Re: Theft, Capital and Ms Bush

[as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)]

In <1992Nov16.180202.21095@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:


>> You're not solving anything by victimizing other people.  Theft is not the
>> opposite of capitalism; it's merely the acquisition of property by breaking
>> the rules. 

>Andrew, you've endorsed my point:  Yes, theft is the acquisition of property
>by "breaking the rules."  The rules of the market, money, and the invisible
>hand.  Therefore it is a  force challenging capitalism.  Yes as in any other
>revolt/revolution, individuals are hurt.

Who is the revolution for, if not for the individual?  I've got news for
you: I don't want to be "liberated" by having people steal my property. 
Come to that, I don't want to be "liberated" by stealing other people's
property, lest you think this is a purely selfish sentiment.

>>You're victimizing people as much as capitalists are when you
>> steal from them.  "Striking back at the system" indeed.  How much difference
>> is there between the common thief and the money-grubbing corporation?

>One is put in prison for an endless number of years for publicizing
>the success of his/her endevours where as the other gets awards
>and a place in Fortune for its success. (I suppose I could have
>phrased it better but you get the point)

Yes, I get the point.  The point is that you acknowledge that thievery and
capitalism amount to the same act (though they're treated differently by society). 
This means that either you endorse both thievery and capitalism, or you
endorse neither, since they are the same thing, ignoring societal rules. 
Now, the "system" you expect to overthrow is capitalism; therefore, the act
that perpetuates the system is the same as the act which you *claim*
overthrows the system.  Your logic is seriously flawed and therefore
invalid, and it doesn't take morals to see that.

>>  It's
>> a truly sick idea to fantasize that thievery is some sort of radical
>> protest.  

>I'd call it radical and crazy (Ooooo...the thrill and the hurting), not sick.

A rose by any other name...

>>Intrinsically sacred property is not.  But ethics and morals are
>> part of people, not part of things.  When you commit a theft, you're not
>> wronging the property, you're wronging the person.  NOT the system...the
>> system will carry on regardless of how many people steal MY CD player or
>> wallet.  

>Will it go on regardless of the occurance of crime? If say for example,
>7 out of 10 Americans/US residents commit an act of theft a day or
> every couple days.
>What will the government do?  Lock 'em all up?  All 200 million 
>"criminals"?  So what will become of the system if anyone can 
>walk into any place and take anything with (close to ) impunity?  
>Collapse?  About 5 of every 10 Americans live below, at or
>close to the poverty line (which in itself is much too low: $13,000
>for a family of 4!)

Sure the system would collapse under these conditions.  It would also
collapse if 7 out of 10 Americans committed an act of murder every day. 
What does this accomplish?  Are you suggesting that the ends (justice for
 the individual) justify the means (injustice against the individual)?  The
logical dilemma here is that the system is an abstract entity.  Unless you
divide people into systemites and revolutionaries, attacking only the
systemites, you can accomplish nothing with theft, and if you do divide the
population that way, you're getting into class conflict, the haves and the
have-nots, and you're no longer destroying the system but the status quo,
two totally different things

The way to achieve equity when one blames the system is to use abstract
means: changing the system.  Bucking it does no good.

>>Copyright (spelled correctly)

>I thought Kate Bush fans would be a bit more "giving" in terms
>of errors or typos.  Since English is my 3rd language, I tend
>to be pretty self forgiving about such menial mistakes!

Sorry; I hadn't realized.  My apologies...although I wasn't being petty.  I
simply do that by reflex, because I always hope that people will correct me
when I spell/pronounce/use a word incorrectly.  Note that I didn't make
corrections in this post.

>Yes but the systems is, which inturn governs copyrighting laws.
>The system governs who has "access" to luxury items (like
>the Kate Bush Box set).  If you disagree with me on 
>the system being sexist/racist/homophobic, thats a different
>issue (even though I dont think you disagree with that)
>Coming from a place where copyrighting (happy?) laws
>are only token, even a relatively poor person can rent a movie
>(since about a zillion copies are made per master!), buy a tape
>(a  new album costs about $1 recorded on a good tape), or
>a book (you pay for the photocopying costs plus binding!).
>My point is this:  What makes ideas ones property?  The fact
>that "I thought of it before you"?  Sure they should get credit
>for their ideas but should not "bar" the use of them by 
>others...you dont "own" something if you thought of it first.
>But lets not get into the copyrighting question.

I do disagree; there are sexists, racists, and homophobes within *and*
without the system.  The system is independent of such things, and they are
present but irrelevant to the theory.  And I think it's an
oversimplification to say that the system controls access to luxury items,
if not downright inaccurate.

In today's information society, ideas are literally money.  The theft of
ideas has become as damaging as the theft of property.  Whether you think
that's a good or a bad thing is another matter; the point is, ideas must be
protected as property and money are protected.

> 
>> And I would hope that any civilized person would take your comments as a
>> personal affront.  

>Whoa!  "Civilized"?  What do you mean by that?  Someone who has been so
>incredibly socialized(brainwashed is a better word) within our sick society that 
>he/she has forgotten how to think for him/herself?  And why are you 
>encouraging a person to take a pretty reasonable argument personally??  
>Relax.  Listen to The Dreaming or whatever your favourite Bush 
>CD is.

Sorry, that was uncalled for.  I was simply getting carried away.  But I
don't think your argument is reasonable at all; it smacks of impulsive
reflex radical anarchism.  I am presently in violent disagreement with you, but I am
willing to continue the discussion; I'm open-minded enough to say that I
think we can both learn from it.  But before you go on, I want two things
from you:

1.) A working definition of "the system."
2.) Examples and/or descriptions of societies (not anarchies) wherein an
utter disregard for property has proved successful and beneficial to
*anyone*.

Drewcifer

PS  Sorry for two reasons: 1) that "personal affront" thing, it really was
most despicable, and 2) that this is so long.  I wanted to edit it a bit,
but couldn't without losing the thread.
-- 

****************************************************************************
*  Andrew David Simchik *  "If he treats you horribly, he's probably a     *
*                       *  Scorpio"--Robyn Hitchcock      		   *