To Steal or not to Steal?

[7even]

People who steal will steal regardless of whether or not others have stolen of them, due to their mentality.
So people who choose not to steal for the following reasons are unreasonable:

1 - If I steal, I will influence others to also steal.
False: People who do not steal, will not steal, regardless of whether or not they have been victims of theft, due to their principles and values.

2 - I wouldn't steal, because I wouldn't want someone to steal my things.
Well, your things are going to be stolen regardless!

Bikes are a good object to focus on:

I have friends who've had things stolen, such as bikes, and still would not steal. (Re-enforcing statements 1 and 2)
I on the other-hand, have had bikes stolen, and would definitely steal a bike - knowing that 1 and 2 are valid.


So it seems to me that taking the moral high road, will only put you at a disadvantage to people who steal! You lose, they gain!
Unless your 'values' are what's important here, but what are those worth when it comes to strangers, hell, you won't even see the victims of your crime.

Although, I do realize that if one would succumb to such logic, the number of thefts would increase significantly.

Sure, I would love a perfect world where none commits theft, but we simply do not live in a perfect world. The thread is primarily focused on strangers, but is open to discussion to theft of any subject.


Additional questions:
Why are thieves thieves? (Why do people steal?) What is the nature of thievery?
Can the number of thieves in society be influenced?
Does it strongly rely on values and principles and thus parenthood?
How would you tackle the issue of thievery?
Would you feel more morally justified stealing an already stolen object?
Depending on what circumstances, would you steal or not steal?
Can people deserve thievery, and why, and for what reasons? (Can theft be justified?)
Would you steal one thing, but not another, and why?



Would you commit thievery - and why?

 

[TriflinThomas]

I'm good at stealing (or, at least I used to be) but I don't steal because I'm more patient, not because it's "not cool." I think stealing from big box stores is ok because they're not going to miss $5 worth of candy or stuff like that.

 

[Intellect]

Would you commit thievery - and why?

Absolutely. But only under specific circumstances. My interest in theft comes primarily from an interest in problem solving. I like to be challenged and overcome obstacles. Petty theft or stealing from the average person would never interest me because it would be too easy and, thus, pointless in my opinion.

I've always been interested in lock picking as well, which is related, I guess.

Why are thieves thieves?

Probably any number of reasons. As I mentioned above, there's a challenge that might appeal to some people. There's also the adrenaline rush that comes with it. I used to have a friend who would steal purely for the rush it gave him.

Then, of course, there's also people who steal out of necessity.

Can the number of thieves in society be influenced?
Does it strongly rely on values and principles and thus parenthood?

Excluding thieves who steal out of necessity, I'm sure upbringing has a lot to do with it. The friend I mentioned earlier is quite morally ambiguous (more so than I am), which probably makes theft more natural to him.

Interesting topic. I look forward to seeing other answers.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Stealing is axiomatically unjust.

 

[Kuu]

Too polarized.

It depends. What are you stealing? From whom are you stealing it? Why are you stealing it?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

I wouldn't. (barring life threatening circumstances)

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Thievery is an example of intraspecific competition in humans. To oversimplify it in evolutionary terms, the dude with the most food and shiny stuff got laid the most.

It can be negated by morality (which is ultimately a form of social indoctrination), but that negation cannot occur without some "universal" axiom or set of axioms with equal nullification.

 

[SMO]

I'm trying to justify theft.

People who steal will steal regardless of whether or not others have stolen of them, due to their mentality.
So people who choose not to steal for the following reasons are unreasonable:

1 - If I steal, I will influence others to also steal.
False: People who do not steal, will not steal, regardless of whether or not they have been victims of theft, due to their principles and values.

2 - I wouldn't steal, because I wouldn't want someone to steal my things.
Well, your things are going to be stolen regardless!

Bikes are a good object to focus on:

I have friends who've had things stolen, such as bikes, and still would not steal. (Re-enforcing statements 1 and 2)
I on the other-hand, have had bikes stolen, and would definitely steal a bike - knowing that 1 and 2 are valid.


