Freeconomy Blog
Sun
17 May
Am I a thief?
| 9 comments |
Murder, violence and theft – three acts generally accepted by modern society as unacceptable behaviour, proven by the amounts of legislation we've devised to 'punish' those who commit them. How many of us have ever questioned what these three terms really mean though? So much of what constitutes our moral infrastructure, within which we consciously and subconsciously make both mundane and important decisions, comes from the melting pot of the cultures we live in, our religions, the media, our peers and other authoritative figures. It is these bodies, amongst others, which define the parameters to what words such as murder, violence and theft mean to the masses of the human population.
This is not necessarily a negative thing; people often find it really useful to have a moral infrastructure in which they can operate, without having to consider personal ethics at every single moment. The problem occurs, however, when people accept these moral 'guidelines', as defined by those from whom we look to for guidance on such matters, without having ever questioning them.
For example, according to the State and most religions, to murder means the unlawful killing of another human animal. To cause violence is generally perceived by most as inflicting physical violence – or sometimes the more extreme forms of mental violence – on another human being, and to steal is widely accepted as the taking of property from another without right or permission.
Take theft for an example. I was pondering this earlier whilst planting the last of the onions. Few of us would react well to being called a thief. In fact, the vast majority of us would take a lot of offence in being called such, and we generally take great care in making sure that we take nothing which isn't 'ours'? And given the assumption that most people function under – that stealing is simply taking something from another without right or permission – the vast majority of humans are extremely honest, which is really admirable.
But as I said, how many of us question the definition of what it is 'to steal'? For example, if I am paid to do an office job but spend most of the day emailing my personal friends, have I stolen that days wages from my employer? On the other side on the non-monetary coin, if an employer makes huge profits yet pays employees a wage they cannot survive on, is there an element of theft here also, or is it simply a deal both have legally agreed to?
Lets take the question to another level. I go into a shop and there is a packet of Fair-Trade coffee sitting beside a packet of Unfairly-Traded coffee. I pick up the unfairly traded one and buy it (not that I could, living without money and all that). Am I stealing the difference between the fair-trade price and the unfair-trade price that farmers receive for their crops, from the overall farming community in, what is often, financially poverty-stricken countries, or am a just exercising my right to choose? Of course you could say that each farmer has agreed a deal to have their crops bought at a certain price – this really isn't an argument, however, when you understand the market and the ways in which the insanely powerful multinationals negotiate deals these days with those who have very little option other than to comply.
If I go into an electronics store and buy a new TV – with all its embodied energy, finite resources and pollution – am I stealing from the next generation, or simply buying a TV? If I choose to buy an apple farmed using petrochemicals over one produced organically, am I stealing soil fertility from the earth and the food security of our children? Is taking more than one needs, in an era when severe, irreversible climate change is a distinct possibility, also stealing?
Lets bring it to another level again. If I have £1,000 in a bank account, and some kid, lets say in Eritrea, dies because they couldn't even afford the few pence it costs to feed oneself each day there, have I 'stolen' from that child, or is it not my responsibility? Many would answer the former, but before answering, ask yourself this – if you walked past a badly injured person who had been hit by a car, without helping them even though you could have phoned an ambulance, and then you later found out they died, would you consider yourself partially responsible for that persons death because you could have stopped it? Now think about that child in Eritrea again? Is your answer still the same?
I was once asked the following in an interview:
“You've been quoted in the past as saying that 'if I have £100 in the bank and someone dies because they couldn't afford food, then I am partially responsible for that person's death'...instead of living without money then, would it not be better for you to work for money and then give that money to people dying of starvation?” The interviewer smirked, as if to say “got ya!” and she had a very valid point, but I simply responded by saying that I believed that there were much greater long term benefits from not supporting a political and economic policy which gives rise to the poverty that caused that starvation in the first place – in the same way I believe it would be better for Shell and Esso to stop the huge environmental pollution they cause than to continue causing it and making donations with the profits to some environmental charity that attempts to clear it up, and that it is better not to break something in the first place than to pay to have someone try to put it back together. But, yes, if you still insist on, or are forced to use money within this system then you can redirect it to those who need it more. Or something to that effect. But to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised that the question was asked.
