It Almost Restores Your Faith In Human Nature.

[manxman2]

The position I come from is that they are not 'entitled' to claim ownership on those goods. You only recognise the shops ownership because they paid for the goods from a wholesaler, who paid for them from a direct supplier, etc. until it comes down the worker who made that item. But this whole process began (possibly in a foreign country) where a person is forced to take work. In taking up work they have to become employed which involves signing a contract that gives the employer the ownership of that workers produce. This is where profit making but also theft at the expense of the worker begins. What the worker gets in exchange is a wage. It is mere form of compensation, as are all wages. If the worker could take home their produce (which is by no means the ideal solution) at least they could make a profit from their work but no, it is the employer who makes that profit.

Subsequently, all the transactional processes that follow involve profit making on this item until it gets to the shop. In the shop another worker (equivalent to the person who made the good) comes in with their wages to buy food (for example) and has the shop steal from him/her by charging them for a good they need to live, and at an inflated price when it should not even be theirs to sell in the first place.

 

My only point is that such behaviour should not be condemned.

 

wow ..

 

so early in the year yet that post will take some beating for the biggest pile of bile spoken on these boards in 09.

 

theft is simple to explain .. if it isnt your property keep your hands off simple we all know right from wrong .. their aint no such thing as a victimless crime.

 

ps i am sure skrappy will top it tho..

[immortalpuppet]

LDV do you practice any of this dog shit that you post?

 

I would love to see you take something out of my shop and tell me you are not shoplifting and taking money out of my family`s mouth, i would hit you with a fucking big stick and tell you i am not hitting you but rather trying to shape you a new wooden hat.

[homarus]

Manxman2 , You've not been on here long ,have you?

 

 

I think you'll find LDV can do far better than that!

[manxman2]

no only since 05..

[homarus]

17 posts in 4 yrs! now that is prolific!

[manxman2]

my opinions are considered ones.

[Lao]

Having owned a shop in the high street for many years, i came across many shoplifters in my time.

 

I have also heard many attempt to justify shoplifting as 'sticking it to the man' and 'property laws being against the laws of nature' and other such drivel and can honestly say that without exception each thief was pure scum.

 

One charming young man when caught with something, told my business partner that if he called the police he would get one of his friends to infect my partner with an aids needle.

 

Another time a guy walked in to our place and said "I'm gonna fill this bag with gear, don't tell your boss, he won't even notice" obviously he didn't realize that we owned the place and he clearly thought that he would get some leeway from us because we went to school together!

 

And i don't think i will ever forget one Christmas being bothered in a local pub by a steal-to-order thief asking me if i wanted anything stolen from my own shop!

 

shoplifters aren't trying to restore some sort of balance by taking things that should never have been considered property, they are greedy and they steal.

 

They are not making a political choice to stand up to society, they are just greedy and they steal.

 

ad infinitum

 

i think Aristotle put it quite well in his quote i use in my sig.

[Mission]

LDV gets my vote for troll of the year with that post.

[thesultanofsheight]

The position I come from is that they are not 'entitled' to claim ownership on those goods. You only recognise the shops ownership because they paid for the goods from a wholesaler, who paid for them from a direct supplier, etc. until it comes down the worker who made that item. But this whole process began (possibly in a foreign country) where a person is forced to take work.

 

So you object to workers being 'forced' to take work to make the stuff that shops sell? I wonder what the alternative to being 'forced' to undertake work might be? In some countries it might be starvation, prostitution, or selling their children or perhaps a kidney so they can buy food? How horrible it is that people are forced to go to work so that they can afford not to die in the gutter! Your idealistic claptrap about how you believe the world should function really is quite hilarious.

 

Edited: Also how can a worker 'make' an item and claim exclusive rights to it? Nine times out of ten any item is 'made' using machinery or tools owned by the factory which employs the worker. The worker does not 'make' that item he merely oversees the means of its production by handling the raw materials in, and removing the product out of the machine which makes the product.

[Cret]

shoplifters aren't trying to restore some sort of balance by taking things that should never have been considered property, they are greedy and they steal.

 

They are not making a political choice to stand up to society, they are just greedy and they steal.

don't even think it's greed with shoplifters to be honest. Just that they don't see why they should have to work to have something they want.

 

I can't say that from experience of course as I'm not one, but it seems those sort of robbing scum do it because they are too lazy to earn the money like the rest of us.

Perhaps they think they are clever to do this because who's the fool, the person getting an item for no personal cost, or the person working to get the same thing? Bollocks, but I'm sure plenty think this.

