NationStates Jolt Archive

Crime is often considered to the greatest of social evils. It has moved beyond its original legal meaning and has become a general curse of protest to anything we might disagree with, "this new trade deal is criminal!" and so on.

But does Crime deserve its reputation? Could it not be said that perhaps, Crime has something positive to add to society, something that would perhaps persuade us not to introduce draconian methods to remove it?

Firstly, I would like to make a distinction between severe acts of Crime, things like Murder and Rape can hardly ever be justified. We all realise this, but do we believe this because we are told so by the law? Or is it just something that comes naturally to our sense of morality and ethics?

Darwin tells us that evolution is the development of adaptions to cope with new situations and thus propagate our species. Indeed, it is these difficulties that cause us to improve as a species. Could not Crime be considered one of these difficulties? A challenge that when constantly presented to us over our history has allowed us to develope in brand new exciting ways. To demonstrate, many anthropologist demark the beginning of Human Civilisation as the time when people gave up on the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and engaged in agriculture, each man allocated to himself a plot of land. This was radical, never before had anyone suggested that land could be owned. Almost instantaneously other people would have tried to have used that land (perhaps maliciously, or perhaps out of non-comprehension of this new concept of ownership) without the 'owner's' consent. Rules were drawn up to stop this from happening, these rules eventually became 'the Law', the Law then allowed stability, which allowed development, which allowed cities, which allowed history to truly begin.

All of this was inspired directly by Crime.

But again, throughout history let us look at all the things we have invented out of fear of crime. The sword, in order to fend off criminals. Doors, and later locks, to keep criminals out of our homes. Guns, as an extension of the sword. Burglar alarms, prison systems, social welfare programs, and so on, all because of Crime.

But Crime does not only have negative effects, as I shall, quite controversially, attempt to explain:

Firstly, overall, I would argue that Crime, overall, is beneficial to the economy. Imagine a world without Crime, makers of alarms, locks, infra-red detecters, those cool laser beam security systems from Mission Impossible, none of those things would exist, as there would be no market for them. Further more there would be no military technology, as all armies originally developed to fight internal threats before they turned out on the world. And as we know, the majority of the world's innovations have come from army patents. In addition, Criminals themselves do their part to help the economy, if you think about it, when someone picks your pocket they do not then simply hide your money in a cubby-hole. They will use it to buy things, insuring that it does not become dead money, but rather that it will circulate just as it would if you were to keep it yourself.

Obviously you would feel cheated in having lost your wallet full of cash, but perhaps that experience would inspire you to buy a jacket with zipped pockets? Thereby giving another slice of profit to the producer of said jackets. In fact, the only thing you can really do to really harm the economy is not spend the money that you have.

Secondly, it has social and cultural value. Think about some of our national heroes, Robin Hood, for example, was a downright thief, but he is reverred today as a symbol of modern justice. The American Founding Fathers were traitors against the British Crown, but they are valued for the message they sent that the Law may not always be right and that it is better to break it than to allow it to break you. Even today, we bemoan the popularity of Gangsta Rap, but really, how different is Fifty Cent to Robin Hood? By actively using Crime as a PR tool he has been able to set a (debatably) reasonable example to kids who want to drag themselves out of poverty. Perhaps people remember Scarface? He argued that his career was the very embodiment of the American Dream, a lowly immigrant arriving, finding the job he is good at and taking it to the very top levels, in a sense, a real rags-to-riches story.

Thirdly, and I would argue, most importantly, is that Crime helps to preserve a necessary plurality in society, a helpful reminder that there is an alternative to blindly obeying the Laws. Crime must always exist so that we never forget that if the government pushes us too far we can always just start nicking stuff off them untill they eventually go backrupt from having to restock their stationary cupboards every day.

Criminals are a necessary segment of society, we need them partially as villains... but also as heroes. How many people in Britain upon hearing of the Northern Bank robbery were above everything else overwhelmed by the audacity of stealing £1million in cash straight from a bank! Its something that is quite hard not to respect, even though we may rationalise that we shouldn't, as we are impressed by the fact that we ourself would be unable to carry off such a feat.

