giving us the most efficient system possible.

Do you really believe that a reduction in shoplifting would immediately result in a lowering of prices? I would propose that a more likely scenario is the extra revenue would result in an increase in the £1975m profits that Tesco earned last year and an increase in the dividend paid (7.56p last year). Or, more likely, the £26m that the 8 senior directors got in pay last year would increase by the price of the snickers bar that you didn't steal.

Who will gain from leaving the snickers in Tesco:

Major shareholders (% at 01/06/2004)96

1. Barclays Global Investors (3.82%)
2. Legal and General (2.79%)
3. Schroder Investment Mgt Ltd (2.87%)
4. State Street Global Advisors (2.73%)
5. Axa Investment Managers (2.63%)
6. Threadneedle Investments (2.33%)
7. Scottish Widows (2.08%)
8. M & G Investment Mgt Ltd (1.99%)
9. Morley Fund Management (1.88%)
10. UBS Global Asset Mgt (1.73%)

Current directors are:

Sir Terry Leahy, Chief Executive (48 years old)
Appointed 1997
Salary: £955,000 (£2.9m including benefits and profit sharing)

David Reid, Non-Executive Chairman (57)
Appointed 1996. Responsible for international development. Non Executive Director of De Vere Group Plc.
Salary: £691,000 (£2.977m)

Lucy Neville Rolfe - Company secretary (51)
Appointed to the Board in April 2004
She retains her existing responsibilities for Corporate Affairs.

Richard Brasher, Commercial and Trading Director (42)
Appointed to the Board in April 2004. He has led the company's non-food and commercial and trading activities, following his role as the UK Marketing Director.

Philip Clarke, International Operations and IT Director (43)
Appointed 1998
Salary: £531,000 (£1.657m)

Andrew Higginson, Finance and Strategy Director (46)
Member of the 100 Group of Financial Directors, Non-Executive Director of C and J Clarke Ltd and BSkyB.
Salary: £538,000 (£1.659m)

Tim Mason, Marketing and E-commerce Director (46)
Appointed 1995; Non Executive Director of Capital Radio Plc.
Salary: £538,000 (£1.681m)

David Potts, Retail and Logistics Director (46)
Worked in Ireland 1997 – 2000 before returning to take up current position
Salary: £531,000 (£1.661m)

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:18

Seedot -

You are also correct when you suggest that prices would initally not be affected. Unanticipated cost reductions - especially across the board cuts - would take a little while to work their way through to reduced prices for consumers. However, consumers would pretty quickly reap the rewards since competition reduces prices - eventually one of the competitors will reduce prices to attract higher sales volume.

You are also correct when you say Tesco ... "merely prices on the basis of costs.". Shoplifting increases the cost of goods. Larger retailers (especially discounters) price their goods based on target margins (different between cost and sales represented as a % of total revenue.

I'm curious as to what you feel are appropriate salaries for senior managers responsible for leading companies like Tesco. Would €50K be too much? As you're defending stealing as an ethical practice so I'm guessing it would be too high a salary. Nevermind - I don't really need to know your opinion...

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:46

I made a point at the start of this debate and I think it addresses Mr. T's concerns.

From where does the right to make a profit arise?

This assumed right to profit is the exact same proposition as the assumption of the right to steal.

The only real question in my opinion, is not who's right or wrong, but who does more damage to society.

To this question I answer, the capitalist does more damage. And the lesser thief actually limits this damage.

You may argue that big business allows for the actions of the thief in their pricing policies etc. But the thief, him or herself, is not a victim of these actions. These actions only further victimise those who choose not to steal, or respond.

Tis funny that capitalism always manages to get mob mentality into sensible discussions and still avoids being seen as scum itself.

Our poor shoplifter/author/philosopher must shoulder the burden of the crime that is commited against society by capitalism. It seems the lesser the value of the goods stolen, the more vehement the persecution. The sheep are programmed well indeed.

Profit is theft.

Shoplifter is not a criminal. Or rather, compare shoplifters criminality to Tesco's criminality to get some perspective on the issue.

