I steal shit constantly Today I tried to steal some sausages

>trying to justify your theft
pathetic faggot

just admit you're an amoral thief and you don't give a shit, stop the hokey robin hood justified garbage

>>39338824
It's good that not everybody thinks the way you do.
Maybe if you all get together you can start your own store that allows stealing.

I wonder how successful you'll be.

>>39338841
>Walmart literally subsidizes its low wages with welfare
>amoral

PICK ONEEE

>>39338841
You know what's funny, stealing from companies isn't wrong at all.

I do it, others do, everybody steals. Justifying it isn't even needed. I do it cause i feel like it and deserve it. So I take it, nothing more nothing less.

These huge corporate backings don't care about us anyway so why should I?

>>39338841

This is pretty close, actually. Now, I don't give a fuck that you steal-- but I'm willing to bet 100 bucks you've probably stolen from someone already, you just don't think about it.

>>39338864
>h-hey how would YOU like it if someone stole from you?!??!?
Considering I'm worth probably 1/10000000000000 of what Walmart is, that would be like getting robbed of 1/10 a penny so I wouldn't care

>>39338876
>>39338885
We live in a society where those who have items sell them to those who want them, for an agreed-upon price. If you disagree with the price, you take your business elsewhere.

This is a fundamental principle of our society. It maintains order. Stealing is a crime, regardless of how you choose to justify it. If everyone bent the rules to align with their own warped moral compass, we would live in chaos.

>>39338898
I've never stolen from anything besides Walmart or Best Buy. I can promise you that. Stealing from people that actually have to work to buy things is inhuman.

>>39338942
You're mentally ill. It doesn't matter who you steal from, or why. You are a thief. I wish I could brand it on your forehead, you cowardly bitch.

>>39338918
It's not that I disagree with the price, it's that I dont have the money to buy it, and literally no one gets hurt if I take it. Every item I individually take might cut employee profit sharing from .10008 cents to .10007 cents.

Stealing 20 dollars worth of food every week or so is a drop in the bucket to a corporation like Walmart.

>>39338912
This post is not an argument.
Make your stealing store.
If you do better than Walmart then congratulations.

>>39338957
Branding me would be against the law. You shouldn't do things that are morally wrong according to the law anon

>>39338942

Ok.

What about drug dealers? Wealthy kids? C'mon. I know you because you sound like me, 10 years ago. There are indeed people you will steal from, just not people that you deem have a greater need than you.

I'm not judging, and I agree with your final statement, but the other guy is also correct.

>>39339010
>it's that I dont have the money to buy it
Ohhh! Well why didn't you say so?! I had no idea. That makes it okay, then. Guys, he didn't have the money. That makes it fine to steal.

No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible.

>>39339023
Why not? It's only one forehead. Who does it hurt? You? You're a drop in the bucket! It's fine!

File: saddsasaddsa.png (78KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 420x420px

Does anyone else balance weigh your own groceries half outside the scales on self service checkouts?

No risk, guaranteed reward

>>39339019
That also is not an argument. Walmart has money for loss prevention, and already assume they will lose money from theft. A small business doesnt have such luxuries.

Defending companies like Walmart, who have enough money to pay every employee 20 bucks an hour, not raise prices, and still break even, is rather silly.

>>39339024
Why do you keep assuming I will ever steal from individuals, when thats clearly against my own personal moral code.

>>39339043
I am against harming individuals.

File: 1429110195792.jpg (52KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x330px

>>39338942
>best buy
this is even worse

groceries are one thing. still a crime, but it's one thing.

electronics? or games, or movies or whatever you're stealing? that is a LUXURY. do you know what a luxury is? there is NO justification to EVER steal a fucking DVD player. that's pure "gibsmedats". piece of shit.

>>39339084
Why draw the line at groceries. Poor people can afford to just buy rice for every meal, why steal anything, it's just luxuries. You have an arbitrary idea of what it means to steal if for some reason you're okay with stealing groceries but not electronics.

>>39339101
I'm not making an exception. I said it's still a crime. but I can understand the very extreme end of things where an emaciated homeless person is stealing a can of beans or some shit

why would a homeless person need a stereo? food keeps you alive. electronics are pure luxury.

>>39339054
Who cares about defending specific store policy in unrelated areas.

You seem to understand that stores which allow stealing fail. Why do you think that is? What is it about stores that don't allow stealing which makes them more likely to succeed?

>>39339129
Why would a homeless person need money? Probably to get drunk and high because he hates himself and the world.

>>39339076

>Why do you keep assuming I will ever steal from individuals, when thats clearly against my own personal moral code.

