Theft From Need or Theft From Greed?

[ronchamblin]

The Metro theft event causes me to wonder about the idea of theft, and about the difference between theft from the perspective of need, and that of greed.  I suspect that the recent SPAR/Metro theft would be related to greed.  It seems that every theft could be placed upon a curve, having at one end the starving destitute, and at the other the very comfortable wealthy.  This comparison can be related to our local jobless population and our crime rate.  As we experience an increase in the jobless population, then we are likely to see an in increase in theft.  And if everyone had jobs, and decent incomes, then any thefts could be related less to need, but more to greed. I'm not qualifying theft by jobless people, as there are individuals who are thieves no matter what.

Whereas there is the obvious act of theft wherein one individual takes money or items from another individual, there are the less obvious thefts which occur in the business world, in banking, and in government.  Whereas it is easier to convict and punish the former, it is almost impossible to even identify and clarify the thefts of the latter.  And corruption and huge amounts of funds for defense often prevents successful prosecution of the latter.   

The phrase “License to Steal” might relate to the theft by big business, banking and corporate, as inflicted upon the population masses or, the 99% as we’ve termed it recently.  One might ask about the environment, and who owns it.  Is it owned by the 1%; that is, the corporates who greatly affect it, or is it owned by the masses?  Many of us own land, houses, automobiles, and buildings.  But what about the air and the sea, the fresh water, and the great areas of land which belongs to a nation’s people?  What about the stability of our economy â€" our jobs?  The people, the 99% and the 1% own these things, but by way of percentage of ownership, the 99% far outweighs the 1%, and so the former should have the greater say as to the care of these fundamental and very important assets.   

So, if we were to assign a quality to the air, the sea, the earth, and the fresh water, then might it be a theft when an entity takes excessive amounts of those qualities from the masses?  Of course it is theft.  Although there have been occasions wherein the thieves, in the form of large corporations, have been caught and charged with the “theft” of these qualities, such as clean water and air, there should be many more prosecutions so that the destructive behavior will decrease.

The interesting thing is that the corporate level of theft is not from a position of being destitute and hungry, but it is from a position of greed.  Greed I suppose could be defined as one’s excessive desire and struggle for things not required for one’s comfort or reasonable quality of life. 

This country seems to have cultivated a mood or outlook encouraging a never ending quest to own and have everything possible.  Does one call it materialism?  It’s as if we’ve been educated for many decades to have this outlook, wherein our entire being should strive for wealth and “things”, and this, with no limits to the losses in honesty or truth, or to the environment.  One might say that we have educated a population that tends to greed, to the accumulation of wealth and “things”, instead of a balanced perspective wherein one can be comfortable with moderation, with contemplation upon life’s mysteries, with the simple enjoyment of nature and science. 

So… yes, theft is a funny thing.  It occurs down the street as a neighbor loses a computer to a jobless person who will get $40 for it at the pawn shop.  But the most horrendous thefts begin not from the condition of need, but from the pressure of the greed our culture promotes; and the guilty are many in our government, in our large corporations, and in the financial giants addressed on Wall Street.

Perhaps education away from materialism is the goal, so that somehow, gradually, more people in our society will begin to realize that moderation in all things is to be valued and sought after, and not excesses in “things” and the accumulation of money.  This kind of education might come from the public schools, and in certain existing media.  However, the media seems a less likely candidate because most advertisers are geared to maximize profits no matter what.  Perhaps the various religions might be effective in promoting a less greedy society.  This might be unrealistic however because it seems that most of the larger churches are too focused on the acquisition of as much money as possible, apparently with no end.

I’m certainly not a typical religious person, but I sense that some of the eastern religions might suggest “moderation” and a less materialistic way of living.  However, one must be careful in embracing religions, as when a religion has seemingly good aspects, it may also have certain unrealistic and potentially damaging aspects too.   

In any case, I envision a very difficult scenario ahead, as I can’t imagine “voluntary” moderation, a turn from greed, a turn from wishing to have much more than one needs to live a comfortable and balanced life.  It’s like trying to convince everyone, at the same time, to back off from greed, from having more than your neighbor.  There will always be those who will be almost insanely motivated by greed, and who will spoil the desired change to a more moderate and sane society.  But of course, this condition of momentum to maximize everything  is exactly what has been happening for many decades. 

Perhaps the only force that can produce the motivation for mass change is a very serious collapse of our economy, the partial destruction of the very structure of our society.  The dynamics involved might approach the same kind of thing which happens to an individual who will not change a bad habit until some catastrophic life changing event forces it.  I wonder if we, as a society, are heading toward one of those life changing catastrophes? 

[ronchamblin]

The below article from the Huff Post today has interesting statisitcs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-revolution-begins-in-_b_1178201.html

The Revolution Begins in 2012.  (Huff Post article by Cenk Uygur.)

Wall Street and the Tea Party were appetizers for what is to come. I have never seen the American people so disgruntled, and neither has anyone else. Every number is a record. Congressional approval is at a record low of 9%. Can it get lower? Can it go negative? The number of people satisfied with the candidates running for president is at a record low. Dissatisfaction in this category is four times higher than it was even in 2008.

The Tea Party might not know it but they are mad about the same thing that Occupy Wall Street is. They have a sense that our politicians have sold us out - and they are 100% right. The problem isn't Big Government or Big Money. The problem is when Big Money buys Big Government leading to Big Corruption.

It isn't personal corruption. No one is stuffing money into freezers (at least not a lot of people are). It isn't that Senator Ben Nelson or Senator Orrin Hatch is a bad person. It's that we have built a system that is built on systemic corruption. The only way you can get elected is by doing the bidding of huge donors. And those donors can control the process entirely because of the unlimited amount of money they can spend.

The average winning House candidate now spends $1.4 million per election. The average winning Senate candidate spends $10 million. Which average guy has that kind of money? You must raise the money from big donors - and then you are at their mercy. If you want to win, you need the money. If you want the money, you have to give them something in return.

How often does money control the outcome? An overwhelming amount of the time. The candidate with more money wins 93% of the time on the House side and 94% of the time on the Senate side. It's game, set and match.

So, of course, our representatives don't represent us, they represent the people who got them elected - the big donors.

This system cannot stand. It will not stand. I'm not saying that it falls in 2012. That is way too optimistic. But the battle is joined in 2012. There are now many constitutional amendments trying to address this problem. Those movements will only grow. And probably at surprising speed. Everything moves so much quicker now (just look at how many times and how quickly the Republican primaries have turned already). This movement is going to take the country by storm and Washington is going to be completely surprised by it. As usual, they will say "no one could have seen it coming."

I'm telling you now, it's coming! People are starting to become furious that we have in effect lost our representative democracy. It's time for a revolution. Not a physical one, but a political one. A revolution that turns over the establishment's apple cart, challenges this corrupt system and brings back our democracy. Get ready for 2012.