possession

Originally posted by Mindship
The less we can trust each other, the more complicated ordinary life gets. One could say stealing behavior is like a lesion, violating the pragmatic conformity of society.

😮‍💨

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I haven't read any-ones posts yet.

You steal? You steal what is not your possessions? Then I suppose it would make it yours. Keep in mind that nothing comes without consequences, whether it is now or later.

It still doesn't make it yours though cause you didn't get permission to have it, so it is not yours.

Can I steal your wife? Can I steal your life? Can I steal your identity? Are you okay with that?

The only thing I did steal was toilet paper cause we were in a place....and we just put some in our pockets. It didn't hurt anyone and we stopped.

what are the consequences of stealing, assuming you aren't caught? are you saying anyone who steals will inevitably be caught, or just that 'what goes around comes around?'

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Normal people would find out and not be friends with you.

BTW, ignore the trolls. I understand that you are talking hypothetically.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
If you work for something that is available to all, or is up for grabs by someone else who is willing to give it. Basically you earn it.
But it takes force to keep it. Even if someone steals it, it's still yours... you just don't get to enjoy it.

indeed, it takes force to keep it. so not only do you have to 'earn' the initial possession, you also have to continue to earn it through protection and maintenance. if you fail to do so and you lose possession then it's no longer yours.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But they haven't done that yet so the stuff is still mine.

Originally posted by red g jacks
interesting, this is a good answer.. but does that mean that any sort of non-conformity that makes others uncomfortable or untrusting is in a way unethical? in other words, do we have any sort of obligation to contribute to harmony in society?

There are benefits to living in a harmonious society (eg, greater ability to acquire necessary resources, greater protection from enemies). Nonconformity is permitted as long as it doesn't compromise these group efforts; I would even say some nonconformity is necessary to keep society from getting stale (kind of like the advantage genetic variation gives to a species so it may better adapt to its environment, but you don't want too extreme a variation as this may throw the species out of synch with its surroundings).

Obligation? Do I want my society continuing to provide all of us with necessities (and perhaps even luxuries) in an effective manner? Do I want society to improve in its ability to provide food, safety, a blockbuster movie, etc? If so, by contributing to the general pragmatic harmony of society we could mass-produce, say, super-ipods, and I wouldn't have to steal one and chance the consequences of getting caught or making day-to-day living more and more complicated, taking up more and more of my time and energy (whether I am a doctor, baker or a thief).

Originally posted by red g jacks
other people's property is available to all. it is up for grabs, most are just unwilling to grab it.

indeed, it takes force to keep it. so not only do you have to 'earn' the initial possession, you also have to continue to earn it through protection and maintenance. if you fail to do so and you lose possession then it's no longer yours.

My TV is not available for others to take and use as they so please. It is there, but it is not for you. You can take it - steal it, and then you have it. But just because you have it doesn't make it yours under government. You get to enjoy it, and hold it, but you still don't quite own it... deep down, it's still my property.

If there are people who constantly undermine what society works toward for the benefit of the masses, it inspires chaos and undermines government, which is meant to be here so that our inalienable rights and property are protected.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
If there are people who constantly undermine what society works toward for the benefit of the masses, it inspires chaos and undermines government, which is meant to be here so that our inalienable rights and property are protected.

Your inalienable rights are meaningless abstract inventions.

Originally posted by red g jacks
... how would they find out?...

Because the things we do in life becomes part of us. We might be able to keep somethings a secret, but secrets have a way of getting out. Do you want to live a life were you keep a secret from all those who you love? That sounds like it's more trouble then it's worth.

Off the top of my head, I would say that by violating society's norms, you mark yourself with the stigma of an outsider. Even if 'your friends never find out' you would then be more likely to break other taboos, other norms. You would eventually exempt yourself from enough rules governing effective society that you exempt yourself right out of the community, becoming a fringe element: a drifter, murderer, rapist, or some other sort of deviant.

(I know this is basically slippery slope, but I'm tired. I am not energetic enough to take on the question of moral absolutes. All I can say for sure it "there are no moral absolutes."😉

Did you see the joke?

Edit:

Ostensibly, what you are saying is might makes right- if I am able to steal, that makes it OK. This is false. The function of empathy shows you that it isn't true. Pragmatically, could you live with your consciense?

Originally posted by Mindship
Are you asking if there are moral absolutes? Without delving into an empirically untestable transcendent authority, I would again answer from a pragmatic POV.

