I know it's a philosophical/ethical question, but hypothetically, would any situation make you steal (and I don't mean a loaf of bread). I.e. the 'Robin Hood' factor. Say you're living in the Middle Ages or even in the 21st century, your family is starving.etc, and the baron which owns your estate refuses to give you any aid. An low-risk opportunity arises where you can basically steal from this baron. Do you take it? Now think back to your own life. How desperate would you have to be to steal regularly or for survival? (I mean, let's say, you have no social security). Would you mind just begging?

I know it's a philosophical/ethical question, but hypothetically, would any situation make you steal (and I don't mean a loaf of bread). I.e. the 'Robin Hood' factor. Say you're living in the Middle Ages or even in the 21st century, your family is starving.etc, and the baron which owns your estate refuses to give you any aid. An low-risk opportunity arises where you can basically steal from this baron. Do you take it? Now think back to your own life. How desperate would you have to be to steal regularly or for survival? (I mean, let's say, you have no social security). Would you mind just begging?


With the abundance of aid available (including Government, private sector, and non-profit), I find it hard to imagine a need to steal.  And let's face it, we have the fattest "poor" in the world.

People in this country simply have no idea what "real" poverty is.  And most of those who are in the worst levels of poverty normally have other issues (mental illness, chemical dependencies).  In communities of all sizes there are churches, food banks, welfare, food stamps, and a lot of other sources for free or greatly reduced food programs.

And I am not talking from ignorance.  I have lived on the streets.  I knew people who would eat 4 and 5 meals a day, even while they were "homeless".  All over LA there are groups who give food to anybody who shows up.  And most churches participate in food banks, "meals on wheels", and other community groups to give or subsidize food to those who need it.

Also it also matters what people themselves choose to eat.  A lot of people simply do not eat smart.  Instead of buying $6 in food that can feed them for 2 days, they buy a single McDonalds meal.  A lot of people simply do not have "survival skills", and are unable to function in anything other then the rich abundance that most people in this country recognize as "survival".

I know it's a philosophical/ethical question, but hypothetically, would any situation make you steal (and I don't mean a loaf of bread). I.e. the 'Robin Hood' factor. Say you're living in the Middle Ages or even in the 21st century, your family is starving.etc, and the baron which owns your estate refuses to give you any aid. An low-risk opportunity arises where you can basically steal from this baron. Do you take it? Now think back to your own life. How desperate would you have to be to steal regularly or for survival? (I mean, let's say, you have no social security). Would you mind just begging?


There is always another option.  The World's Oldest Profession...

I think the question is more where would you draw the line? Say you were a real down and out (for some reason), what would cause you to actually steal for survivial?

With the abundance of aid available (including Government, private sector, and non-profit), I find it hard to imagine a need to steal.  And let's face it, we have the fattest "poor" in the world.

People in this country simply have no idea what "real" poverty is.  And most of those who are in the worst levels of poverty normally have other issues (mental illness, chemical dependencies).  In communities of all sizes there are churches, food banks, welfare, food stamps, and a lot of other sources for free or greatly reduced food programs.

And I am not talking from ignorance.  I have lived on the streets.  I knew people who would eat 4 and 5 meals a day, even while they were "homeless".  All over LA there are groups who give food to anybody who shows up.  And most churches participate in food banks, "meals on wheels", and other community groups to give or subsidize food to those who need it.

Also it also matters what people themselves choose to eat.  A lot of people simply do not eat smart.  Instead of buying $6 in food that can feed them for 2 days, they buy a single McDonalds meal.  A lot of people simply do not have "survival skills", and are unable to function in anything other then the rich abundance that most people in this country recognize as "survival".


This is the only country I've ever been to, where you can own a car and still be considerd poor.

I'm sorry, how does that work?

"Oh well, it's old and breaks down."

I see.

I think the question is more where would you draw the line? Say you were a real down and out (for some reason), what would cause you to actually steal for survivial?


It's hard for me, personally, to imagine I'd be in a place where I could justify stealing, because I have a wide network of people and resources and I'm an intelligent person with skills.  I think I'd always be able to figure out a legitimate way to get what I needed (basic food, shelter, clothing).

BUT, I can see how some people do feel they need to steal.  Some people do not have an understanding of how to "work the system" to get what they need; or they do not have the capacity or skills to create other options for themselves.

