JUST A THOUGHT - Page 3

I'll assume that you either do not understand my question, do not care to answer my question, or are evading my question. Certainly someone else will come along.

It was not the topic of discussion that had been originally, I was simply referring to the notion that if someone takes something that is not theirs by society's idea of theft then this person has stolen, this was being argued.

A court system that derives convictions based on decisions or judgements supposedly beyond a reasonable doubt are fairly laughable IMO. It seems there is no end to the ability of manipulation, lacking information, contexts, or just about anything to completely throw off or destroy any chance at eleviating all reasonable doubt that the concept of this trial system is kind of rediculous. But without the ability to see in time and read minds or sufficiently detect lies I can't recommend a better system.

But I'm also not too into the system because of the nature of its "reform" policies. Our prisons are a literal nightmare, and don't tend to help near as much as they tend to exacerbate the problem.al

It would, indeed, be theft if evidence proved beyond assumption that the person stole. However, our legal system somehow has it that assumption is sufficient proof of theft. If evidence is circumstantial, and the evidence only supports the assumption, then the evidence does not prove that the individual stole anything, only that someone assumes that the individual stole something.

Its not so much just the assumption as the convinving, you can make up a charge, but if you can get a jury to believe you,with or without evidence, then you've still got a conviction.

However, I do see your point: sombody steals...maybe it was to feed his family who desparately needs to be fed because the guy's not working, then it's not stealing. Or, somebody steals...maybe it was to feed his family who needed to be fed, but he has a job and didn't need to steal. Then it's stealing, even if the job does not pay enough because there are other options; whereas, the other guy, who's not working has no immediate or long term options until he finds a job, finds social support, or both besides stealing or begging .

Thats why I went with a hungry kid for my example

leftwood touched on this in a previous post/

where's generosity on the part of the merchant?

maybe an apple could, i don't know, be given out of the ?goodness? in his heart...

that would cancel out the poor, unfortunate "survival mechanisms" kicking on the thought to steal rather than ask and receive?

Your hasty generalization does capitalism an injustice. A Mexican man used to go into Wal-Mart when I worked in the dairy department and stole cheese to feed to his son, whom he carried on his shoulders. He was caught, but not prosecuted. Instead, Wal-Mart gave him a $200 gift card with which he bought food and paid for the cheese that he had stolen. He got a job after that because the money most likely gave him some peace of mind that his kid was eating long enough for him to find a job. Now, it is rarely the case that people steal for that purpose. I know...I worked retail for two years. So, retailers do charitable work in other ways such as Children's Miracle Network that raises millions of dollars each year. In that way retailers are giving as those, such as the children in need, ask.

WIth such small portions of money in comparison to the zillions they rape from people by making necessities that will fall apart after x amount of time (including things like automobile parts that can kill you when they "expire" just to ensure the life of their business, as well as throwing away food, perishable items, and even overstock of non perishables in the amounts that number beyond comprehension, to underpaying and taking away benefits of employees when you damn well stores like wal-mart are making more money than god, between cheap products, low wages, low insurance coverage, they can afford to lower prices cornering the market, while still gaining a profit to the Nth degree ( I know I worked in retail on and off for a good few years too). Stores like wal-mart do spend a lot of money to stay on top too, like any other expendature, it's obvious their profit comes first. (I remember us doubling sales for a grand re-opening for months straight, and they still asked us to cut hours, and christmas bonuses were lowered too.)

I wish I could debate economics with you, but I don't know everything. I only know what I've experienced. I have thrown away tons of outdated milk, cheese, etc. that many would debate could have gone to charity. However, let us assume that Wal-Mart gave that refuse to charity and someone became ill. Since the package has a sell-by date, the retailer would be liable for the person's sickness. "Have them sign a waver," some would say. Well seeing as how such a waver is unethical, it would not be legally binding.

There is plenty of food and product that is not refuse at the time of tossing, that is a serious overgeneralization.

What about building things to break, it makes perfect sense for the retailer, and even securing jobs, but creating a problem to promote a job should feasibly cross a "moral/ethical" boundary as well. This is a part of the backbone of the capilist structure.

It isn't a hasty generalization to state that I have thrown away a lot of food that has expired, and to give that food to charity would not be safe. As for cheaply manufactured goods, I don't know how that has anything at all to do with charity.

ahhhh philospphy.... i love it

Cheap goods has to do with bad business topic related to the capitalism.

Your rebuttal on the generalization is out of context. Maybe I'm not clarifying my contexts well enough because it seems to be a theme, not just for you, but all of us.

Shalom Aleichem