So it seems to me that taking the moral high road, will only put you at a disadvantage to people who steal! You lose, they gain!
Unless your 'values' are what's important here, but what are there worth when it comes to strangers, hell, you won't even see the victims of your crime.

Although, I do realize that if one would succumb to such logic, the number of thefts would increase significantly.

Sure, I would love a perfect world where none commits theft, but we simply do not live in a perfect world. The thread is primarily focused on strangers, but is open to discussion to theft of any subject.


Additional questions:
Why are thieves thieves? (Why do people steal?) What is the nature of thievery?
Can the number of thieves in society be influenced?
Does it strongly rely on values and principles and thus parenthood?
How would you tackle the issue of thievery?
Would you feel more morally justified stealing an already stolen object?
Depending on what circumstances, would you steal or not steal?
Can people deserve thievery, and why, and for what reasons? (Can theft be justified?)
Would you steal one thing, but not another, and why?



Would you commit thievery - and why?

How long would it take for a bike theft to become something more sinister? Do you think people who commit violent crimes tend to be upstanding law-abiding citizens (possibly but probably not). So you steal a bike, let's say you encounter no consequence for your action and you are not morally bound to feel any remorse for the action. Why would you stop there? Would you commit rape or murder if you knew you wouldn't be caught? The rate of solved murders, I think is around 60% depending on your area indicates to me a relatively intelligent person could probably get away with murder easily.
So take out "steal" and replace it with "rape" or "murder" or "embezzlement" what is the difference?
For example the Petit family murders in Connecticut were intended as a burglary and ended in rape and murder. The two criminals, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, had previously had long records of theft and burglary.
We don't all of the sudden become hardened career criminals, it is a gradual process, but it has to start somewhere...or it is just a childish phase that one grows out of, either way, not for me, under any normal circumstance.

 

[walfin]

It destroys property rights, making it difficult for a market to thrive.

 

[7even]

Stealing is axiomatically unjust.

I acknowledge that; however, that's not stopping a plurality.

Too polarized.

It depends. What are you stealing? From whom are you stealing it? Why are you stealing it?

Well, my intention was not to limit the topic too much. On what circumstances would it depend?

How long would it take for a bike theft to become something more sinister? Do you think people who commit violent crimes tend to be upstanding law-abiding citizens (possibly but probably not). So you steal a bike, let's say you encounter no consequence for your action and you are not morally bound to feel any remorse for the action. Why would you stop there? Would you commit rape or murder if you knew you wouldn't be caught? The rate of solved murders, I think is around 60% depending on your area indicates to me a relatively intelligent person could probably get away with murder easily.
So take out "steal" and replace it with "rape" or "murder" or "embezzlement" what is the difference?
For example the Petit family murders in Connecticut were intended as a burglary and ended in rape and murder. The two criminals, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, had previously had long records of theft and burglary.
We don't all of the sudden become hardened career criminals, it is a gradual process, but it has to start somewhere...or it is just a childish phase that one grows out of, either way, not for me, under any normal circumstance.

Oh, bite me.

That is just ridiculous, there is no positive correlation between theft and murder/rape/embezzlement.
Your example is an extreme anomaly and does not prove anything.
A person who commits murder isn't one who necessarily commits thievery - your whole paragraph is filled with extremely rash assumptions.

 

[SMO]

That is just ridiculous, there is no positive correlation between theft and murder/rape/embezzlement.
Your example is an extreme anomaly and does not prove anything.
A person who commits murder isn't one who necessarily commits thievery - your whole paragraph is filled with extremely rash assumptions.

Your whole premise is that committing a criminal act is non-consequential to one's self, so why wouldn't that apply on a more severe scale? If it feels good, do it right? If I want something, I just take it, someone cut me off in traffic and made me really angry, I get my AR-15 and take them out.

Extreme anomaly? My point is that criminals start doing small crimes (i.e. theft) then go on to bigger things. I feel pretty certain if you were to look at murderers and their criminal history, murder is probably not their first run in with the law, and theft would be a likely starting point.