It's hard for me, personally, to imagine I'd be in a place where I could justify stealing, because I have a wide network of people and resources and I'm an intelligent person with skills.  I think I'd always be able to figure out a legitimate way to get what I needed (basic food, shelter, clothing).

BUT, I can see how some people do feel they need to steal.  Some people do not have an understanding of how to "work the system" to get what they need; or they do not have the capacity or skills to create other options for themselves.


Stealing may take less obvious forms...for some people, 'having connections' is tantamount to stealing...lol

Stealing may take less obvious forms...for some people, 'having connections' is tantamount to stealing...lol


Yes, I agree.  You can steal my cheating.  You can steal by having someone slip your application to the top of the pile...

I honestly don't know.  Sitting where I'm sitting in a nice house with some money in the bank and no worries about where my next meal is coming from doesn't give me the same perspective as someone out on the streets with no money, no opportunities, no way to use the system to survive.  If I was in that person's shoes and stealing an apple was the only way to eat for the day, I might do it. 

Of course it is.

I've never had major reason to steal, and to my knowledge I don't think I ever have.. anything of any worth. I know a robbed a few candy bars as a kid, that was about it.

But it's justifiable.

If I was starving and survival meant kicking your head in and stealing your money to buy food..

..You better run.

This is the only country I've ever been to, where you can own a car and still be considerd poor.

I'm sorry, how does that work?

"Oh well, it's old and breaks down."

I see.

I would ditch my car in a second if we had decent mass transit. Simple fact is, in nearly all of the U.S. you cannot manage with a car. State governments make a fortune in revenues from cars, then again, they have to spend a fortune on DMV bureaucracy and car-oriented infrastructure.
Don't get me wrong, I love to drive, but I despise everything else about dealing with cars.

The personal passenger car and the driving suburb are the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of mankind.

Anyway, is it ever justifiable to steal? It depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I have to ask another question, "What is stealing?"
The rightwingers immediately assume stealing is something kids, blacks, and poor people do. Sorry, that's the way you guys are. I always say, "Steal a hundred dollars, go to jail. Steal a hundred million dollars, get a big tax break." Of course, the rightwingers call this moral relativism. "Moral relativism" is the rejoinder the fat cats yelp when they get called on for being the hypocrities they are.

I don't think it is justifiable to say, "Well, Halliburton steals from all of us, so I'll steal this chocolate bar from the mini-mart." Two wrongs don't make a right.

I find it amusing that conservatives--who immediately think of stealing as poor people stealing food--immediately go on a tear about all the social programs we have in this country to help poor folks. Yet, they vote at every turn for politicians who want to cut or eliminate said social programs.

BTW, I don't find amusing the assassine rightwing observation (and whatever kind of observations do rightwingers make?) that "we have the fattest poor people in the world." Obesity does not cancel out deprivation.

I would ditch my car in a second if we had decent mass transit. Simple fact is, in nearly all of the U.S. you cannot manage with a car. State governments make a fortune in revenues from cars, then again, they have to spend a fortune on DMV bureaucracy and car-oriented infrastructure.
Don't get me wrong, I love to drive, but I despise everything else about dealing with cars.

The personal passenger car and the driving suburb are the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of mankind.

Anyway, is it ever justifiable to steal? It depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I have to ask another question, "What is stealing?"
The rightwingers immediately assume stealing is something kids, blacks, and poor people do. Sorry, that's the way you guys are. I always say, "Steal a hundred dollars, go to jail. Steal a hundred million dollars, get a big tax break." Of course, the rightwingers call this moral relativism. "Moral relativism" is the rejoinder the fat cats yelp when they get called on for being the hypocrities they are.

I don't think it is justifiable to say, "Well, Halliburton steals from all of us, so I'll steal this chocolate bar from the mini-mart." Two wrongs don't make a right.

I find it amusing that conservatives--who immediately think of stealing as poor people stealing food--immediately go on a tear about all the social programs we have in this country to help poor folks. Yet, they vote at every turn for politicians who want to cut or eliminate said social programs.

BTW, I don't find amusing the assassine rightwing observation (and whatever kind of observations do rightwingers make?) that "we have the fattest poor people in the world." Obesity does not cancel out deprivation.



You make so poignant observations. Those fat cats sitting in the White House, or some plush Office are often far worse than the little guys trying to get by. They do everything behind closed doors, and often for greed and profit. Seriously, they may talk about 'welfare.etc' but if it conflicts with their interests, they will do everything in their power (and usually get there way) to stop it. I think it's more than disgraceful; it's utterly despicable.