None of us can help everyone and therefore we all have our limits. However, we can help those whom it is within our capability of helping. For some that may be one child in Africa or a dog from your local pound. Others may give up the little they have and buy a small community a well. Others may give little of the lots they have yet still have a massive effect on that little. I am not saying one is 'right' or 'wrong' – I agree with the Sufi poet Rumi when he said “out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing there is a field. I'll meet you there.” But please just question what we have all been socially conditioned to believe are our values.
I am certainly not saying that if you do any of the above you are a thief. We all do to some extent. All I am asking is that you stop blindly following accepted definitions of accepted values without question, as if you had no brain of your own, and to question everything that you do in a new light. And the next time you see someone run off with someone's wallet, ask yourself if some of your own actions are not just a more subtle form of the same.
But anyway, is anything really ours to own in the first place, or is it all just to something to share?
Is there anything you have at the minute which you think you could've done without, or even just share as a resource with your neighbours?
THE FREECONOMY BLOG is written by Mark Boyle, founder of The Freeconomy Community.
Comment on this Post:
Barry comments ...
After a very brief thought, I'd have to say the dishwasher was a step too far. Yikes, how lazy have I become? Think I really need to reassess things.
Ana comments ...
I'm got a feeling that it's a law of nature, everything you take (material, immaterial), you'll pay it back soon or later , alway nature is looking for that balance on it's own accord.
Robert Howes comments ...
Well said Mark. We can all do more sharing of what we have but I have a different slant on it. There are ways of sharing our time and resources that makes us all better off, whereas simply acting alone and giving whatever you can afford to the most worthy charities will never solve the problems.
***
It is only by combining out strengths in local communities/collectives that we can overcome the obstacles to general wellbeing on this planet. A properly run local collective should help every member in as many ways as possible and create enough wealth to be able to help similar groups start up in other countries where the needs are greater.
***
We need combinations of groups that use the strengths of the groups and their members to create worldwide networks that the poorest people in the world can call on for help, AND GET IT.
***
I am trying to get this idea off the ground, but I cannot do it alone. At present I am being forced to carry on alone. This site alone has over nine thousand members. So I am asking if any one of you can join me, either in person here in Swansea, UK, or online. Email me at robertcircle1 at yahoo.co.uk (robertcircle1@yahoo.co.uk).
***
Also you might like to take a look at callingallgrandparents.org a new site that I will be contributing to that is dedicated to making the world a better place for our grandchildren.
Cheers,
Bob
***
Cheese comments ...
Good blog Mark,
As you summed up at the end the idea of theft revolves around the idea of ownership. And ownership is only an issue because of the capitalist system in which we live our lives, without ownership there can be no trade or money so we have to take things from the earth for the system to work.
Hope to see you soon.
chrissy comments ...
I agree, I also feel that to buy shoes that we know have caused the rainforest to be felled for the cattle to be fed so we can have cheap leather, is just the same as if we chopped those trees down ourselves. But the world in which we have been born into is not so easy to change, I can only do a certain amount, I cannot just walk away and close the door on this society because I will starve or freeze to death. So I do the bits I can, for instance I will not be buying clarkes shoes, (nor in fact any more leather items,) and choose fairtrade etc. I could lead an easier life by not hearing about these things, but that is a bit like buying off the back of a lorry, just denying the reality that we are stealing from our own world.
Mal comments ...
I enjoyed Mark Boyles words.
I find compeled to add my own words to this after reading some of the comments
Theft is the taking of what you dont need or what you moraly (you know its wrong) should not take.
After that it becomes a subject of society laying down rules and it has got some silly ones to go on with now.
I grow up on an Island with a small population on it of around 300, if you could do some thing everyone who needed that skill came to you. If you had a tool you shared it, and the little old woman who lived just out side the village who was cracky and bad tempered was looked after like you loved her.
If you wish to spread the idea of community then go next door and ask if you can help them with anything. Its the best place to start changing the world.
Theft is about us the humans in this place at this time exercising our moral muscles and not thinking only of now and ourselfs. Accepting we have to share with this blue blob with every thing else or die simply from lack of intrest in tomorrow.
History teach us that community's die when they cant share with the wider world, they have to mix with others to survive or they stagnate.