Your justification as I read it is "might makes right", please correct me if that is not your case.

 

[7even]

Your whole premise is that committing a criminal act is non-consequential to one's self, so why wouldn't that apply on a more severe scale?

Well, you could apply that to anything, you smoke tobacco? That's a starting point to do heroin.
There are much more significant factors to your argument, and that would lie within the person himself.
Stealing an item, and murdering somebody, are two completely different actions.
Yes, according to society, they are both crimes, but they lie far, far away on a moral scale.
Although, perhaps, yes, thievery could be a starting point, but the chances of that leading to murder are very unlikely, in my opinion.
Also, you know, what's interesting, feelings of love, open the possibilities of feelings of jealousy and hatred to arise, which in turn could lead to murder.

If it feels good, do it right? If I want something, I just take it, someone cut me off in traffic and made me really angry, I get my AR-15 and take them out.

Now that, would be awesome.

Extreme anomaly? My point is that criminals start doing small crimes (i.e. theft) then go on to bigger things. I feel pretty certain if you were to look at murderers and their criminal history, murder is probably not their first run in with the law, and theft would be a likely starting point.

Criminals also drink milk, I'm going to say that drinking milk is the starting point for murder, and also, your 'feeling' is incorrect. Try to find anything on the internet that shows a strong link between the two, you'd think there would be plenty given today's databases, no? We both know you're making an assumption with no strong evidence to support your claim. I am, for some reason, doubtful that chronic theft would be the starting point for the majority of murderers.

Your justification as I read it is "might makes right", please correct me if that is not your case.

Not sure what you mean?

 

[Architect]

In a practical sense, thievery is the first step on a path where you surely don't like the end . Further by the most fundamental moral code - The Golden Rule - thievery is wrong. Though you haven't minded having your bikes stolen, how would you feel about your car, your stereo, phone or computer? How would you feel if a govt. coup occurred and they took everything you had?

 

[7even]

In a practical sense, thievery is the first step on a path where you surely don't like the end . Further by the most fundamental moral code - The Golden Rule - thievery is wrong. Though you haven't minded having your bikes stolen, how would you feel about your car, your stereo, phone or computer? How would you feel if a govt. coup occurred and they took everything you had?

Personally, at first I would feel pretty angry, but only for a brief moment. It took me a minute to get over my bike, so I'm fairly certain that I'd get over the feeling relatively quickly, because I'd realize there's nothing I could do about it, I'd be helpless, and thus wouldn't let it get to me, and most probably resolve to humor, I don't place much value on materials all in all. The government scenario, however, would have a very significant impact on my life, and in that extreme, I'd go haywire, but that is just a guess.

 

[Architect]

The government scenario, however, would have a very significant impact on my life, and in that extreme, I'd go haywire, but that is just a guess.

A good way to test a hypothesis is to push it to an extreme and see how it fares. I think it's fair to say everybody would hit the roof if a Govt. confiscated all their possessions. That's a clue that fundamentally thievery isn't a good idea.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Let's explore the ripple effect of thievery...

Your bike is stolen. You feel angry. You feel violated. Now you have to walk until you can afford to buy another bike.

So, out of vengeful spite you go steal some other innocent fool's bike. You justify this by telling yourself "Hey, it happened to me so why shouldn't it happen to him?" In effect, you pass on your 'disease' to an innocent person and feel better for it. Now you have a stolen bike, and all the associated hassles of possessing stolen property, which invites more stress, danger into your own life.

End result: Quality of life diminishes and the world becomes a more hostile place for everyone involved, most of all future innocent victims. But that's ok...your life is shit so the rest of the world needs to suffer along with you...totally rational.

Another example: You steal my backpack. Inside are all my teaching materials, my phone, my house-keys, my wallet containing my ID and credit/debit cards, etc.