With the abundance of aid available (including Government, private sector, and non-profit), I find it hard to imagine a need to steal.  And let's face it, we have the fattest "poor" in the world.

People in this country simply have no idea what "real" poverty is.  And most of those who are in the worst levels of poverty normally have other issues (mental illness, chemical dependencies).  In communities of all sizes there are churches, food banks, welfare, food stamps, and a lot of other sources for free or greatly reduced food programs.

And I am not talking from ignorance.  I have lived on the streets.  I knew people who would eat 4 and 5 meals a day, even while they were "homeless".  All over LA there are groups who give food to anybody who shows up.  And most churches participate in food banks, "meals on wheels", and other community groups to give or subsidize food to those who need it.

Also it also matters what people themselves choose to eat.  A lot of people simply do not eat smart.  Instead of buying $6 in food that can feed them for 2 days, they buy a single McDonalds meal.  A lot of people simply do not have "survival skills", and are unable to function in anything other then the rich abundance that most people in this country recognize as "survival".


Mush, you forgot -- it's all G.Bush's fault. Geez, get with the program.  ;D  ::)

BTW, I don't find amusing the assassine rightwing observation (and whatever kind of observations do rightwingers make?) that "we have the fattest poor people in the world." Obesity does not cancel out deprivation.


1.  So what is your answer to the question?  Is stealing ever justifiable?  One thing left-wingers tend to do is answer questions by saying how much they disagree with the big bad conservatives.  But often they don't really ever answer the question (As for me, I could probably fit in one camp or the other depending on the issue.  And I get grumbly when someone categorizes me or anyone else based on the answer to one question)  >:(  (and I guess I just did that too...I hate when I break my own rules)  ::) .

2.  Many poor people are fat because high carb food is cheap.  I found out quickly that there are many meals to make from potatoes and pasta and white bread for a family of four on a limited income.  But it all makes you fat.  So I agree that the thing about poor being fat doesn't make much of a point.

You make so poignant observations.
Thanks for saying so.
:)

Those fat cats sitting in the White House, or some plush Office are often far worse than the little guys trying to get by. They do everything behind closed doors, and often for greed and profit. Seriously, they may talk about 'welfare.etc' but if it conflicts with their interests, they will do everything in their power (and usually get there way) to stop it. I think it's more than disgraceful; it's utterly despicable.



Right on! Let's keep our fingers crossed. They may yet get their comeuppance. The Dems just need to take the House back and start acting like they got a pair, so to speak.


1.  So what is your answer to the question?  Is stealing ever justifiable?  One thing left-wingers tend to do is answer questions by saying how much they disagree with the big bad conservatives.  But often they don't really ever answer the question (As for me, I could probably fit in one camp or the other depending on the issue.  And I get grumbly when someone categorizes me or anyone else based on the answer to one question)  >:(  (and I guess I just did that too...I hate when I break my own rules)  ::) .
If the act of taking what the law says does not belong to you is justified, then it is not stealing, per se. If you take what does not legally belong to you because you and your family are trying to survive, you are justified. I repeat, saying  "The fat cats steal from me!," does not justify filching video game from Wal-Mart. If you still want to call a thief a hungry person who takes a loaf of bread without paying, then, yes, stealing is sometimes justifiable.
(One thing I and many observers noticed in the mainstream media coverage of hurricane Katrina aftermath is how blacks were said to "loot" while whites were said to "creatively forage.")

2.  Many poor people are fat because high carb food is cheap.  I found out quickly that there are many meals to make from potatoes and pasta and white bread for a family of four on a limited income.  But it all makes you fat.  So I agree that the thing about poor being fat doesn't make much of a point.
Indeed. One of the most astute commentators of the 20th century, George Orwell, made two points on this subject still relevant today. He was talking about the British dole and how the Tories were always saying the poor were indolent and gluttonous. I must paraphrase both here, I don't feel like searching them out for the verbatim texts:
a. The upper class ascetic may enjoy living on fruit juices and lentil soup because he has the choice not to. One of the working class person's few pleasures in life is tasty food.
b. If the British dole recipient could live on rice and onions like a Chinese coolie, imagine the miniscule amount the Tories would want to pay out then!
Again, these are way off Orwell's exact quotes, but they're the gist of what he was saying.