A Life of Crime is not for everyone, the state would simply not be able to support that. But a healthy and dynamic criminal underbelly reminds us that, at the end of the day, the Law is Optional.

I wonder what the point of this is, what are you for the decriminalising of crime?

I wonder what the point of this is

To defend Crime as a concept and practice. The clue's in the title...








And oh yeah, apologies about the length.

Maybe you can have it as a career in school. Principals would say "Mr. Jones, I see nothing in your future but a life of crime. Here have some brochures from a few colleges."

Then criminals would have to pay taxes and maybe form associations and stuff.

Maybe you can have it as a career in school. Principals would say "Mr. Jones, I see nothing in your future but a life of crime. Here have some brochures from a few colleges."

Then criminals would have to pay taxes and maybe form associations and stuff.

Oh, they form associations and stuff. Commit a crime to go to 'college' and fast-track your career.

Crime is often considered to the greatest of social evils. It has moved beyond its original legal meaning and has become a general curse of protest to anything we might disagree with, "this new trade deal is criminal!" and so on.

But does Crime deserve its reputation? Could it not be said that perhaps, Crime has something positive to add to society, something that would perhaps persuade us not to introduce draconian methods to remove it?

Firstly, I would like to make a distinction between severe acts of Crime, things like Murder and Rape can hardly ever be justified. We all realise this, but do we believe this because we are told so by the law? Or is it just something that comes naturally to our sense of morality and ethics?

Darwin tells us that evolution is the development of adaptions to cope with new situations and thus propagate our species. Indeed, it is these difficulties that cause us to improve as a species. Could not Crime be considered one of these difficulties? A challenge that when constantly presented to us over our history has allowed us to develope in brand new exciting ways. To demonstrate, many anthropologist demark the beginning of Human Civilisation as the time when people gave up on the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and engaged in agriculture, each man allocated to himself a plot of land. This was radical, never before had anyone suggested that land could be owned. Almost instantaneously other people would have tried to have used that land (perhaps maliciously, or perhaps out of non-comprehension of this new concept of ownership) without the 'owner's' consent. Rules were drawn up to stop this from happening, these rules eventually became 'the Law', the Law then allowed stability, which allowed development, which allowed cities, which allowed history to truly begin.

All of this was inspired directly by Crime.

But again, throughout history let us look at all the things we have invented out of fear of crime. The sword, in order to fend off criminals. Doors, and later locks, to keep criminals out of our homes. Guns, as an extension of the sword. Burglar alarms, prison systems, social welfare programs, and so on, all because of Crime.

But Crime does not only have negative effects, as I shall, quite controversially, attempt to explain:

Firstly, overall, I would argue that Crime, overall, is beneficial to the economy. Imagine a world without Crime, makers of alarms, locks, infra-red detecters, those cool laser beam security systems from Mission Impossible, none of those things would exist, as there would be no market for them. Further more there would be no military technology, as all armies originally developed to fight internal threats before they turned out on the world. And as we know, the majority of the world's innovations have come from army patents. In addition, Criminals themselves do their part to help the economy, if you think about it, when someone picks your pocket they do not then simply hide your money in a cubby-hole. They will use it to buy things, insuring that it does not become dead money, but rather that it will circulate just as it would if you were to keep it yourself.

Obviously you would feel cheated in having lost your wallet full of cash, but perhaps that experience would inspire you to buy a jacket with zipped pockets? Thereby giving another slice of profit to the producer of said jackets. In fact, the only thing you can really do to really harm the economy is not spend the money that you have.

Secondly, it has social and cultural value. Think about some of our national heroes, Robin Hood, for example, was a downright thief, but he is reverred today as a symbol of modern justice. The American Founding Fathers were traitors against the British Crown, but they are valued for the message they sent that the Law may not always be right and that it is better to break it than to allow it to break you. Even today, we bemoan the popularity of Gangsta Rap, but really, how different is Fifty Cent to Robin Hood? By actively using Crime as a PR tool he has been able to set a (debatably) reasonable example to kids who want to drag themselves out of poverty. Perhaps people remember Scarface? He argued that his career was the very embodiment of the American Dream, a lowly immigrant arriving, finding the job he is good at and taking it to the very top levels, in a sense, a real rags-to-riches story.