Now, nothing of actual monetary value to you has been stolen. Assuming you're a seasoned thief, you know I'm going to report the credit cards, ID, and phone stolen immediately, plus those are the items that carry the biggest risk of detection if you try to use them. So you throw them away immediately.

Never mind that it took me six months to apply for and be granted that credit card, and now it'll probably take me hours of phone calls (which are going to be a hassle to make now that you've thrown my phone in the trash) and weeks of waiting to obtain a replacement.

Never mind that I had to spend three days running around town collecting the proper documents, then stand in line for 4 hours to obtain the ID. Now, in addition to canceling the old one, I'll have to repeat the fucking process again.

Never mind that that phone cost me 300 dollars and now I can't afford another one. Forget about the fact that all my contact numbers of my students, business associates, etc. were stored in that phone. Forget about the near impossible task of recompiling the information into a new phone (if and when I can afford one), and never mind that I still have to pay my phone bill, even though now I have no phone to use it with.

My teaching materials are also worthless to you, because petty thieves can be assumed to have no ability or interest in furthering their education, so you also trash all that stuff. Thanks. Now I have to spend hours, not to mention a lot of money, to remake all the materials I spent hours and hours creating MYSELF. All the files I had on the six classes I was to teach that day are now gone, which means I also incur the loss of a day's wages FUCK YOU VERY MUCH. I could go on, but you will never understand the degree to which your asinine petty theft has fucked up my professional existence...

But on top of all that...now that you have both my ID with my home address and my house keys, now I have to worry about your derelict ass strolling into my house and stealing the rest of my shit after raping my wife and kids. So there goes another thousand dollars to change the locks on my house, if I ever get home, since now I'm locked out of my car as well (have to change those locks and get a new transponder now too...how the fuck much is that going to cost??).

End result: You've made my life a living hell, and for what? You just ended up throwing it all away. If I cross paths with you before the cops do, I will definitely beat the living shit out of you. That is, if I can control my extreme rage long enough to not cross the line and outright murder you.

'Petty theft equates to murder'...pretty sensational-sounding, eh? Like 'Marijuana leads to heroin'. Yeah, well...it doesn't specify whether the petty thieves become murderers or murder victims now does it?

Fuck bikes...bikes are tinker toys. Fuck the 'moral high road'...morality has nothing to do with it. You're telling me that, because 'my stuff is going to get stolen anyway', it's rational for me to steal from others? Theft equates to fucking with other people's lives. Theft equates to keeping the world a hostile environment and stifling social advancement. Your rationale is a farce.

Why are thieves thieves? (Why do people steal?) What is the nature of thievery? Poverty, drug addiction, psychopathy, flawed reasoning.

Can the number of thieves in society be influenced?
Abolish poverty, drug addiction, psychopathy, flawed reasoning.

Does it strongly rely on values and principles and thus parenthood?
Obviously.

How would you tackle the issue of thievery?
Vigilantism, murder.

Would you feel more morally justified stealing an already stolen object?
Only to return it to its rightful owner.

Depending on what circumstances, would you steal or not steal?
Starvation.

Can people deserve thievery, and why, and for what reasons? (Can theft be justified?)
In a world where there is sufficient food, water and shelter to go around (methinks there is in this one, it's just not spread out evenly enough), absolutely not.

Would you steal one thing, but not another, and why?

You mean, "Is it ok to steal bikes, but not backpacks?" There's no difference...ripple effect and all that.



Would you commit thievery - and why?

You read this far...answer it yourself.

 

[7even]

Hahah, I stand corrected.

I'd like to clarify that the logic I have stated is not my actual logic, I just wanted to stimulate some discussion, and analyse different view points, sometimes playing devil's advocate!

I assure you I am not a thief. In reality, I have never even committed thievery.

I am still doubtful that the result would be murder (relative to the large majority of theft cases). You may have very strong hostile thoughts towards the criminal, but would you actually murder him, given the chance? ... (Speaking about the majority of people, I don't know about you )
Anyway, the reason there is no correlation, is because the victim of theft, will very rarely find the perpetrator. So, perhaps it may stimulate the idea of murder in an abstract manner, but that is all it is actually going to be, abstract. Rarely will anything ensue.