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:48

Profits are theft? Theft is illegal. So you're suggesting that profits are illegal. Since when? Logically one might argue that profits "should be illegal", but certainly not that they are presently illegal. Now according to my undersatnding of the rules of this website, this post should be removed as it promotes a blatant untruth or lie. However, I don't feel it appropriate to silence anyone so I won't complain.

Profits and socialism aren't mutually exclusive. Profits - onced taxed - can pay for education,art, social programmes, retraining of the workforce. The redistributed profits can then create beauty, take care of those who can't take care of themselves, fund health care for all, improve the environment, etc. Look at what is possible in this model - look at Sweden. They have not made profits illegal. They simply redirect them to social uses and they have done so very effectively - without destroying the standard of living or will to live.

But now that I think of it, if profits were made illegal I'd be sleeping til noon, stealing a flaggon of cider in the afternoon and mooching everything else I'd want off the poor suckers that are stupid enough to work for nothing. Yeah, that would be my response to a society without profits - I'd become a class parasite . I would simply stop working, produce nothing and consume what others produce. Then I'd fuck with the man at any opportunity presented to me in any way possible. Say, life as a counter-revolutionary sounds like great craic! Bring on yer workers paradise!

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 08, 2006 13:23

I'm not suggesting profits are illegal. Profit has never been criminalised to begin with. I'm saying the right to make a profit and the right to steal are both assumptions that spring from the same place. They are different labels on the same activity.

Profit is arrived at after expenses, like taxes. And your comment about them being used to better mankind is misleading and untrue.

Having been in Sweden recently, I disagree with your view. Swedish folk in general have no social lives. They work like dogs and live from week to week. Fair enough they have better facilities for children than we do and nearly everyone has the opportunity to receive a third-level education.

But as you know Sweden has recently joined the EU.

Employment is in decline. Big business is going elsewhere where 'taxes' on their profits don't hinder their infestation. Eg. Ericson a once indigenous swedish company has moved to Asia. It seems to me that the highly educated population must now consider immigration. They'll be an asset whereever they go tis true, but it will be a massive drain on Sweden itself.

Sweden is no longer competitive and is in decline.

I didn't suggest anyone work for nothing. But profit is money for nothing and facilitates the lifestyle you yearn for.

Profit is theft. Prove otherwise or refrain from disagreement. That's not too complex a suggestion is it.

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 08, 2006 13:44

You were merely using the "profit is theft" thingy as a literary allusion as opposed to a statement of fact. My fault - I took your words at their symantic meaning instead of reading your mind.

Your definition of taxes as a component of expenses, and profit being that which is retained after taxes - is rather interesting and creative. Interesting in a "say, that's an interesting yarn you've spun" sort of way. Good thing for you that you're not making any profits - Revenue would have some questions about your statutory interpretations

These "interpretations" also suggests you've had little if any academic or practical exposure to busines accounting or taxation. Seem you have yourself a dilema: to beat capitalism you must understand its tools. To understand its tools you must learn from capitalists. I don't think the capitalists need worry.

by anon Wed Mar 08, 2006 14:07

my parents had a little shop, a small though thriving for many years. they worked hard - harder than they would have for more money elsewhere - we're well liked and well respected. as they got older it became harder and harder to monitor customers and staff - a euro here a snickers there ' sure it won't hurt anyone, sure they write it off, sure shop keepers are all rich'.

theives love to see their reflection all around, love the idea that shopkeepers are as dishonest as themselves and will 'write it off' - you can't write off a loss if what's coming in doesn't match what's going out unless you're as crooked as the next theif.

you write off the business - and eventually they did, jobs lost, income lost, health and hearts broken, in the end they had to turn the key and hand back the lease.
but you're right if you really need the snickers then its no harm done is it. here's a thought - buy some fucking bread and make a fucking sandwhich you theiving c*&T.

by seedot Wed Mar 08, 2006 14:15 seedot at indymedia dot ie

Sorry Mr T., although I had the pleasure of being schooled in neo-classical economics i was being sarcastic when I spoke about Tesco operating in perfect competition. If you really believe Tesco is a price taker rather than a price maker, perhaps you could have a go at explaining this to the IFA or any other body which includes large numbers of suppliers to Tesco.
As to the 'profit is theft' argument - marxism defines it as surplus labour value which is appropriated from the workers. While I won't defend too much marxist economics this seems a valid argument (possibly not correct but valid) to me and can justify the 'profit is theft' slogan.