Apparently there are some that do it for the 'thrill' or to seek attention but I suspect that's a minority thing.

 

LDV - you are being silly. You're asking what right do shopkeepers have to claim ownership of goods? Maybe in some instances there might be a moral or ethical question behind that, but it is a moot point. Whatever level of 'rights' they have to own those goods, it's a damn sight more than some light fingered human waste that decides they somehow have a right to deprive them of it.

 

Surely that makes sense? Surely the shoplifter realises themselves that if they steal something off the shelf that may be a product generated via exploitation, that the fact they have removed it means another will be made in turn to replace it on that shelf? Therefore, it must be better to simply leave it there and hope it is not bought, or attempt to dissuade people from buying it.

No demand will lead to no supply, but demand includes both theft and purchase so theft will still ensure supply, and thus, further exploitation. So in fact, the noble principle you quote becomes a mockery of itself, even if that really is the reason.

 

I have more than one friend that argues similar things to yourself in respect of this, and it's usually an argument they make when they're 'chemically advanced' so I take it even less seriously.

But to use your argument that companies who sell these goods don't have a particular right to 'own' them so it's ok therefore to steal them as they're not actually theirs (or stuff to that effect), how does that work with a small family shopkeeper that has the same items? It's usually included in this chestnut flavour argument that it doesn't hurt the big companies because of their insurance etc, but regardless of the size of shop/business in question you would have to apply the same "You don't have the right to own that item" argument so would therefore steal equally from the small cornershop owner to the big conglomerate chain, even though you know you could be destroying an honest family business/livelihood in the process in the case of the small establishment.

 

How does that work? Either way - you're morally in the wrong, so it makes a nonsense of this 'rights' argument, even though the rest of us know it's claptrap and a poor excuse for stealing to begin with.

[manxy]

I hear they tried the same at Anagh Coar stores and there are only three breeze blocks left marking the site

3 breeze blocks?

I thought that the escape car was parked there?

Don't tell me someone stole the car plus the brick to assist cleaning a shop window as well?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

shoplifters aren't trying to restore some sort of balance by taking things that should never have been considered property, they are greedy and they steal.

They are not making a political choice to stand up to society, they are just greedy and they steal.

 

Shoplifters are not actively trying to restore a balance and nor are their actions political. The majority of shoplifters are very low or low earners, they receive shit wages. I do not believe it is greed that primarily motivates the shoplifter, however, commercialism does give a greater impetus for people to people to envy what others have. And I do not pretend to think for one minute that such people are good guys or nice people, etc. The use or threat of violence (such as the case with the HIV infected needle) is completely unacceptable.

 

Whatever level of 'rights' they have to own those goods, it's a damn sight more than some light fingered human waste that decides they somehow have a right to deprive them of it.

Surely the shoplifter realises themselves that if they steal something off the shelf that may be a product generated via exploitation, that the fact they have removed it means another will be made in turn to replace it on that shelf? Therefore, it must be better to simply leave it there and hope it is not bought, or attempt to dissuade people from buying it.

 

No, I think the shoplifter has no more right to the goods than the store owner. All things being equal it is the person or group of people who make the goods that SHOULD own them, therefore I would award the goods to other working class people who are of the same position. It would not be better to leave the goods there, many items of produce are necessities and more importantly all products are subject to the same legal rights governing property so people could not just buy nothing anymore.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So you object to workers being 'forced' to take work to make the stuff that shops sell? I wonder what the alternative to being 'forced' to undertake work might be? In some countries it might be starvation, prostitution, or selling their children or perhaps a kidney so they can buy food? How horrible it is that people are forced to go to work so that they can afford not to die in the gutter! Your idealistic claptrap about how you believe the world should function really is quite hilarious.

 

Edited: Also how can a worker 'make' an item and claim exclusive rights to it? Nine times out of ten any item is 'made' using machinery or tools owned by the factory which employs the worker. The worker does not 'make' that item he merely oversees the means of its production by handling the raw materials in, and removing the product out of the machine which makes the product.

 

Yes I object to it because the modern position of labour is one where the worker HAS to enter into an very unfair bargaining position to sell their labour. I recognise that the alternatives to employment are starvation, but employment involves exploitation as the employer takes ownership of what is produced.

The issue for me is about WHO does the work, not the fact that someone has no made a product from start to finish. In a factory for example you may have workers on a production line, they all contribute their labour to producing something but the workers have no ownership of such goods. This is the issue because the means of production should also be in the hands of labour, not the capitalist class.