Thirdly, and I would argue, most importantly, is that Crime helps to preserve a necessary plurality in society, a helpful reminder that there is an alternative to blindly obeying the Laws. Crime must always exist so that we never forget that if the government pushes us too far we can always just start nicking stuff off them untill they eventually go backrupt from having to restock their stationary cupboards every day.

Criminals are a necessary segment of society, we need them partially as villains... but also as heroes. How many people in Britain upon hearing of the Northern Bank robbery were above everything else overwhelmed by the audacity of stealing £1million in cash straight from a bank! Its something that is quite hard not to respect, even though we may rationalise that we shouldn't, as we are impressed by the fact that we ourself would be unable to carry off such a feat.

A Life of Crime is not for everyone, the state would simply not be able to support that. But a healthy and dynamic criminal underbelly reminds us that, at the end of the day, the Law is Optional.
Well done sir! I heartily agree. I'd add onto it...but unfortunately, I really can't add anything to this.

Of all the things intelligence could be put to, a defense of the indefensible isn't one I'd have suggested. Crime isn't a necessary part of society.

But does Crime deserve its reputation? Could it not be said that perhaps, Crime has something positive to add to society, something that would perhaps persuade us not to introduce draconian methods to remove it?

I'll bet your attitude changes the first time you're actually a victim, rather than a disinterested observer:D

True story!!

In the 80's in Dublin the IRA were, ahem, persuading heroin dealers about the merits of changing their careers. Those who didnt, well take a wild guess....

A group of criminals, led by the infamous Martin Cahill aka the General, who were petrified of being connected with the drugs trade formed a group "Ordinary Decent Criminals' and marched on drug dealers houses to pressure them out of the areas to get the IRA to stop taking an interest in the local underworld.

They had banners, t shirts, badges and everything.

Only in Dublin would the robbers form a union to pressure the drug dealers to get the paramilitaries to leave them alone.

explain your point please Druidville, i think he gave a plausable argument. You have not yet...

Sorry, but no. There are certainly rules that are meant to be broken, but those that benefit fairness, promote peace and comfort and the greater good of society should be followed.

It's wierd. A while back I wrote a post that expressed pretty much this whole idea, but I did it in sarcasm. I thought I was being really funny.

The more I post here, the more I see that there is no idea so dumb that can only be expressed with sarcassm at the time, that it will not soon be expressed sincerely by someone lost on the drift of insanity that floats through here.

Maybe you can have it as a career in school. Principals would say "Mr. Jones, I see nothing in your future but a life of crime. Here have some brochures from a few colleges."

Then criminals would have to pay taxes and maybe form associations and stuff.

They have that. It's called "IRS Agent."

The Powerpuff Girls have dedicated their lives to fighting crime and the forces of evil. Crime can't be good if it shows up on their target list before the forces of evil.

I see a lot of posturing and 'poo-poo'-ing, but I don't see any substantial retorts.

Don't you mean defense?

This is by far one of the most interesting threads to come along in a long time. I agree with your conclusions, crime is indeed an important factor in society, especially in culture. Robin Hood is but one example, In America we have many legends of crime. Bonnie & Clyde, Billy the Kidd, Jesse James...One might argue these people were glorified because they achieved something that no one else had.

The exhileration of defiance of authority, is something that exists in us even as we are young. Defiance of the state is not always a bad thing, more often than not it is probably a good thing. The people are stronger than the state. It has no right to enforce laws that hurt the people-and the people demonstrate this by not following the laws.

Then criminals would have to pay taxes and maybe form associations and stuff.

How very Ankh-Morporkian! :p

as all armies originally developed to fight internal threats before they turned out on the world.


.

I call BS. This specifically, the whole exercise in sophomoric tautology generally.

I see a lot of posturing and 'poo-poo'-ing, but I don't see any substantial retorts.

He will need better bait to get a bite from me even with a lovely barker like yourself drawing us yokels into the sideshow.