I know it's a philosophical/ethical question, but hypothetically, would any situation make you steal (and I don't mean a loaf of bread). I.e. the 'Robin Hood' factor. Say you're living in the Middle Ages or even in the 21st century, your family is starving.etc, and the baron which owns your estate refuses to give you any aid. An low-risk opportunity arises where you can basically steal from this baron. Do you take it? Now think back to your own life. How desperate would you have to be to steal regularly or for survival? (I mean, let's say, you have no social security). Would you mind just begging?

Baron?  Aid?  His land.  Under feudalism, it's his prerogative to choose whether to give me aid or not.  If I choose to steal instead of earn, I'll also take whatever else (even if it mean the rack, or the stake) comes with being a thief.

Back to my own life (early-21st-century Western civilization)  OK, maybe when starving, for bread:  Yeah.  I'd also keep track of every loaf stolen, and make restitution, with interest, to the penny, to whomever I stole the bread from. 

A little less hypothetically:  I could retire tomorrow.  The only reason why, is because the government st^H^Htaxes the voting base for its policy goals, and it's easier to figure out which industries are in favor.  Easier done when the "R" wing of the party is in power (Oil, HMOs, defense contractors) than when the "D" wing of the Party is in power (probably water utilities, biotechs, but if only Jesse Jackson and his gang were publicly-traded :). 

If you ask Ayn Rand, using the government as a hired gun doesn't make you any less of a thief. I'm guilty as charged, and so are most of us.  *shrug*.  Let it all burn.

Is it ever justifyable to steal?

Sure. For food. If you're starving (or your family) then it's Ok to steal food to live.

Back to my own life (early-21st-century Western civilization)  OK, maybe when starving, for bread:  Yeah.  I'd also keep track of every loaf stolen, and make restitution, with interest, to the penny, to whomever I stole the bread from. 
BS.

A little less hypothetically:  I could retire tomorrow.  The only reason why, is because the government st^H^Htaxes the voting base for its policy goals, and it's easier to figure out which industries are in favor.  Easier done when the "R" wing of the party is in power (Oil, HMOs, defense contractors) than when the "D" wing of the Party is in power (probably water utilities, biotechs, but if only Jesse Jackson and his gang were publicly-traded :). 
Cynical.

If you ask Ayn Rand, using the government as a hired gun doesn't make you any less of a thief. I'm guilty as charged, and so are most of us.  *shrug*.  Let it all burn.

Don't "ask" Ayn Rand anything. Objectivism is the Carl's Jr curly fries of the philosophical diet. Ayn Rand's theories in practice do not end up promoting individual freedom, unless you mean corporation-as-individual.
Ayn Rand was a fantasy novelist, a screenwriter, a corporate fascist, and a HUAC fink. At these she excelled. As a philosopher, she was a crank and a fraud.
::)

If the act of taking what the law says does not belong to you is justified, then it is not stealing, per se. If you take what does not legally belong to you because you and your family are trying to survive, you are justified. I repeat, saying  "The fat cats steal from me!," does not justify filching video game from Wal-Mart. If you still want to call a thief a hungry person who takes a loaf of bread without paying, then, yes, stealing is sometimes justifiable.

Well, I think that taking what the law says does not belong to you is "stealing" whatever income bracket you're in.  But I also think that there are times when "stealing" is, if not justifiable, certainly fully forgiveable, when it has to do with providing basic needs -- I'm not talking about fat cats anywhere in big business or Washington, all of whom should know better, should set a better example and should be able to use their power and intelligents within the confines of the law (and I'm talking either party--because both have their share dishonest money mongers).

I would never have to steal anything. My needs are met through getting SSDI as well as Section 8 HUD rental assistance...but if one was broke, cold, and hasn't had anything to eat for a while and has no other way to meet their basic needs...then it's justifiable and forgiveable!

I would never have to steal anything. My needs are met through getting SSDI as well as Section 8 HUD rental assistance...but if one was broke, cold, and hasn't had anything to eat for a while and has no other way to meet their basic needs...then it's justifiable and forgiveable!


Do you think Father Bob would agree with you on that one?  ;) Assuming the State, the Church and other welfare groups weren't able to provide for the homeless for whatever reason

Good topic, Trimac :)

Anyway, yes, stealing is justified IMO in two cases. One, it is okay to steal from rich people who don't give a rat's a$$ about the little guy.  Two, it's okay to steal to survive, if you have to.

Objectivism is the Carl's Jr curly fries of the philosophical diet.

(BTW, Best. Quote. Evah!)