As you correctly state, my opinion on appropriate remuneration for Tesco mgt is irrelevant. But it also is nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Stopping shoplifting is more likely to affect those salaries than the prices we pay - so when you steal a snickers, its poor old Terry Leahy who has the most valid claim to victimhood. Alternatively we could say the snickers will affect your pension fund.

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 08, 2006 14:31

Mr. T you seem to be hellbent on taking a very simple argument for a roll in the gutter.

Please forgive me if I choose not to rise to your rancid and illogical bait.

You again cast doubt on my factual and truthful assertation that profit is theft. Again you failed utterly to show how or why this assertation is wrong.

Instead you attacked my qualification to participate in a debate, based on my educational attainments, which I may add that you are clueless about too.

I have a right to an opinion irregardless as to my social or educational background. The fact that you attack this right, puts your whole argument in perspective. Ie. "I'm bigger so get out of my way."

Well you are not bigger. You are quite little.

Loudness doesn't count.

One does not need to be educated as to capitalist practice to beat it. One just needs to refuse to be victimised by it. You are obviously not educated in debate, but this does not prevent you from trying. And it's not the lack of education that causes you to fail. It's your self imposed blindness. Capitalism is the vehicle in which cowards may go to war. I don't fear cowards, irregardless as to how good their advertising and marketing is.

Finally I'd like to address anonymous and his or her heartrending story about closing a family shop.

Did competition, from more ruthless capitalist competitors play no part in all this?

If the loss of a snickers closed the shop, it wasn't a very stable business was it. I'm sorry the family shop closed. Tis a shame. But don't blame your customers.

by Damien Wed Mar 08, 2006 14:55

This debate really centers around a very simple idea - that of people contributing to society.

When somebody wants a snickers they have two options, steal or buy. The person who chooses to buy contributes to society - some of the money they pay will go towards services such as hospitals or pensions for the elderly etc. The person who steals the item does so for purely selfish reasons, and are they only person who benefits from the transaction.

Society will always have its freeloaders, who expect others to support them.

by Historian Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:04

Interesting to view the clear divide on this thread and the ones about the death of the person who allegedly murdered Donna Cleary.

On the one hand it would appear you have people whose instinctive sympathy is with the criminal, the person who consciously and without regard to any other person decides to do as they wish in furtherance of their own interests, and at whatever cost. Ironically many of those on that side are arguing from a leftist perspective, ie. from the point of view of those who beleive that an individuals interests ought to be secondary to the collective or common good. Completely contrary to the criminal mentality. Deeply ironic in fact.

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:08

Jaysus - my bad!

i had no idea I was that loud. Somebody nudge me next time my voice gets too loud! oops - sorry about that exclaimation point! damned - did it again... *sorry*

And you're right on all points. Here's what I learned today:

-Stealing is ethical and should be legal.

-Money left over after paying off expenses (profit) is illegal unless its stolen. I'll turn myself over to the guards immediately.

-Large retailers price their goods without consideration of underlaying costs or market forces.

-The larger the retailer, the more ethical it is to steal from them.

-It's only illegal to steal from charity shops, small merchants, other ethically "pure" merchants. It's OK to steal from everyone else -- they're wealthy and have it built into their budgets anyway.

- The Afore mentioned ethically "pure" retailers are unaffected by rising insurance costs associated with paying out for the larger retailer's loss to theivery, larceny and other forms of "ad hoc wealth redistribution".

- All merchants are wealthy. They can afford to had out loads of goodies to all the wretched drunken rabble that decides to enter their premises. These scumbags are, after all, merely another form of customer.

-The easter bunny brings sweets for good boys and girls on Easter.