He will need better bait to get a bite from me even with a lovely barker like yourself drawing us yokels into the sideshow.

He's done no trolling. I'm not a barker, I merely prefer to see all ideas treated with intellectual honesty. Dismissal without rational presentation is merely surrendering.

I know the way to sidestep the question, but I'd rather see less subtle dodges first, as I can't think of a simple, but effective, reply.

Crime being good for society? Are we all going to sit around discussing durkheim or something?




Yeah, I didn't bother reading the first post.

I see a lot of posturing and 'poo-poo'-ing, but I don't see any substantial retorts.

EAT IT

Crime is often considered to the greatest of social evils. It has moved beyond its original legal meaning and has become a general curse of protest to anything we might disagree with, "this new trade deal is criminal!" and so on.

But does Crime deserve its reputation? Could it not be said that perhaps, Crime has something positive to add to society, something that would perhaps persuade us not to introduce draconian methods to remove it?This is at odds with the premise which comes up later that response to "crime" is an engine of progress, in vaguely darwinian terms.

Firstly, I would like to make a distinction between severe acts of Crime, things like Murder and Rape can hardly ever be justified.Between severe acts of crime and WHAT? Learn about how things are capitalized in English. We all realise this, but do we believe this because we are told so by the law? Or is it just something that comes naturally to our sense of morality and ethics?False dichotomy - assuming it comes naturally to our sense of morality and ethics (sic), this intuition could inform the laws.

Darwin tells us that evolution is the development of adaptions to cope with new situations and thus propagate our species. Indeed, it is these difficulties that cause us to improve as a species. Could not Crime be considered one of these difficulties? Crime means breaking the law. Sometimes, that consists of creating adversity, sometimes it doesnt. Adversity for adversity's sake is asinine, and goes against the intuition you tried to describe above. A challenge that when constantly presented to us over our history has allowed us to develope in brand newBrand new! That is exciting! exciting ways.Adversity forces us to change, not always for the better, and not all crime is adversity, or all adversity crime. To demonstrate, many anthropologist demarkmark/demarcate, this isnt the 1800s, grandiloquence is bad. the beginning of Human Civilisation as the time when people gave up on the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and engaged in agriculture, each man allocated to himself a plot of land. This was radical, never before had anyone suggested that land could be owned. Almost instantaneously other people would have tried to have used that land (perhaps maliciously, or perhaps out of non-comprehension of this new concept of ownership) without the 'owner's' consent. Rules were drawn up to stop this from happening, these rules eventually became 'the Law', the Law then allowed stability, which allowed development, which allowed cities, which allowed history to truly begin.

All of this was inspired directly by Crime.No, crime cannot precede laws. Conflict can precede laws, and 'conflict is an engine for progress is a SOPHOMORIC TAUTOLOGY

But again, throughout history let us look at all the things we have invented out of fear of crime. The sword, in order to fend off criminals.Not criminals per se. DoorsI use my door to keep out the elements..., and later locks, to keep criminals out of our homes. Gunsmade to fight wars, as an extension of the sword. Burglar alarms, prison systemsI thought they were motivated by justice? Injustice is not always criminal, crime means breaking the law., social welfare programs, and so on, all because of Crime.

But Crime does not only have negative effects, as I shall, quite controversially, attempt to explain:

Firstly, overall, I would argue that Crime, overall, is beneficial to the economy. Imagine a world without Crime, makers of alarms, locks, infra-red detecters, those cool laser beam security systems from Mission Impossible, none of those things would exist, as there would be no market for them.In a perfect world, the lack of those industries would hardly be a problem. Further more there would be no military technology, as all armies originally developed to fight internal threats before they turned out on the world.This is simply false. And as we know, the majority of the world's innovations have come from army patentsDo we know? Who's we? Citations!. In addition, Criminals themselves do their part to help the economy, if you think about it, when someone picks your pocket they do not then simply hide your money in a cubby-hole. They will use it to buy things, insuring that it does not become dead money, but rather that it will circulate just as it would if you were to keep it yourself.When someone robs, it HURTS the economy. If stores were never robbed, prices would be lower and companies would make more money.