Yeah, Rand was a bit nuts, but not much more than the guy you quote in your .sig.  *grin*

Anyone who can't figure out what we're bantering about, read Karl Marx, the _Communist Manifesto_, and Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_.  I lean to Rand over Marx.  MaxwellSmart leans to Marx over Rand.

Marx didn't need an editor as badly as Rand did.  I mean, I loves me the culy fri3z, but even I had to pace myself when trying to eat 800 pages of 'em.  If you wrapped copper wire around Rand's coffin and Krazy-glued a couple of magnets to her corpse, you'd notice that she's spinning fast enough to provide enough power for all of Unistat, never mind the Gulch.    (I can't speak for MaxwellSmart, but regardless of our disagreements, I think he and I could agree on both of those points :)

(BTW, Best. Quote. Evah!)

Yeah, Rand was a bit nuts, but not much more than the guy you quote in your .sig.   *grin*

Anyone who can't figure out what we're bantering about, read Karl Marx, the _Communist Manifesto_, and Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_.  I lean to Rand over Marx.  MaxwellSmart leans to Marx over Rand.

Marx didn't need an editor as badly as Rand did.  I mean, I loves me the culy fri3z, but even I had to pace myself when trying to eat 800 pages of 'em.  If you wrapped copper wire around Rand's coffin and Krazy-glued a couple of magnets to her corpse, you'd notice that she's spinning fast enough to provide enough power for all of Unistat, never mind the Gulch.    (I can't speak for MaxwellSmart, but regardless of our disagreements, I think he and I could agree on both of those points :)

The analysis presented in the Communist Manifest are more relevant today than they were in 1948...or 1848!!! Your Thomas Friedmanns, your Francis Fukuyamas, and your Rush Limbaughs would have you believe otherwise, but the necessity of worldwide organized labor has never been greater, and capitalism is eating itself alive, capitalism is digesting itself and excreting a sort of corporate feudalism bearing no freedom for markets and no freedom for men.

Ayn Rand was specious pablum in 1950 and specious pablum in 2006!
:D

The analysis presented in the Communist Manifest are more relevant today than they were in 1948...or 1848!!! Your Thomas Friedmanns, your Francis Fukuyamas, and your Rush Limbaughs would have you believe otherwise, but the necessity of worldwide organized labor has never been greater, and capitalism is eating itself alive, capitalism is digesting itself and excreting a sort of corporate feudalism bearing no freedom for markets and no freedom for men.

Ayn Rand was specious pablum in 1950 and specious pablum in 2006!
:D


It is possible to forego capitalism; but that also involves foregoing modern conveniences, such as bumper sticks ;-), which few but dyed-in-the-wool 'primitives' are willing to undertake. There's also a problem of organisation all that labour. I think 'pure' socialism works better in smaller societal groups, but when you're talking millions...capitalism is both the worst and best we've got.

It is possible to forego capitalism; but that also involves foregoing modern conveniences, such as bumper sticks ;-), which few but dyed-in-the-wool 'primitives' are willing to undertake. There's also a problem of organisation all that labour. I think 'pure' socialism works better in smaller societal groups, but when you're talking millions...capitalism is both the worst and best we've got.

But we haven't got capitalism. That is what I am saying. We have corporate oligarchy married to a centralized and authoritarian government (aka fascism). The robber barons and their lackeys in the govenment still call it "capitalism" because "fascism" is not a palatable "ism."

Hey, this government steals from the poor and wretched....to give to the filthy rich!!!

And BTW, it's not all that easy for a homeless person to get food, clothing, and shelter...many shelters require them to attend church services before they will do anything for them!

Hey, this government steals from the poor and wretched....to give to the filthy rich!!!

And BTW, it's not all that easy for a homeless person to get food, clothing, and shelter...many shelters require them to attend church services before they will do anything for them!


Exactly, the American government is not exactly known for it's unconditional charity...

But we haven't got capitalism. That is what I am saying.