-One should be aware of one's volume and size when submitting opinions to forum web pages, being careful not to rudely bump other out of the way, or speak in a tone as to cause great upset.

by Damien Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:41

Without debating this further, I wish to point out a number of serious errors in Seans Article. These blunders are evidence of the lack of understanding which he displays with regard to economics.

Sean : "They work like dogs"

Fact : "By law, the basic workweek is 40 hours. Overtime is limited to 48 hours over a four week period and no more than 200 hours per year. This applies to all employees, except for those in managerial positions, people working out of their homes, and some other special categories. "

Fact : "All employees in Sweden are entitled to a minimum five-week paid annual leave"

Fact : "the average work week is rather short."

Fact : "The average work week is 37 hours"

==================================================================

Sean : "They live from week to week."

Fact : "Due to improved central government finances, lower interest rates, rising asset values and increasing faith in the future, households have reduced their savings. "

==================================================================

Sean : "Employment is in decline"

Fact : "By late 2000, the jobless rate had dropped to the government’s target level of 4%, due to the creation of new jobs "

===================================================================

Sean : "Sweden is no longer competitive and is in decline."

Fact : "Growth has been strong in recent years"

Fact : "The long-run prospects for growth remain favorable."

Fact : "The inflation rate is low and stable, with projections for continued low levels over the next 2-3 years."

References :

http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/society/working.htm
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____263....aspx
http://media.monster.com/mm/jlsw/MEI/PDF%20Sweden%20MEI...e.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 08, 2006 16:53

My excuse is that I gave up fags late last week. Reasoning that a capitalist's right to kill me derived from his right to profit from me. And that it was only my participation in all this that gave it validity.

Jesus where do I begin.

I don't promote the criminal over the victim. Besides this debate is about criminality itself and whether criminalising petty theft is worth the hassle and expense it costs. And indeed whether this act of criminalisation is an ethical act or not.

The murder of Donna Cleary is not a part of this debate and to infer that it is is quite insidious as is your inference that I put a criminal's rights above those of a young murdered mother. You want to debate my opinions on this issue please do so in the appropriate story.

Mr. T, again you fail to point out a singular flaw in my argument and have resorted to "na na na na na." I understand your frustration, but your sarcasm is badly misplaced in light of the fact that you failed to address my point. But let me ignore this and offer you further information instead.

I have never said theft is moral. However I do not see morality as being a black and white issue. Let me describe a scenario for you.

Shoplifter has a transaction with Tesco's. Shoplifter's profit from this transaction is a snicker's bar.

Tesco's has a transaction with a 'consumer.' Tesco's profit from this is financial.

Why is it that Shoplifter's profit is theft and Tesco's profit isn't?

Please don't answer that agreement is the difference, unless you can produce a 'consumer' who would argue that they wouldn't like to reduce the cost of their purchases by removing the profit from them.

Profit is theft. Because the assumed right to profit exists we have commercial advertising, which massively inflates the price of items for sale. And that's only the beginning of it.

At the start of what was a debate, I said that crime and society's response to it should follow a set of priorities.

I see the crime of capitalism to be a much greater crime against society and the individual, than the crime of a shoplifter. When and if we get to the point where capitalist criminals are recognised and punished, my association with shoplifter will vanish in a heartbeat. Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that shoplifter would mend his or her ways at this point also.

Finally.

My factual errors.

Employment in decline. Employment is going very much the same route as it has gone here. Unions are shite and not encouraged by employers. Part time employment is on the rise, ie. many traditional benefits from full time employment can now be saved as profit.

Most Swedish people work more than the average working week, and still have problems affording a good night out at the end of the week. Check out the price of a cup of coffee or a pint for example. Also check out this fact: Go to any bar, McDonald's or whereever, you will be served by a third level graduate. What does this say about employment? What does this lead to; possibly the influx of foreigners with a lesser standard of education. Instant class creation and creation of a class divide, so that again the capitalist may peddle his wares without too much notice.

Also, rising asset values is code for rising cost of living and rising cost of somewhere to live in.

Economic reports are not social reports.