Obviously you would feel cheated in having lost your wallet full of cash, but perhaps that experience would inspire you to buy a jacket with zipped pockets? Thereby giving another slice of profit to the producer of said jackets. In fact, the only thing you can really do to really harm the economy is not spend the money that you have.Maybe the presence of land mines in your front yard would motivate you to buy a metal detector. You want to try?

Secondly, it has social and cultural value. Think about some of our national heroes, Robin Hood, for example, was a downright thief, but he is reverred today as a symbol of modern justice. The American Founding Fathers were traitors against the British Crown, but they are valued for the message they sent that the Law may not always be right and that it is better to break it than to allow it to break you. Even today, we bemoan the popularity of Gangsta Rap, but really, how different is Fifty Cent to Robin Hood? By actively using Crime as a PR tool he has been able to set a (debatably) reasonable example to kids who want to drag themselves out of poverty. Perhaps people remember Scarface? He argued that his career was the very embodiment of the American Dream, a lowly immigrant arriving, finding the job he is good at and taking it to the very top levels, in a sense, a real rags-to-riches story.This deals with differing claims of what is just, not with conflict and adversity. Do you intend to equate breaking unjust laws with breaking just laws? Isnt your abortion of a 'distinction' above supposed to preclude this?

Thirdly, and I would argue, most importantly, is that Crime helps to preserve a necessary plurality in society, a helpful reminder that there is an alternative to blindly obeying the Laws. Crime must always exist so that we never forget that if the government pushes us too far we can always just start nicking stuff off them untill they eventually go backrupt from having to restock their stationary cupboards every day.I hardly think this is plausible. Unless, of course, you mean that violent crime is good because it reminds us that we can be violent against the government. If so, I assume you'll volunteer your loved ones as the first examples?

Criminals are a necessary segment of society, we need them partially as villains... but also as heroes. How many people in Britain upon hearing of the Northern Bank robbery were above everything else overwhelmed by the audacity of stealing £1million in cash straight from a bank! Its something that is quite hard not to respect, even though we may rationalise that we shouldn't, as we are impressed by the fact that we ourself would be unable to carry off such a feat.Crime isnt just robin hood hijinks. Would these people applaud sneakthieves and pickpockets who cause them to pay more for goods and insurance?

A Life of Crime is not for everyone, the state would simply not be able to support that. But a healthy and dynamic criminal underbelly reminds us that, at the end of the day, the Law is Optional.So go out and kill somebody :rolleyes:

The important distinction is not between what the state designates as acceptable and what it designates as unacceptable, but rather between what is moral and what is immoral.

Crime does not bother me; immorality does. Even if it leads to alleged "progress."

The important distinction is not between what the state designates as acceptable and what it designates as unacceptable, but rather between what is moral and what is immoral.

Crime does not bother me; immorality does. Even if it leads to alleged "progress."

Crime itself refers to violation of a law, not an immoral act. Is the limit then, deciding how much morality any society can be expected (or allowed) to force upon its members through law? It seems to me that since participation in society is not so much a choice, they are limited in what designs they may force upon you.

Crime itself refers to violation of a law, not an immoral act. Is the limit then, deciding how much morality any society can be expected (or allowed) to force upon its members through law?

It should be recognized that much (perhaps even most) of what society "force[s] upon its members" has nothing to do with preventing immoral acts.

It seems to me that since participation in society is not so much a choice, they are limited in what designs they may force upon you.

The choice to harm or exploit another is not a choice that any person or institution is obligated to respect. In fact, such actions are actions that every person and institution is obligated to actively prevent.

EAT IT
-Snip-

You could try examining this more openly. He is not saying that we should feel justified in bursting out in anarchy. He is simply examining crime from a perspective from which it is rarely viewed.

Crime is unstoppable. There will never be a 0% crime rate without taking measures that will cost us far more than they are worth. consider what crime means in culture and society. It is a part of the human experience as much as activities like riding a bike. Its glorified because we are born with exhileration in the act of defiance. why do you think Pirates are such a popular icon? why do you think they fascinated people even when they still made the seas dangerous?