And from the free-market side of the coin, that's what I was saying too.  We're as far from Rand's vision of Capitalism as Stalin's Russia was from Marx's vision. (both philosophers were utopian dreamers, so it's none too surprising :) 

At any rate, the worst villians in _Atlas Shrugged_ weren't the politicians (who, being politicians, were only doing what politicians *do* for a living, namely dole out favors and pander to the voters, and you can hardly blame 'em for that any more than you can blame a monkey for flinging poo when it doesn't get what it wants :)

The worst villians, for whom she saved her most vicious criticism, were the people who gave up trading in dollars and products, for trading in favors and mutual ego-stroking.  Her term for it was "The Aristocracy of Pull".  They were the guys who ran companies that produced nothing of real value -- but got all the contracts anyways.  Did it matter that they produced crap and never delivered on anything they were contracted for?  Heck, no!  Every time a contract for  couldn't be delivered, why, that was just an excuse to get an increase in the budget for next year!  The taxpayers can afford it!  Everybody's gotta pitch in and do their fair share, ya know!  And if that doesn't work, we'll have to hire some consultants to form a working group to change the legislation on behalf of the guy whose third cousin was at the party of some other guy whose sister knows the guy on the appropriations committee...

This argument...does this include stealing cable?  ::)

This argument...does this include stealing cable?  ::)



There's a difference between stealing cable and stealing food to survive.

There's a difference between stealing cable and stealing food to survive.
What about stealing cable to survive?

What about stealing cable to survive?



Are you kidding?  You don't need cable to survive.  Cable is not a fundamental necessity like food is.  A person will die if they don't eat.  A person will not die if they don't have cable. 

This is why arguments like this (is it ever justifiable to steal) always devolve into stuff like that.  The same as arguments about legalizing gay marriage always lead into arguments about legalizing polygamy.  As if one has anything to do with the other.

Are you kidding?  You don't need cable to survive.  Cable is not a fundamental necessity like food is.  A person will die if they don't eat.  A person will not die if they don't have cable. 

This is why arguments like this (is it ever justifiable to steal) always devolve into stuff like that.  The same as arguments about legalizing gay marriage always lead into arguments about legalizing polygamy.  As if one has anything to do with the other.


I believe they are kidding about the cable  :)

I believe they are kidding about the cable  :)



I should hope so. 

Are you kidding?
Yes. I was.

no.  :)

Yeah.

nuh huh.

This argument...does this include stealing cable?  ::)


What about 'stealing' (I mean, it's not harming anyone but the rich companies - aside from the mass downloading lol, not that i do) wireless broadband (which is, unfortunately, becoming harder and harder with more advanced WEP encryption  ;))?

Only in very extreme circumstances, ie: if it's a matter of life or death (food, water etc) Although I don't believe that in our soceity people should have to steal in order to survive.

Another matter is the "stealing" or "pirating" of music/tv/movies/etc. I agree with this form of "stealing" only if it is not used to make a profit. EG: Downloading a program for personal or work-related use is fine as long and you don't intend on selling it. But this is going into a different topic.

You know what stinks about big companies such as Wal-Mart? When you steal from them and say, "what's five bucks to f**king Wal-Mart?," you join about a million others who said the same thing that day. So what does Wal-Mart do? They don't eat the five bucks, that's for sure. They just pass the loss along to the consumer. In other words, when it comes to big business, WE pay more because YOU steal!
::)



Are you kidding?  You don't need cable to survive.  Cable is not a fundamental necessity like food is.  A person will die if they don't eat.  A person will not die if they don't have cable. 


Same thing with alcohol and heroin, my friend. You don't need 'em until you're hooked. I remember the week of the giant storm, cable was out for five days, you should have seen my brother-in-law hit withdrawal--the convulsions, the sweats, the fevers, the vomiting, and the futile gripping of the remote wand. It was one terrifying sight!
A satellite jones is even worse. You try to kick a 500-channel a day habit cold turkey, it could be fatal!
:o

nuh huh.


WTF? Is this in response to me? Oookay. ::)

What about 'stealing' (I mean, it's not harming anyone but the rich companies - aside from the mass downloading lol, not that i do) wireless broadband (which is, unfortunately, becoming harder and harder with more advanced WEP encryption  ;))?


I think it's a misperception that there is such a thing as a "rich company" separate from all the people who work for it.  People think that about stealing music too.  But I work for a music company.  And while there might be a few people in the business who are rich, most aren't at all.  Most are scraping to keep their businesses afloat.  The writer, the composer, the publisher, the printer (for print music), the retailer....they're mostly just getting by.  And when people do things like steal cable or copy CDs illegally or copy print music, it just makes it harder on the little guy. :-\\

I think taking something that doesn't belong to you through legitimate means is stealing. 