Tis quite simple. Sweden is either in decline or on the rise. Let's see what percentage of Swedish nationals have a third level education in 20 years. Possibly a bit long to resolve our dispute. I cannot help that I'm afraid. But I do think the evidence points strongly in the direction I see it pointing in.

by Damien Wed Mar 08, 2006 17:27

Sean,

You are really showing your ignorance now.

Sean : "Most Swedish people work more than the average working week"

What an idiotic thing to say. Do you understand averages?

Sean : "Employment in decline"

Can you back this claim up? The economist, OECD and swedish governement reports all disagree with you. Perhaps you have a better grasp on the issue than the rest of the worlds economists......Or perhaps you are just talking about something which you know nothing about.

Have you even read any of the links I posted?

Or are you just pulling these ridiculous opinions on the Swedish economy randomly out of your ass?

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 08, 2006 17:44

FACT: At present in Ireland it is perfectly LEGAL to sell something at a profit.
FACT: At present in Ireland it is ILLEGAL to steal another's property.

There is nothing further for me to prove. Case closed.

The reality is, Mr. Ryan, that I cannot and will not have a serious debate with anyone who manufactures fanciful NEWSPEAK interpretations of civil law as the basis of an argument.

I've grown tired of this nonsense of a discussion. It no longer amuses me to point out your profound gaps in logic. The Orwellian logic and language acrobatics - while initially inducing chuckles and great mirth - have grown tedious.

Most disturbing of all is that you're probably not taking the piss.

by Larry Wed Mar 08, 2006 17:52

Suppose I break into a shop an steal a plasma screen TV and then I flog it from my car boot?
By your logic it is not a crime to steal but it is a crime to profit - so you believe in criminalising people for selling stolen goods - which means in effect you would criminalise stealing because it makes no sense to jail someone for selling stolen good but not jail them for stealing.
Which is it?

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 08, 2006 19:09

Damien:

I did not dispute your economics with you, but I will now. I said that an economics report is not a social report.

Here's some links, none of which are more than a month old. Each and every one of them shows social decline. The last one in particular shows the economical picture in Sweden and makes little of your wishful thinking on the subject.
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3229&date=20060308
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no...id=21
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/International/nyhetssidor/arti...10578
http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.j...ustry
http://www.trimmail.com/news/elsewhere/data/1141682469.18/
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2006/03/07/afx2575....html
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=66247-...ar-eu
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=ayy...urope
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3189&date=20060303

Enjoy.

Mr. T:
I have never suggested that profit was illegal. I've explained this to you already. Profit is not illegal but it should be. It cannot be morally justified. At least you cannot morally justify it. Also, I have not attempted any interpretations of civil law. This is your hungry imagination running into overdrive again. All my arguments are philosophically based, which even you ought to admit is not the same as 'civil law.'
And in closing to you. You are wasting my time. You have yet to engage in debate, so your point about not continuing is quite funny. I'd appreciate you following through on this threat nonetheless.

Larry:
Interesting question. Let me answer it with another one.

Which one of your crimes is more amoral?

The theft itself, or the profit you hope to make from it?

by Larry Wed Mar 08, 2006 20:45

Your economic ideas remind me of an a joke from an old Des McHale joke book:

Two men decided to go into business selling turnips.
So they bought a truckload of turnips for a penny each and sold them for a penny each.
When they were finished they counted their money and found that they had the same money they started with.
"What the hell do we do now? asked one of the men.
"We need to buy a bigger lorryload," said the other man.

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 08, 2006 21:37

Ah come on now Larry.

I gave a decent answer to your question. And you now trivialise the debate with a bad joke.

Where did all those pennies the two guys had, come from?

If they went to all that hassle to distribute the food, why did they choose to go hungry themselves?

Your jokes should be shorter and more to the point. You'll raise more laughs that way.

Eg:
A man walks into a bar.
Blind idiot.

by Damien Wed Mar 08, 2006 22:01

Sean,

Your last post is laughable. You claim to be trying to disagree with the economic data I have shown you regarding Sweden. yet nowhere in your post, or in any of those links to you give any evidence supporting your stupid claims.

