What says thee to this - is crime a product of the system?

Question

Ursula Le Guin - The Dispossessed

"To make a thief, make an owner; to create crime, create laws."

Answer 1

yes, crime is a product of the system

because there are LEGAL THEFTS in the system

which cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer UNJUSTLY, ie pay per unit of work ranges

there is legal theft in TRANSACTION ITSELF

thus: every pair of things exchanged HAVE TO be unequal in value - ie, the value of the two things has to be x and x+y - so every exchange is a fair exchange no robbery [x for x] PLUS a nofair robbery [equal to y] - exacerbated by everyone's efforts to make y as big as possible

over trillions of transactions daily over time, this produces a bell curve of gains and losses - which stretches with every transaction - just statistically, half are going to gain more than lose, half lose more than gain, a few gain a lot, a few lose a lot

plus many other LEGAL THEFTS - govts tend to be largely of the ones who profit from this injustice, so they tend not to see it nor legislate against it

eg, buy land, sit on it, people add value to land by work creating infrastructure around land [eg city] and owner walks away with money for others' work

so, yes, crime is a product of the system

as soon as we had specialisation of work, we had pooling of wealth [products of work] to enable selection of variety of products - this pooling allowed people taking out more than they put in, ie crime, causing people to take out less than they put in, causing righteous anger, expressed in ttrying to take earnings back from the overpaid - called crime by the ruling overpaid, on the principle that the conqueror writes the history

it is too obvious that no one can work much harder than the average [homemakers work 70-90 hours a week] - it is too obvious that there are many poor people who work harder than many of the rich - but the thieving ruling class [because money is power] send out every lie to hide the reality

one of which is that it is just to pay for brains, talents, and other natural gifts - humanity has swallowed this lie, although it is obvious that payment for having received gifts is nonsense - and is a criminal tax on the ungifted

money is a bit more complicated than humans can understand - so the overpaid get away with it - until a revolution, and the plutocracy lose their heads in a bloodbath

i dont agree with ursula le guin's analysis, although her heart might be in the right place

we have fortnightly pay from one lousy dollar to $1 billion - very unequal pay for equal work - injustice, ie, theft, crime, which produces violence between plunderer and plundered - the violence escalates as both sides try to win -

so history has been increasing injustice, increasing violence, increasing weaponry, increasing horror, increasing danger

once you pay people for studying [as we should, as study is work - we'd have to limit university places - which is fair: why should society buy unlmited numbers of engineers etc], there is actually no reason for unequal hourly payrates - all of the 'reasons' given [responsibility, business risk, etc] are nonsense - rationalisations, not reasons - but very popular and persisitent, because so many are looking for an excuse for overpay - although 99% are underpaid with unlimited fortunes

overpay doesnt pay: the danger of being overpaid [thief] among underpaid [robbed] is proportional to overpay, and the extra pleasure is slight, because fairpay satisfies all needs and wants except very small marginal ones -

the illusion of extra pleasure of overpay is cast by the ego: if i have a bigger house, i am bigger, my pleasure is greater, i am a superior person, etc

justice is a virtue because it is a cause of happiness - but people are sure that justice is bad, and that unlimited fortunes are freedom

but the social pool of wealth is limited by the finite amount of work going to create that wealth, so unlimited overpay is unlimited underpay, is unlimited violence [war and other crime], is extinction soon, ie the selfmurder of 6-7 billion by erroneous belief

like a pool of water hoovered up at one end - the level in most of the pool has to drop further, the higher the hoovered part goes up

1% get 90% of world income and do less than 1% of the work - ie, they steal over 89% of world wealth - US$70 trillion a year - as blatant as this is, humans cannot grasp the reality

see my other answers for more clarity

Answer 2

I thoroughly and wholeheartedly agree with the statement, expecially the second half of the quote. Everytime a new law is created, the rate of crime in the area that thal lawa pplies to goes up because people continue to violate this new law, in some cases by the exact percentage of those violations. Thus, if you want to lower the crime rate, get rid of laws.

Answer 3

Because the concept of natural law seems to intuitively exist in humanity, LeGuin makes an invalid statement.

Not only that, but crime is not the breaking of a law as much as it is a perpetration of evil. Evil is one thing absolutely and many others things besides subjectively. Thus, it will always be a crime to murder someone but not always a crime to spit on the sidewalk (so to speak).

More postmodernist and hippie crap.

Answer 4

It's a cop out to give validity and justification to crime.

I could as easilly say "to make famine, bake bread"

And yet I am not responsible for people that cannot find food because I bake myself a loaf of bread.

It's also the most trite and purile musing on why crime exists.

Crime doesn't exist solely because we codified it. Crime will exist even if laws are not written. Because all humans have inalienable rights. And there will always be people infringing upon those rights.

Answer 5

Absolutely not true, except in the trivial sense. If there were no laws then of course there could be no crime, but that is hardly a worthy situation.

It takes effort to breed a human to NOT be a criminal, since human nature wants to find the quickest way to obtaining whatever he wants. A person must be educated about morality and know that he has other achievable avenues to success.

Answer 6

Well of course. How can you "steal" something if it has no owner? A "crime" is only a crime because it is against the law. However these things need to be in place, or there would be absolute chaos.

Answer 7

Violence against other is what a codified system attempted to punish and later to prevent through imminent threat of punishment.

When someone does something to survive, such as gather food, then someone beats them and takes that food, would you not see that as inherently wrong? If not then I am justified in taking from you anything you have by force.

Your stance is flawed in the real world and is not supported by the practice of any society that would allow people to live peacefully.

Answer 8

Reference Clarence Darrow on crime... His arguments are interesting with the belief that, for example, a poor man steals not to break the law or because he is evil but because this is the easiest way for him to make a living versus getting a job, etc. A lot hinges on class, race, and socio-economic status... Whether you agree or not, it is good fodder for philosophical discussion!

Answer 9

Absolutely true.
How the rules have come into force? So that people can have a better understanding and for co-existence. But always some selfish do take them for their advantage at the cost of others. That is why the chaos.
When some one professes freedom, he will be depicted as enemy and seen his end. Then who survives this is god.

Answer 10

answer: It replaced into an INTENTIONAL mistranslation whilst the bible replaced into translated for King James. Hg: you're flawed and could study some historic past. King James had a definite worry of witches and instructed his translators to discover everywhere interior the bible the place it may be4 translated to communicate against witchcraft. the specific verse initially study: "Thou shall no longer go through a poisoner to stay" - a sentiment maximum could believe for the time of the a while. The translators replaced it. additionally changing seer to witch interior the story of whom King Saul went and consulted, and so on. historic fact.