So...to clarify....it's not that stealing cable has at all the same detrimental effect as stealing someone's wallet or someone's identity or the possessions from someone's house.  Certainly there are degrees and we should place our time and effort where there is the most harm.  But there are always negative effects -- even if they are, at worse, helping to create a culture where subtle thefts are acceptable because the negative result is also subtle and not easily seen. 

I think it's a misperception that there is such a thing as a "rich company" separate from all the people who work for it.  People think that about stealing music too.  But I work for a music company.  And while there might be a few people in the business who are rich, most aren't at all.  Most are scraping to keep their businesses afloat.  The writer, the composer, the publisher, the printer (for print music), the retailer....they're mostly just getting by.  And when people do things like steal cable or copy CDs illegally or copy print music, it just makes it harder on the little guy. :-\\

I think taking something that doesn't belong to you through legitimate means is stealing. 


So, if I borrow a CD from my taxpayer-funded library, and burn it into my Itunes, is that like stealing the music?

So, if I borrow a CD from my taxpayer-funded library, and burn it into my Itunes, is that like stealing the music?

Yes. However--music works better when it is shared rather than commodified. Music has been an integral part of the human experience reaching all the way back to our earliest cultures. I hate to see this obsession with money and ownership tie down the creative process. But...what can I say? I'm just a hippie with short hair and deodorant!
;D

Yes. However--music works better when it is shared rather than commodified. Music has been an integral part of the human experience reaching all the way back to our earliest cultures. I hate to see this obsession with money and ownership tie down the creative process. But...what can I say? I'm just a hippie with short hair and deodorant!
;D


Musos need to eat too...they do put in alot of hard work and effort.

Not to say I'm so high and mighty in my righteousness; I have technically 'stolen' music many a time, but mainly from old artists who are getting fat and rich off the royalties any way (:-)). I do all I can to support local struggling bands, and I don't just mean PAYING for their music.

Musos need to eat too...they do put in alot of hard work and effort.

Not to say I'm so high and mighty in my righteousness; I have technically 'stolen' music many a time, but mainly from old artists who are getting fat and rich off the royalties any way (:-)). I do all I can to support local struggling bands, and I don't just mean PAYING for their music.


Too bad relative to you, I'm not local  ;D

Too bad relative to you, I'm not local  ;D


???

When I say 'local' what I really mean to say is grass-roots, amatuer bands local to their scene. But of course, since I love in Perth most local bands are Perth bands, though I have to admit I don't really support the really local local bands. They have to get some air-play on national radio first.

???

When I say 'local' what I really mean to say is grass-roots, amatuer bands local to their scene. But of course, since I love in Perth most local bands are Perth bands, though I have to admit I don't really support the really local local bands. They have to get some air-play on national radio first.


I was just pullin your leg. Sorry  :D  ;D

Anyway, bands as local as mine (well, for now, we WILL be famous, well it's pretty much just me but whatever) actually want people to "steal" their music, because we're paid in recognition, rather than money.  Which eventually can actually make us money in the long run.

I was just pullin your leg. Sorry  :D  ;D

Anyway, bands as local as mine (well, for now, we WILL be famous, well it's pretty much just me but whatever) actually want people to "steal" their music, because we're paid in recognition, rather than money.  Which eventually can actually make us money in the long run.


Well, of course, that's a given...music has not yet become a business for you, and no matter how much 'indie ethics' you have, you'll eventually succumb to the almighty dollar.

I think it's a misperception that there is such a thing as a "rich company" separate from all the people who work for it.  People think that about stealing music too.  But I work for a music company.  And while there might be a few people in the business who are rich, most aren't at all.  Most are scraping to keep their businesses afloat.  The writer, the composer, the publisher, the printer (for print music), the retailer....they're mostly just getting by.  And when people do things like steal cable or copy CDs illegally or copy print music, it just makes it harder on the little guy. :-\\

I think taking something that doesn't belong to you through legitimate means is stealing. 


Mmmhmm. Well I still can't afford to buy music so until then, my apologies.  But I have to have my music. ;)

Well, of course, that's a given...music has not yet become a business for you, and no matter how much 'indie ethics' you have, you'll eventually succumb to the almighty dollar.




As an indie musician, I find the whole "punk/indie" ethics thing to be really stupid.  I agree with the part about not compromising the quality of you music for money, i.e. selling out (although I would "sell out" in a heartbeat if it meant millions of dollars  ;D), but simply avoiding major labels simply for the sake of being "indie" is even dumber than selling out.