Possilbly you don't understand why a news story about a factory closure is not evidence of rising unemployment, so I'll try explain it in terms you might be able to grasp. Imagine you have 10 apples. You lose 2 apples. Then you find 4 apples. How many apples do you have? ( You'll probably need a hint here Sean - the answer is 12 )

Its the same for jobs - you cannot judge the employment levels of Sweden - or anywhere - by just looking at the jobs lost - you have to look at the total level of employment, so as to include the jobs created.

In conclusion, you have no idea what your talking about. I refuse to continue this debate until you can provide evidence to show that Sweden is in economic decline.

by Seán Ryan Wed Mar 08, 2006 22:42

Well that sorts it out nicely. You are way too intellectual for me.

I cannot lose imaginary apples. Or find any either.

At the end of your subtraction and addition, you still possess no apples. Tis all in your head. That's a hint too.

"The average price in Estonia last year for an hour of work, including salary and payroll tax, was 41 kronor. In Sweden, the average was 215 kronor."

"Economies in the Baltic region will grow on average by 2.9 percent in 2006, and 2.4 percent in 2007, But jobs are predicted to continue moving from Sweden to lower-income countries in Eastern Europe."

That's from the last link on the list I gave you. If you want more work done on the topic, then employ yourself to the task. And once again my point is about social decline not economic decline. I'm pretty sure the rich in Sweden will get richer as the poor get poorer. Even when a country heads towards econmic decline, like Sweden, the rich will not get poorer. So in the sense that you mean, economics will always thrive. But this view is intellectual dishonesty. Let's dispense with cheap shots and pettiness and deal with facts. And if my arguments are so trivial and badly reasoned why are you so afraid the general population will not see through me? Why go to the bother of rubishing my arguments if they are so self evidently stupid and incorrect?

Shouldn't you pick on somebody your own size if I'm so underdeveloped?

Let us remember that calling something stupid or incorrect is hardly a substitute for proving it thus.

Whilst you rethink your ideas on Sweden, please remember that crime and particularly violent crime is also on the increase. But not to worry, there's plenty of profit to be made nonetheless.

But hey, feel free to stop 'debating' like you threatened. You haven't really done so since your first posting anyway. More intellectual dishonesty?

by shoplifter Wed Mar 08, 2006 22:56

hello,

Can anyone explain why stealing from a business should not just be a civil matter. Sending people to jail for shoplifting is out of date.

Remember what happened to Jean Valjean; that made me cry. Sending people to jail for shoplifting is just wrong.

It is too much for the crime.
Why can it not just be a matter of giving money back.

So far as tesco are concerned any additional costs would be passed on to the consumer. _So what _ fuck them ( which is US) shopping in tesco is collaboration in the destruction of your own community. (Not so true in new towns or places where there has been a huge population expansion.) And also driving down prices paid to producers.

Also fuck Sweden who cares.

by . Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:39

Instead, read this book.

""It calls on the Robin Hoods of Santa Barbara Forest to steal from the robber barons who own the castles of capitalism. It implies that the reader already is "ideologically set," in that he understands corporate feudalism as the only robbery worthy of being called "crime," for it is committed against the people as a whole. Whether the ways it describes to rip-off shit are legal or illegal is irrelevant. The dictionary of law is written by the bosses of order. Our moral dictionary says no heisting from each other. To steal from a brother or sister is evil. To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral."

Swedens just another outpost in the Pig Empire

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:53

Damien and Larry - save your fingertips - don't bother to engage with either Mr. Ryan or shoplifter. They're obviously trolls... Re-read their posts - these two can't possibly be as stupid as their post would suggest.

I'd had my suspicions from the start but the final straw was Mr. shoplifter's last post: "Jean Valjean" made him cry indeed. Gimme a break... that's the protagonist in Hugo's Les Miserables. Only an imbecile or a troll would submit that sort of tripe.

These two fascist confederate trolls have stolen the last of my valuable time...

by Larry Thu Mar 09, 2006 16:51

Shut up sucker!

by Gay Geori - Pooves Power Thu Mar 09, 2006 18:12

.