Not to mention the consequences of murder as opposed to theft to anyone with half a brain. The law is more relevant in this case to one's actions/reaction.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Well, in the big picture it's kind of irrelevant who steals from who because we will all born with nothing and die with nothing and everything we do is pretty much useless, however, society has created consequences for those that steal so unless you know you can get away with it for certain it's best not to bother. Personally, if I were to steal something, I would feel much better if it was from a huge wealthy organization that wouldn't miss it rather than from an individual. For some reason, I wouldn't feel guilty about it as I would if I stole from someone. If you have no such emotional weaknesses, then you are free to steal from whomever, as long as you can get away with it

There is, of course, the possibility of an afterlife and/or karma which may punish you for stealing. It's something we can't be certain about but the possibility exists...

 

[SMO]

If it makes you feel any better, you have stolen time from me today as I tried to find statistical date to plug into a Bayesian model (given the crimes and the result either arrest or non arrest and the future behavior with severity) and I am now tired of looking. I assign you 125 internet points* (disclaimer - internet points expire after 30 days).

At the end of the day it is moral turpitude and I believe leads to a destruction of a person's character and "could" lead to further lapses (I'll tone it down) such as lying, more theft, cheating on taxes and acting like an ESFJ.

 

[Solitaire U.]

At the end of the day it is moral turpitude and I believe leads to a destruction of a person's character and "could" lead to further lapses (I'll tone it down) such as lying, more theft, cheating on taxes and acting like an ESFJ.

Heh...but doesn't ESFJ = police officer?

 

[SMO]

Heh...but doesn't ESFJ = police officer?

It might be just me but it seems like you are becoming more prolific around here?
he..he

 

[Solitaire U.]

@7even I know you aren't . You used the first person perspective in your OP so I thought it appropriate to reply in the second person.

RE: the question of murder. It's interesting to note the following:

Many people consider infidelity/adultery to be forms of 'stealing'. I wonder if that's a sound rationale, but nevertheless, the internet has supplied me with the top 5 motives for murder:

1. Money
2. Mental illness
3. Revenge (doesn't specify for what)
4. Jealousy/crime of passion
5. Obsession (again, doesn't specify what)

Seems like it would be fairly easy to articulate a strong argument on the inter-relatedness of theft and murder.

Here's a question for you: What might we theorize would happen if all victims of theft had the opportunity to confront their perpetrator?

 

[Solitaire U.]

It might be just me but it seems like you are becoming more prolific around here?
he..he

And you shut up! I am NOT becoming more prolific, damnit!!

 

[The Gopher]

Well I am a amature pick pocket but I only do it for fun. However nobody has been able to steal from me yet. If they do I will find them so I am not so bothered. I would steal if I had to but in most places(that I would end up in) you can get by without stealing.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I acknowledge that; however, that's not stopping a plurality.

If everyone conformed to the same standard of action there would be no need of the concepts of what is just, moral and ethical.

Since there was use of the term 'steal' in this thread it is implicitly accept that to take someone else's property without their permission is an unjust action. Ergo, to steal is axiomatically unjust.

Proportional punishment of the act is left to the field of ethics.

^_^

 

[7even]

If it makes you feel any better, you have stolen time from me today as I tried to find statistical date to plug into a Bayesian model (given the crimes and the result either arrest or non arrest and the future behavior with severity) and I am now tired of looking. I assign you 125 internet points* (disclaimer - internet points expire after 30 days).

At the end of the day it is moral turpitude and I believe leads to a destruction of a person's character and "could" lead to further lapses (I'll tone it down) such as lying, more theft, cheating on taxes and acting like an ESFJ.

What are these internet points you speak of, and what can I do with them?

Well, the research was completely up to you, don't blame me for your decision. Don't see how that would make me feel any better anyway.
I was, however, excited for a moment in hopes that you might have found a correlation, that would be interesting.