It should be recognized that much (perhaps even most) of what society "force[s] upon its members" has nothing to do with preventing immoral acts.

conceded.


The choice to harm or exploit another is not a choice that any person or institution is obligated to respect. In fact, such actions are actions that every person and institution is obligated to actively prevent.

conceded. In fact, I think this has given me a sudden insight upon your feelings in other debates I have witnessed you participate in. Remember though, respecting something as injust is not the same as being able to do anything about it. Secondly, on relativism- would you not agree there is a cultural stigma attached to "injustice", different philosophies and all that?

Remember though, respecting something as injust is not the same as being able to do anything about it.

True; reality does not bend to my will, or to anyone else's.

Secondly, on relativism- would you not agree there is a cultural stigma attached to "injustice", different philosophies and all that?

Yes. But I like my view of what it constitutes more than the others.

You could try examining this more openly. He is not saying that we should feel justified in bursting out in anarchy. He is simply examining crime from a perspective from which it is rarely viewed.

Crime is unstoppable. There will never be a 0% crime rate without taking measures that will cost us far more than they are worth. consider what crime means in culture and society. It is a part of the human experience as much as activities like riding a bike. Its glorified because we are born with exhileration in the act of defiance. why do you think Pirates are such a popular icon? why do you think they fascinated people even when they still made the seas dangerous?


Nothing is contributed. He equates crime with adversity - falsely - and claims that "adversity is an engine of progress." This is a sophomoric tautology, as I posted originally.

He's done no trolling. I'm not a barker, I merely prefer to see all ideas treated with intellectual honesty. Dismissal without rational presentation is merely surrendering.

I know the way to sidestep the question, but I'd rather see less subtle dodges first, as I can't think of a simple, but effective, reply.


I never implied he was trolling, only baiting. Ive never seen anyone stand beside an issue before egging others on to reply who wasnt a barker though. What were you actually trying to achieve with your earlier post if not to draw interest in entering and investing something in this sideshow?

I'll bet your attitude changes the first time you're actually a victim, rather than a disinterested observer:D

What? Of course I've been a victim of crime. I've been mugged a couple of times, but that's just stuff at the end of the day. Hell, I've been beaten in public a couple of times aswell, its annoying, but the bruises heal and I can get on with my life.

I never implied he was trolling, only baiting. Ive never seen anyone stand beside an issue before egging others on to reply who wasnt a barker though. What were you actually trying to achieve with your earlier post if not to draw interest in entering and investing something in this sideshow?

My absense was due to the need to sleep. I made this thread at about 2am GMT. But I'm glad to see that it has raised some debate since I have been in the Land of Nod.

-snip-

Perhaps we could have organised crime, kind of like in the Discworld...

Perhaps we could have organised crime, kind of like in the Discworld...

Discworld does raise some pretty interesting ideas. Its a shame though that no government would ever get away with implimenting policies from a fantasy-comedy book.

I don't think Terry Pratchett would be too impressed either.

Interesting OP, Greyenivol Colony. It rather reminds me of something I thought of. Anton LeVay once said that Satan is the best friend the Church ever had because he's kept it in business for 2,000 years. I think one could argue that it's the same with criminals, they keep the state in business.

Crime is often considered to the greatest of social evils. It has moved beyond its original legal meaning and has become a general curse of protest to anything we might disagree with, "this new trade deal is criminal!" and so on.

But does Crime deserve its reputation? Could it not be said that perhaps, Crime has something positive to add to society, something that would perhaps persuade us not to introduce draconian methods to remove it?
Not crime-qua-crime, at any rate. But there are some "crimes" which shouldn't be, such as drug use, prostitution, gambling, insider trading, etc.


Firstly, I would like to make a distinction between severe acts of Crime, things like Murder and Rape can hardly ever be justified. We all realise this, but do we believe this because we are told so by the law? Or is it just something that comes naturally to our sense of morality and ethics?

Darwin tells us that evolution is the development of adaptions to cope with new situations and thus propagate our species. Indeed, it is these difficulties that cause us to improve as a species. Could not Crime be considered one of these difficulties?
No, since it's not really a biological, predatory, or econatural pressure, at least not in the Darwinian sense, nor of the standard biological evolution sense. This is more a technological and philosophical problem.