Musos need to eat too...they do put in alot of hard work and effort.

Not to say I'm so high and mighty in my righteousness; I have technically 'stolen' music many a time, but mainly from old artists who are getting fat and rich off the royalties any way (:-)). I do all I can to support local struggling bands, and I don't just mean PAYING for their music.

Most of my favorite artists--including some of the world's most prestigious composers and musicians--make nothing off of CD sales whether or not anyone copies or downloads illegally. Some artists are putting are allowing listeners to download their music for free! One such artist is Bob Ostertag.
http://bobostertag.com/
Ostertag's not a big fave of mine, personally, but he's one I can think of going "free."
Most professional composers/musicians in the classical/jazz world hold academic jobs, get paid on commission, and/or work under philanthropic grants. Composers such as George Crumb or Elliott Carter earn more royalties from publishing than from CD sales!

Well, of course, that's a given...music has not yet become a business for you, and no matter how much 'indie ethics' you have, you'll eventually succumb to the almighty dollar.



Everyone does, at some point, realize that it takes a certain amount of money to have a home, pay for heat, drive a car.  Unless there's a rich momma or daddy around, every adult will have to make some $$.  Ideals are nice, but they rarely put food on the table.  That's just the way it is.

Personally, I will miss small shops, music stores, etc. when they're all gone.  There are less and less able to stay in business each year as the internet becomes not only the center of commerce, but of various styles of "stealing".  And understand...I'm not sitting on any high horse here -- just calling it like I see it.

Everyone does, at some point, realize that it takes a certain amount of money to have a home, pay for heat, drive a car.  Unless there's a rich momma or daddy around, every adult will have to make some $$.  Ideals are nice, but they rarely put food on the table.  That's just the way it is.

Personally, I will miss small shops, music stores, etc. when they're all gone.  There are less and less able to stay in business each year as the internet becomes not only the center of commerce, but of various styles of "stealing".  And understand...I'm not sitting on any high horse here -- just calling it like I see it.


It's sad, isn't it?  It's akin to when the horse and buggy gradually disappeared during the early 1900s, all these little things like that for granted are going away, because of our wired Internet culture.

It's sad, isn't it?  It's akin to when the horse and buggy gradually disappeared during the early 1900s, all these little things like that for granted are going away, because of our wired Internet culture.

Always be suspicious of "technology."

Always be suspicious of "technology."


I think right now we have the perfect amount of technology.  Not so much as to drive us completely insane and have no privacy, but enough so that we're entertained and not isolated.  The only thing we really have to do now is make sure we don't destroy the planet.

I think right now we have the perfect amount of technology.  Not so much as to drive us completely insane and have no privacy, but enough so that we're entertained and not isolated.  The only thing we really have to do now is make sure we don't destroy the planet.


I feel that way too.  I expect that every generation feels like that about whatever advancements they have grown used to. 

I think right now we have the perfect amount of technology.  Not so much as to drive us completely insane and have no privacy, but enough so that we're entertained and not isolated.  The only thing we really have to do now is make sure we don't destroy the planet.

We will never destroy the planet. We will only make the thin membrane of the planet that allows the only known life in the universe uninhabitable for us. The human life-sustaining capacity of the planet is already dying. Too bad. Billions of humans will die without ever even knowing the joys of making a telephone call!

We will never destroy the planet. We will only make the thin membrane of the planet that allows the only known life in the universe uninhabitable for us. The human life-sustaining capacity of the planet is already dying. Too bad. Billions of humans will die without ever even knowing the joys of making a telephone call!



Yes, despite what we apparently 'know', we are still consistenty staggered by how the 'other half' (more like the other three-quaters) live. While we are worrying about having hi-fidelity music in every room of the house, some little kid in Africa is listening to his transistor radio as if it's a gift from the gods. We have to remember 'technology' does not always cross all boundaries; 'technology' is the technology of the rich (even poorer people in First World Countries) upwardly mobile.

Yes, despite what we apparently 'know', we are still consistenty staggered by how the 'other half' (more like the other three-quaters) live. While we are worrying about having hi-fidelity music in every room of the house, some little kid in Africa is listening to his transistor radio as if it's a gift from the gods. We have to remember 'technology' does not always cross all boundaries; 'technology' is the technology of the rich (even poorer people in First World Countries) upwardly mobile.

Yes, there are huge areas of Africa where it is easier to get a machine gun than a drink of potable water!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rocketwhore.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/jarswim.gif