Many people consider infidelity/adultery to be forms of 'stealing'. I wonder if that's a sound rationale, but nevertheless, the internet has supplied me with the top 5 motives for murder:

1. Money
2. Mental illness
3. Revenge (doesn't specify for what)
4. Jealousy/crime of passion
5. Obsession (again, doesn't specify what)

Seems like it would be fairly easy to articulate a strong argument on the inter-relatedness of theft and murder.

Here's a question for you: What might we theorize would happen if all victims of theft had the opportunity to confront their perpetrator?

@Solitaire U.

Ah, the motives listed are quite interesting.
Yeah, actually, if money is the strongest motivator for murder, than it is implicit that theft does indeed lead to murder. (@SMO - )

Regarding the question: Well, it depends on the setting, if the meeting where to take place under the law, I guess, this is where justice (or mercy) would come in, depending on the victim's character.

If the meeting where to take place somewhere more private, again, it would be hard to judge, because it strongly depends on the victim's character, his position, and what it was exactly that was stolen; but murder, or strong hostility (my bet would be nonfatal combat though, murder being less likely - again strongly depending on the variables stated... Unless you steal from the mafia - then it is a given that you're pretty fatally fucked) are most certainly plausible.

This video is pretty appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZomwVcGt0LE

 

[crippli]

At the end of the day it is moral turpitude and I believe leads to a destruction of a person's character and "could" lead to further lapses (I'll tone it down) such as lying, more theft, cheating on taxes and acting like an ESFJ.

Cheating on taxes? Anyone who still does this? At least here there are so many possibilities to legally steal tax money that it doesn't make much sense to do it illegally. One way is real estate. Although this option is not available to everyone, it's quite easy to get the tax down to a decent level, personally I prefer this to be about 5%, while the investment increases almost exponentially. I agree with you. Someone has got to pay them if one is to have a decent social support system. But I don't hold it against people if they cheat, as the system itself is unjust by differentiation on who have to pay. Seems there will always be slaves and masters, and the systems are designed to accomplish this.

Why doesn't legally murder, lying and theft lead to a destruction of a person's character? People like George Bush and Mao Zedong seemed to enjoy life fine. The latter had on his resume *killed 45 million people in a four year period. If that doesn't affect you, then what will?

I think i will conclude these thoughts with this; if you think it's wrong to steal, don't do it. But you can probably do all these things without being affected negatively if you can justify them to yourself. Even better if surrounded by a group of people that can strengthen those beliefs. Then you should be able to grow your character just as strong as a priests.

 

[SMO]

Cheating on taxes? Anyone who still does this? At least here there are so many possibilities to legally steal tax money that it doesn't make much sense to do it illegally. One way is real estate. Although this option is not available to everyone, it's quite easy to get the tax down to a decent level, personally I prefer this to be about 5%, while the investment increases almost exponentially. I agree with you. Someone has got to pay them if one is to have a decent social support system. But I don't hold it against people if they cheat, as the system itself is unjust by differentiation on who have to pay. Seems there will always be slaves and masters, and the systems are designed to accomplish this.

Why doesn't legally murder, lying and theft lead to a destruction of a person's character? People like George Bush and Mao Zedong seemed to enjoy life fine. The latter had on his resume *killed 45 million people in a four year period. If that doesn't affect you, then what will?

I think i will conclude these thoughts with this; if you think it's wrong to steal, don't do it. But you can probably do all these things without being affected negatively if you can justify them to yourself. Even better if surrounded by a group of people that can strengthen those beliefs. Then you should be able to grow your character just as strong as a priests.

I meant cheating on taxes and acting like a ESFJ to be more of funny statement, but I am interested in what you mean about "getting tax down to a decent level"? Investment increases exponentially?
Also death from war or starvation as opposed to directly killing someone with your bare hands would have a different impact.

 

[DreamMancer]

Many of these questions depend on one's understanding of "theft".

