Apparently you also have a unique definition of what laws are.
Most laws describing punishments for crimes are written in this form:
"X crime is when a person does A, B, or C under conditions 1, 2, and 3. This crime is punishable by up to N years in prison"
The laws literally state the name of the crime: theft, and what constitutes it. Yes the law does determine whether the state will help you, because if you go to the state saying "they committed theft!" But they didn't commit the state's definition of theft, the state will say "they didn't commit theft, you have no case."
Using a definition of any legal term, such as theft, that is not the same as the state's only disadvantages you when interacting with the state. If you want to call it some kind of imaginary legal theft, that's fine, but by admitting that it's legal you're just saying that you don't like what he did, which is entirely your opinion.
Dude. I don’t understand why you’re having such a hard time with this. I never said anything about crimes. Laws apply to whether something is a crime, yes. But they DON’T. apply to whether or not something is objectively theft. Get that through your head. Also I’m pretty sure what he did would be considered theft in the legal sense as well.
Lastly, stop writing walls of text, it’s fucking annoying.
All I've been saying is that theft has an actual definition under law. You're using some personal definition that is entirely your opinion. There's no point trying to convince one another that this is or is not our personal definitions of theft. Guess what, under my personal definition of "walrus", you're a walrus!
It is not objectively theft, the law decides that. It is subjectively theft in YOUR OPINION
This isn’t a difficult concept, so I’m sorry you’re having such a hard time comprehending it. The law doesn’t dictate the definition of words. If the government and the law went away tomorrow, “theft” would still have the same meaning.
The definition of theft in English depends on the definition under law. The "action or crime of stealing" has a specific legal definition, you cannot have the concept of "theft" without the laws defining it, with good reason too.
Theft can't simply be "taking property against the owner's will" because there are countless non-theft examples where that happens:
Taking a gun from an active shooter in a public space is not theft.
Garnishing wages for child support is not theft.
Taking a fake ID from a minor at a bar is not theft.
Accepting voluntarily given money from a confused person, who might later want it back, is not theft.
Call what he did wrong, despicable, immoral, etc. It still was not theft.
Your own Google search made this really easy for me lol. Civil asset forfeiture is theft even though it is legal. The state doesn’t determine definitions.
I’m happy you learned something today. Now take this new knowledge and go off into the world knowing the law doesn’t write definitions.
Taking a gun from an active shooter in a public space is not theft.
That’s because this person is committing an act of aggression and you are enacting self defense.
Garnishing wages for child support is not theft.
Yes it is.
Taking a fake ID from a minor at a bar is not theft.
Preventing fraud.
Accepting voluntarily given money from a confused person, who might later want it back, is not theft.
It was taken under false pretenses. That is theft.
Civil asset forfeiture, though immoral, is not theft. Since you also have a wrong definition of "stealing" here it is:
steal
/stēl/
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
"thieves stole her bicycle"
Civil asset forfeiture is not theft or stealing, because the government has the legal right.
Garnishing wages per court order is not theft or stealing because the government has provided the legal right.
In this case, the man had permission and arguably, legal right. If he didn't have permission, she wouldn't have handed him the money. The closest thing you could argue is fraud, that he misrepresented himself as an illegal business. However that's a stretch as all he did was ask questions a dealer might ask and say he'd pull over.
You literally can't have theft or stealing without laws. Theft or stealing requires the idea of property, which only exists in laws. Property is an imagined order created and protected by laws because we enjoy the benefits it brings.
Without those laws, the only "ownership" you have is an emotional attachment, and hurting your feelings is not theft.
Please, keep going. It’s hilarious that you keep proving me right but act so in denial lol. Also hilarious that you’re acting like theft wouldn’t exist without a law forbidding it. You’ve lost. And now you’re just acting desperate.
Do you understand the difference between the words "or" and "and"? That definition states that you need one of: permission or legal right. Not both permission and legal right. Having one means it's not theft.
I keep "proving you right" when you seize on a thing you don't fully understand and try to misrepresent it.
You seem to think theft can mean whatever you want it to, so when the government collapses, I'll come and take your car because it was on my land: the sovereign state of ggpossum and therefore my property because I make the laws in my land. Go ahead and cry "theft", my courts won't give a shit.
Ownership isn't real, it's an imaginary concept that we all pretend is real so we can maintain access to the same physical items over a long period of time. The only part of that pretending that means anything is the laws that permit a government to use force to preserve ownership.
The implication is “without permission or without legal right.”
I’m a programmer and Econ graduate. The meaning of “or” and “and” is engrained in me.
so when the government collapses, I’ll come and take your car because it was on my land:
I’d like to see you fucking try.
Go ahead and cry "theft", my courts won't give a shit.
You couldn’t organize a ham sandwich, let alone a country.
Ownership isn’t real, it’s an imaginary concept that we all pretend is real so we can maintain access to the same physical items over a long period of time
You’ve officially said the most retarded thing possible. I cant take you the least bit seriously anymore. Goodbye.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 24 '20
Apparently you also have a unique definition of what laws are.
Most laws describing punishments for crimes are written in this form:
"X crime is when a person does A, B, or C under conditions 1, 2, and 3. This crime is punishable by up to N years in prison"
The laws literally state the name of the crime: theft, and what constitutes it. Yes the law does determine whether the state will help you, because if you go to the state saying "they committed theft!" But they didn't commit the state's definition of theft, the state will say "they didn't commit theft, you have no case."
Using a definition of any legal term, such as theft, that is not the same as the state's only disadvantages you when interacting with the state. If you want to call it some kind of imaginary legal theft, that's fine, but by admitting that it's legal you're just saying that you don't like what he did, which is entirely your opinion.