Firstly, overall, I would argue that Crime, overall, is beneficial to the economy. Imagine a world without Crime, makers of alarms, locks, infra-red detecters, those cool laser beam security systems from Mission Impossible, none of those things would exist, as there would be no market for them. Further more there would be no military technology, as all armies originally developed to fight internal threats before they turned out on the world. And as we know, the majority of the world's innovations have come from army patents. In addition, Criminals themselves do their part to help the economy, if you think about it, when someone picks your pocket they do not then simply hide your money in a cubby-hole. They will use it to buy things, insuring that it does not become dead money, but rather that it will circulate just as it would if you were to keep it yourself.
This was elegantly refuted by Frederic Bastiat in his What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html). You essentially put forth the Broken Window Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window).


Secondly, it has social and cultural value. Think about some of our national heroes, Robin Hood, for example, was a downright thief, but he is reverred today as a symbol of modern justice.
I'm not seeing how that would excuse crime or really give it value. What Robin Hood did, if the stories are correct, is a combination of theft and active disobedience. On the former part, that is bad. The latter is good.


The American Founding Fathers were traitors against the British Crown, but they are valued for the message they sent that the Law may not always be right and that it is better to break it than to allow it to break you.
Unjust laws aren't laws at all. Thus, to break them is of no philosophical consquence.


Even today, we bemoan the popularity of Gangsta Rap, but really, how different is Fifty Cent to Robin Hood? By actively using Crime as a PR tool he has been able to set a (debatably) reasonable example to kids who want to drag themselves out of poverty.
And, much like sports stars, the kids have about a 1 in 20 million chance of making it.


Perhaps people remember Scarface? He argued that his career was the very embodiment of the American Dream, a lowly immigrant arriving, finding the job he is good at and taking it to the very top levels, in a sense, a real rags-to-riches story.

Thirdly, and I would argue, most importantly, is that Crime helps to preserve a necessary plurality in society, a helpful reminder that there is an alternative to blindly obeying the Laws. Crime must always exist so that we never forget that if the government pushes us too far we can always just start nicking stuff off them untill they eventually go backrupt from having to restock their stationary cupboards every day.
Again, not following unjust laws isn't actually a crime.

Since when was law an option?

Again, not following unjust laws isn't actually a crime.

But what exactly is an unjust law? And who decides what is unjust? People have very significant differences in opinion over justice. Some people would argue that the law against theft is unjust, as they do not believe in the validity of 'property' as a concept. Many would disagree with them. Should the majority be allowed to enforce its believe onto the philosophical thief?

Since when was law an option?

Since forever.

Since when was law an option?

Part of what the OP doesn't understand is the distinction between something being mandatory (the opposite of optional) and something being deterministic.

Obviously, the law is not optional - people who break it are punished.

The sophomoric tautology that "just because its the law doesnt mean you have to do it" is obvious even to children, which is what makes it so sophomoric and such a tautology.

What? Of course I've been a victim of crime. I've been mugged a couple of times, but that's just stuff at the end of the day. Hell, I've been beaten in public a couple of times aswell, its annoying, but the bruises heal and I can get on with my life.

Obviously, since you are so phlegmatic about the whole thing, you've never been mugged or beaten properly. To find out what a real criminal assualt is like: take a stanley knife, load it with two blades and split the tips with a wooden match. Then slash your face with it a few times.

Then tell me how it's nothing at the end of the day.

But what exactly is an unjust law?
A law which criminalizes actions which people have a right to do.


And who decides what is unjust?
From a proper moral standpoint.


People have very significant differences in opinion over justice. Some people would argue that the law against theft is unjust, as they do not believe in the validity of 'property' as a concept.
Yet they concede it when they argue against it. Performative contradiction.


Many would disagree with them. Should the majority be allowed to enforce its believe onto the philosophical thief?
If the thief is acting in such a manner which violates the rights of others, then yes. The thief will be treated in a manner consistent with defending those righs.