The European settlers who arrived on the shores of North America did not regard their habit of taking land away from the indigenous inhabitants to be "theft" - although the indigenous inhabitants would no doubt disagree.

Likewise, there are some who go so far as to declare that "Property is theft!"

While I don't know if I'd go that far myself, in looking around at most modern societies it seems that most of the people in charge are simply the most successful thieves - using tools like the legal system, courts, police, surveillance apparatus, etc, to secure for themselves the largest and juiciest portion of the pie.

One old Chinese guy put it like this:

IF ONE IS TO GUARD and take precautions against thieves who rifle trunks, ransack bags, and break open boxes, then he must bind with cords and ropes and make fast with locks and hasps. This the ordinary world calls wisdom. But if a great thief comes along, he will shoulder the boxes, hoist up the trunks, sling the bags over his back, and dash off, only worrying that the cords and ropes, the locks and hasps are not fastened tightly enough. In that case, the man who earlier was called wise was in fact only piling up goods for the benefit of a great thief.

Let me try explaining what I mean. What the ordinary world calls a wise man is in fact someone who piles things up for the benefit of a great thief, is he not? And what it calls a sage is in fact someone who stands guard for the benefit of a great thief, is he not? How do I know this is so? In times past there was the state of Ch'i, its neighboring towns within sight of each other, the cries of their dogs and chickens within hearing of each other. The area where its nets and seines were spread, where its plows and spades dug the earth, measured over two thousand li square, filling all the space within its four borders. And in the way its ancestral temples and its altars of the soil and grain were set up, its towns and villages and hamlets were governed, was there anything that did not accord with the laws of the sages?

Yet one morning Viscount T'ien Ch'eng murdered the ruler of Ch'i and stole his state. And was it only the state he stole? Along with it he also stole the laws which the wisdom of the sages had devised. Thus, although Viscount T'ien Ch'eng gained the name of thief and bandit, he was able to rest as peacefully as a Yao or a Shun. The smaller states did not dare condemn him, the larger states did not dare to attack, and for twelve generations his family held possession of the state of Ch'i. Is this not a case in which a man, stealing the state of Ch'i, along with it stole the laws of the sages' wisdom and used them to guard the person of a thief and a bandit?

Thus I would say it's kind of a question of who is really stealing from whom. Perhaps some of us could be considered thieves, even if that's not how we or our society views us.

 

[7even]

^ Yes! Our system is fueled by theft, look at the countless of corporations, especially those targeted at natural resources, that of which is vital to indigenous communities, in order for the modern community to thrive (and that is just one out of many variables!). The basis of the acquirement of a large quantity of your assets probably comes down to theft and at a collective cost (which goes unnoticed) of making others people living conditions poor, so all in all, we're all contributing to some degree of thievery in a way by mere participation of society, are we not? ... Although, we are essentially enslaved, so never-mind.

 

[crippli]

I meant cheating on taxes and acting like a ESFJ to be more of funny statement, but I am interested in what you mean about "getting tax down to a decent level"? Investment increases exponentially?
Also death from war or starvation as opposed to directly killing someone with your bare hands would have a different impact.

Why would war have a different impact, because you have others telling you that what you do is fine?

Tax down can be done with buying a house. On the loan you get 28% tax return. If you pay 35% in tax, you are left with 7%. The interests on the loan can be covered by renting out half the house, is tax free,, also through other means. This will generally provide more income then the expenses on the loan. Then you have in addition the ..so far..exponential growth of at least central value of real-estate, that you can take out as a bonus, when you sell before the prices fall. For the last 30 years it's increased with 10% each year. One have to take account of the deflation. But still, 10% of 1 million is a whole lot more then 10% on 50 000 was, but inflation also have effect on the loan. There are more factors and risk involved. But the main idea is to take advantage of those who can not afford to buy a house, and let them cover the expenses. The golden rule of making money is satisfied. There should be more coming in then what goes out.

So yes, honesty does pay off, but requires some effort into finding out how the systems work. I sometimes feel sorry for students who pay a premium price for real shitty living quarters. The kids from rich people almost exclusivly do what I scetched out above, and so become even richer.

