I have had this belief for quite some time and I have yet to find a problem with my logic. As far as I can understand what we should morally consider illegal it seems that all crimes revolve around a theft of some form. Here are my examples:
Murder: The taking of life.
Robbery: (includes banks, home, car etc.) The taking of possessions.
Rape: The taking of free will. The same goes for kidnapping.
Physical assault: Loss of free will again but if injury is severe the person has also lost the ability to function to his full potential (if that makes sense).
There are plenty of other crimes, but a million and one of them involve the taking of possessions. Is my argument correct or am I fatally flawed?
You can stretch the definition of taking to include just about any crime, but what’s the point? Kidnapping is kidnapping. Rape is rape. Neither is theft.
How do you fit tresspassing, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, and abusing a corpse into your definition?
I kinda see what you’re saying. You’re wrong in a strictly legal sense but I see what you’re getting at.
The definition of theft in the UK comes from Section 1 of the Theft Act 1971 which says (off the top of my head):
“The appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it”
So strictly speaking, if you murder someone, you’re not actually taking any property off them (property in a legal sense) but in a wider sense you are taking something off them.
All crimes involve doing something to somebody else. You can’t commit a crime against yourself except perhaps when attempted suicide was a crime. Attempted suicide isn’t a crime any more but for the purposes of the argument let’s assume it is still a crime - what are you stealing then?
In fact, now I think about it, what about inchoate offences (offences such as incitement, conspiracy and attempts) where you don’t actually carry out the criminal act itself, you just plan to carry out the act. These are still considered crimes from a legal perspective but you haven’t stolen anything.
In any case, while your point is interesting from a philosophical perspective, it’s not of much practical use.
Your logical flaw is that of equivocation: using a single word in an argument to have multiple meanings.
The term “theft” in a legal sense is precise. The term “theft” as a poetic comment can mean anything – just like one could conceivably define the crime of jaywalking as the theft of right-of-way from an automobile, or something silly like that.
OK, forget my refering to it as theft. Theft has too much legal jargon associated with it. But Jojo was getting where I’m going with this. It’s more of crime involving the removal of something society (whether personal or communal) deems precious, like valuables, freedom and especially life.
Firstly:
Trespassing = taking the right of private land from the owner. Land is after all considered a commodity that can be violated, just like vandalism is to a house. But I’m coming back to this.
Disturbing the peace = This can be taken in many contexts. As a drunken man raving on outside your house, you are taking away your right to peace. The man prevents you from carrying out the functions you wish to perform (i.e. sit in peace) and as such has taken from you your ability to choose (taking of free will). Of course there are cases such as public nudity (is that disturbing the peace?) whereby making said acts unlawful takes away their free will. The choice between legal and illegal in this case comes from the greater good (needs of the many…)
Resisting arrest = Implies you have committed a crime and therefore it is a police officers job and will to arrest you. Resisting removes his ability to act on his decision. His free will has been removed. As for the criminal’s free will, well he committed a crime and as such his free will is hindered to bring about due punishment.
Abusing a corpse = I’m not sure of the legality of what I am about to say but is it alright if the next of kin agrees to it? :eek: If so, then the crime is merely damage of property. After all, when you are dead and forgoing any religious beliefs what remains is a shell which becomes the property of said next of kin.
I’m not going to justify any more crimes because for most I could probably justify them one way or another. Which brings me back to trespassing.
Jojo is right. I could argue that any attempt made to commit a crime is still an attempt to take something away and is just as “legally justifyable” as any attempted crime is now. But for suicide and trespassing there are grey area that I feel goes against Jojo’s beliefs that this concept has no real meaning. By my logic suicide is an attempt to take your own life. But believing the fact that you “own” your life, then no crime has been committed. That is why attempted suicide is no longer a crime. In some cases of trespassing, like someone breaking into your home or at least the land surrounding it your privacy has been violated and a crime has, as it should be seen, occured. But should another man who just wants to walk through a Government-protected forest or something incur the same penalty. Of course not. By my definition, the forest walker has done no wrong. He has not removed the rights of the Government more than they have removed his rights to view what should be a public site. I believe that land ownership is taken to seriously in these times but that is for another thread. What I am getting at is that some “crimes” that many of us deem improper would have no function within my logic. And some actions that should be deemed illegal would become illegal by the rules that taking away = bad.
Example: Tobacco and Alcohol should be illegal. There are no two ways about it. They harm people and that is all. By my definition all drugs, except medication of course would cause a gradual loss of life as well as an ability to live properly. As such they would be illegal.
On the other foot: Saying that Tobacco and Alcohol are legal then all drugs should be legal. Saying the loss of rights outweighs the loss of life then people should have rights to use what ever drugs they wish to use.
My idea makes the draft illegal
My ideas makes all civil rights legal
My idea has the possibility of working in the real world, unless of course someone real smart shows up and blows my idea to kingdom come.