There are benefits to living in a harmonious society (eg, greater ability to acquire necessary resources, greater protection from enemies). Nonconformity is permitted as long as it doesn't compromise these group efforts; I would even say some nonconformity is necessary to keep society from getting stale (kind of like the advantage genetic variation gives to a species so it may better adapt to its environment, but you don't want too extreme a variation as this may throw the species out of synch with its surroundings).

Obligation? Do I want my society continuing to provide all of us with necessities (and perhaps even luxuries) in an effective manner? Do I want society to improve in its ability to provide food, safety, a blockbuster movie, etc? If so, by contributing to the general pragmatic harmony of society we could mass-produce, say, super-ipods, and I wouldn't have to steal one and chance the consequences of getting caught or making day-to-day living more and more complicated, taking up more and more of my time and energy (whether I am a doctor, baker or a thief).

i'm asking from a relative ethical point of view, why is stealing wrong and where do you get the right to claim ownership of something just cause you came across it first.

as for your answer i see what you're saying about a harmonious society and all that.. and it sounds nice.. but don't you think it's a bit idealistic? i mean i don't expect 'society' to provide me with food, safety, or blockbuster movies. i expect to have to obtain those things myself.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
If there are people who constantly undermine what society works toward for the benefit of the masses, it inspires chaos and undermines government, which is meant to be here so that our inalienable rights and property are protected.

and why exactly is owning an inanimate object an inalienable right? you come in this world with your body and mind, and nothing else, and you leave with the same. everything you obtain in between is temporary.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Off the top of my head, I would say that by violating society's norms, you mark yourself with the stigma of an outsider. Even if 'your friends never find out' you would then be more likely to break other taboos, other norms. You would eventually exempt yourself from enough rules governing effective society that you exempt yourself right out of the community, becoming a fringe element: a drifter, murderer, rapist, or some other sort of deviant.

(I know this is basically slippery slope, but I'm tired. I am not energetic enough to take on the question of moral absolutes. All I can say for sure it "there are[b] no moral absolutes."😉

Did you see the joke?

Edit:

Ostensibly, what you are saying is might makes right- if I am able to steal, that makes it OK. This is false. The function of empathy shows you that it isn't true. Pragmatically, could you live with your consciense? [/B]

Originally posted by red g jacks
as for your answer i see what you're saying about a harmonious society and all that.. and it sounds nice.. but don't you think it's a bit idealistic? i mean i don't expect 'society' to provide me with food, safety, or blockbuster movies. i expect to have to obtain those things myself.

And when was the last time you went out hunting for your own meat, or tried to produce your own blockbuster movie? Personally, I'd rather walk to the store or the local theater, and then use my greater abundance of free time for other things.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not talking about an ideal society but a less complicated one. Lying, cheating, stealing complicate things, taking up more of society's time and energy which could be used, perhaps, to actually improve quality of life, not just try to sustain it against a crumbling respect for the property of others.

as for the food/blockbuster thing i misunderstood you when you said 'provide,' i didn't realize you meant 'sell.' i thought you meant give.

Originally posted by red g jacks
when people's possessions are safe and secured do they then work to improve the rest of society, or do they just try to obtain more possessions and increase their own assets?

As a side note: a capitalistic society thrives on peole not feeling that good about themselves. After all, if you're happy as is, no one can sell you anything. One of the main functions of advertising, therefore, is to create need-states in potential consumers.

It's a very interesting topic.

If you believe in stealing, then of course, other people would reflect those thefts onto you and the community itself would develop into theivery. This isn't bad or good.

On the plus side, it trains us to be stronger, more tactical and makes us think strategically when it comes to our possessions. You need to think of the best safes, the best stealing methods etc.

On the minus side, it perverts our morals and will create a gap between the winners and the losers. The losers will of course die, but there will always be losers, for when the current losers die, the winners that aren't so good at being winners will become the losers and so on.

This is also a left wing right wing argument. Stealing is a part of the right's competition view, whereas the respect is the left's unity view.

Do you want to live in a society where we must compete for property?

Ignore that left wing right wing stuff, seems kinda dumb.

Also, I can't edit it for more than 15 ****ing minutes, so, double post.

Or do you prefer a society where everyone respects everyone else's property, or a society with no property, where everything is collectively owned?

A society with property.

Something becomes mine when I go out and buy it with money that I earned.

On the topic of stealing. Don't steal, karma will bite you in the ass sooner or later.

Originally posted by Kosta
On the topic of stealing. Don't steal, karma will bite you in the ass sooner or later.

KARMA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!!

What I bought with money I earned honestly, providing it's not stolen goods, is mine.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A society with property.