 

[Proletar]

Depends. For example, stealing from banks and multinational corporations is for me no big deal whatsoever. Take whatever you want from them. because 1, it really doesn't affect their personnel, and 2, they fuck people over every day. Stealing from people, on the other hand, (especially poor people) is a big no-no.

Not OK to steal a stake from someones grill, but it is TOTALLY OK to steal that same stake from the store six hours earlier, to sum it up.

 

[Minuend]

It's just things... Why care about such dead objects enough to steal them?

 

[Puffy]

What about the internet? Music, books, films?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

lol. :P

 

[FlowerThug]

I do not steal because I dislike causing others unnecessary pain (emotional in this case). I just do not see the point.

Tho if some mofo stole my bike, I'd steal it right back..

 

[SMO]

Why would war have a different impact, because you have others telling you that what you do is fine?

Tax down can be done with buying a house. On the loan you get 28% tax return. If you pay 35% in tax, you are left with 7%. The interests on the loan can be covered by renting out half the house, is tax free,, also through other means. This will generally provide more income then the expenses on the loan. Then you have in addition the ..so far..exponential growth of at least central value of real-estate, that you can take out as a bonus, when you sell before the prices fall. For the last 30 years it's increased with 10% each year. One have to take account of the deflation. But still, 10% of 1 million is a whole lot more then 10% on 50 000 was, but inflation also have effect on the loan. There are more factors and risk involved. But the main idea is to take advantage of those who can not afford to buy a house, and let them cover the expenses. The golden rule of making money is satisfied. There should be more coming in then what goes out.

So yes, honesty does pay off, but requires some effort into finding out how the systems work. I sometimes feel sorry for students who pay a premium price for real shitty living quarters. The kids from rich people almost exclusivly do what I scetched out above, and so become even richer.

Well, ordering an attack or destroying crops (I have done neither so I am speculating) would have a much different and less visceral experience than taking a knife and plunging it into someones chest and looking them in they eyes as their life expires.

Your numbers are way off, a rental property the only thing you can write off are expenses and it is not dollar for dollar for the interest. If you are including depreciation, then you will have to repay that when/if the property sells. Also depreciation is done incrementally. Maybe you can pose an example and cite the amounts specifically.
10% increase? Maybe a couple of states, but if you notice there a several states that have greater increases and very severe corrections these include; Georgia, Florida, California and Arizona. There are also a lot of should's in your post.

 

[Minuend]

Oh right, I download shit all the time. Never mind then

 

[crippli]

Well, ordering an attack or destroying crops (I have done neither so I am speculating) would have a much different and less visceral experience than taking a knife and plunging it into someones chest and looking them in they eyes as their life expires.

Your numbers are way off, a rental property the only thing you can write off are expenses and it is not dollar for dollar for the interest. If you are including depreciation, then you will have to repay that when/if the property sells. Also depreciation is done incrementally. Maybe you can pose an example and cite the amounts specifically.
10% increase? Maybe a couple of states, but if you notice there a several states that have greater increases and very severe corrections these include; Georgia, Florida, California and Arizona. There are also a lot of should's in your post.

I looked it over. It should be inflation 2 times instead of deflation. Typo.

There are should's because things don't always go after the plan.

This isn't the US, even though things are I presume quite similar. If you live in the house yourself, and you rent out less then 50%, the income from this is not subject to tax. Add this on to 28% tax return on loan on real estate. You will see that renting out half the house pay for the loan. And the 28% tax return is extra money. And due to this system real estate is very popular as investment and prices increases continually. These numbers are correct. Also if you have lived in the house the last year, you can sell it tax free, even if you get 100 000 more then you paid 4 years ago.

So when you start to look at this, it becomes very lucrative to buy a house instead of renting. Renting is risk free. But the house owner will earn money by living instead of spending it. But who get the loan to buy the house? that is muddy territory, and not at all fair competition.