If you must destroy my idea, please do so with a 1920’s style death ray. It would be appreciated.
First of all I am not real smart. But I do question your assertions. I doubt that my questions “blow them out of the water”, btu I am curious.
You say that your philosophy makes the Draft illegal, does that not presupose that the right s of the individual to be free from military service supercede the right of a society to expect service from those who benefit from that society. In other words could it not be considered theft for an individual to enjoy the protection won by the efforts of others while rufusing to contribute to the general welfare by refusing military themselves?
As far a Civil Rights, I can not answer until you tell me what you consider “Civil Rights”.
I do not think you Idea has a possibility of working in the real world. If everyone refused to serve in the military, there are plenty of other countries willing to compell military service that will steal your right not to defend your right to be free.
I suggest that rights only exist for those willing to defend those rights. That all rights necesarrily entail corrusponding responsibilities.
Please forgive my grammar…and spelling…and overall coherence. I’m tired and without caffeine.
Jaywalking shouldn’t be a crime except for that its existence protects people by having them think twice when crossing the road. To remove the law goes against the “rules” (I’ve got to call it something) because without it people are at risk of losing life and with harm, the ability to live. As for an automobile having right-of-way. Its not the car but the driver, who has right-of-way and yes you are “stealing” his right to function upon his own decisions. (free will)
It’s time I put out the rules actually so it doesn’t seem like I’m pulling things out of a hat. This is still up for amendment, obviously.
A law should be defined thusly:
Whereby a person or person(s) has lost what is considered valuable by themselves or by a jury of their peers, whether it is property, the rights of an individual or the ability to act, within the confines of the law, to a person’s own discretion (free will)
Where there are multiple losses that conflict each other the law should side with what is most benefical to the majority (needs of many outweigh needs of few)
The extent to which a person is punished is justified by the extent to which there were losses, whereby a jury of their peers would decide as to the value of said losses (i.e murder > jaywalking) as well as how much the accused was aware of the value of said losses and his presence to take the considered valuable. (i.e manslughter < 1st degree murder)
That should do for know. Add use of legal jargon to my list of apologies up top.
Upon reading preview:
The “rules” don’t prevent compulsory military service, askeptic which would be legal because the right to life of the populous would outweigh your loss of free will. They prevent what I call the “draft”, being made to participate in a war, Vietnam style whereby your life is being placed at risk for policies that do not concern your way of life. Your free will has been taken for no discernable credit to the populous. As for saying
Compulsory military service is for those not willing to fight. People who are willing to fight for those rights would volunteer, and there is no doubt that there would be many ready to volunteer to protect their rights. Stop being a skept…oh.
I don’t know quite how to phrase this, but your approach seems rather focused on the way that the law would deal with crimes after they have been committed, rather than preventing crimes and their knock-on effects.
Take the drugs thing, for example; saying that people should be free to harm themselves in whatever pleasant, creative way they choose, ignores the sorts of unpleasant behaviours that can arise from doing so (and I’d include alcohol here too) - some laws, rather than being there to prevent an inescapable harm, they are there to prevent a probable harm, or even a possible one - how do you measure and react to this in a system that seems only concerned with black-and-white-is-it-harmful-or-not?
Surely you see how much you have to twist your premise to shoe-horn in many current crimes into your definition (particularly that resisting arrest one). As others have noted I get you are aiming at some kind of Libertarian philosophy that ignores many current norms.
When I first read the title I thought this was some kind of Trojan horse argument, trying to get some of those “copyright infringement=theft” guys to expose their necks.
Not to be insulting but are you really so unaquainted with actual people that you believe this? Personally I’ve met many people over 60 whose lives don’t seem too dregraded by going to the pub now&then. Also, doesn’t this conflict with your statements on suicide?
I’d also say you’re making a logical error of deduction vs. induction.
Being able to take a list of crimes and describe them as having property “x” does not mean that there is a provable relationship between property ‘x’ and legality.
For example, if x equals “loss of free will,” then it might be argued that in some sense, jaywalking should be outlawed, but it does not follow that a protest march, which denies drivers the free will to drive across a certain intersection at a certain time, should be a crime.
In other words, the idea that theft (or whatever you want to call it) is the essential nature of crime is like numerologists saying the number three is essential to all goodness – so long as one looks at a list of good things, there’s always a way to find a relationship to the number three. But if one starts an analysis with the number three and then don’t end up with something good, there is no logical relationship.
I hope that point makes sense the way I’ve tried to express it.
Are you suggesting that sodomy is not a crime anywhere in the US? If so, then you are mistaken. Even Lawrence v. Texas (great decision that it was) did not suggest general sodomy laws (of which there are more than a few) were unconstitutional.
[whisper]I think you should look up the definition of sodomy, I bet you will find that it does not mean what I think you think it means.[/whisper]