Because I'm wiser than you are. It won't happen tomorrow, or next week, but it's a slippery slope. My point is, there are plenty of people who didn't have to 'work for their wealth' eventually you'll find a justification. But don't believe me, I honestly don't give a fuck. Just letting you know whats ahead as a courtesy, from one thief to another.

>>39339101

I guess the idea is only steal what you need to survive, which he'd be assuming is how you'd be stealing groceries. Hell, there's even a lot of leeway there, sure poor people can only afford rice but only eating rice isnt great for you, you need a well balanced diet.

You could always use the argument that if all you did was steal food, and then you sit wherever you live, and just eat that food, and then what? just sit there waiting until you next eat? Some for of entertainment is essentially a necessity, I know I'd go crazy without at least a radio or something, sitting in silence flares up my anxiety and I start losing it a bit.

Either way, I agree with you completely Op. It doesnt make a difference to faceless corporations, and they've got no moral problems with getting rid of a bunch of their staff and cutting hours to save money, even when they're already understaffed. They put unnecessary pressure on their workforce not because they're losing money, but because they don't think they're making as much profit as they could be.

>>39339137
Not an argument.

I never claimed that a store that allowed stealing would be successful, This is a strawman.

The fact is that Walmart expects the left to begin with, so if I steal 20-30 bucks worth of shit a week, Absolutely no one is hurt.

In your strawman example, Stealing from a freshly opened small store, you would feel 30 bucks worth of theft a week, and it would actually cause individual impact on the store owner, therefore would be a morally wrong action.

>>39339180
People do get hurt. Managers and employees get punished when theft occurs at their store. Poor people trying to make a living at their jobs are getting punished because of your selifshness.

You keep pushing this idea of, it's only $20, it's only $30.

Do you think you're the only one stealing? Let's say 1000 people think like you. That's $30,000 in one week. Let's say EVERYONE thought like you. The store would make no money at all. Hundreds would lose their jobs. All because each person thought their $20 was innocent or justified.

>>39339217
Nice slippery slope """argument"""

>>39339180
It's the rational implication of what you've said isn't it? You seem to understand that stores which allow stealing are going to be less successful than those that do. Isn't that a fair assessment of your post?

Moving on.
Doesn't Walmart have owners?
Let's say your small store owner is successful and opens a second store.
He owns both. This continues until he has an arbitrary number of stores.

At what point do you deem it acceptable to steal from this owner? 20 stores? 50?

>People do get hurt. Managers and employees get punished when theft occurs at their store. Poor people trying to make a living at their jobs are getting punished because of your selifshness.

Wrong. I worked retail for over 7 years. The only people that care about the numbers of shrink are the LP employees, and the only reason they care is because they get a bonus, an extra addition, not their actual salary being cut. Shift managers couldn't care at all unless people are stealing high value things like TVs.

The whole point is that not everyone thinks like me. If everyone did think like me, they would hire more employees to actually stop theft, instead of running skeleton crews at every hour of the day.

Result being of course less profit for shareholders, but more benefits for the community because of more jobs, less overall stress because you actually have a team to work with.

>>39339255
How is it not valid? Do you think you're special and that only you should be allowed to steal?

>>39339266
People cant even argue that they run skeleton crews because of theft, in the store I worked in, we'd reduced "lossage" for the fifth year in a row, then they decided to start cutting staff.

Instead of stealing from undeserving stores, why not spend your money at deserving stores? You've already said it won't affect Walmart, so you're not really sticking it to them. You could be helping a smaller more justified store grow and become a better place to shop. But your brain doesn't think that way, because you're a thief.

>>39339422
I'm fairly sure that Walmart gives significantly to charity aswell.
Couldn't he just contact the charity, if he's so deserving of handouts?

>>39339264
At the point where he has more disposable income than the average American or than me, whichever is higher

>>39339217

This is how a cuck thinks.

Corporations (which are owned primarily by roasties I might add, as most shares in these major companies are owned either directly by women, or owned by men who are married to and serve women financially) exercise all sorts of bias against me as a white male. They push smaller businesses out of business, and if I were to get a job with one of these corporations I'd be entirely subject to sexist hiring policies (explicit and implicit) that discriminate against me as a male, I'd be subject to sexist 'sexual harassment' policies, and so on.

Corporations like this are only able to exist through massive state violence. They're selling a vast amount of goods that are protected by copyright laws, intellectual property laws, etc. All of these laws involve the state intervening directly into people's lives all the time, based on nothing more than a claim to a right to determine what I do with my property. Many of the products are made cheaply in China which has an authoritarian government. All of these corporations will benefit from a social climate where millions of men are imprisoned every year. These corporations can only trade internationally with the assistance of massive military imposition of 'order', which involves using massive violence and murder against people all the time.

Why should someone turn a blind eye to all of this and claim that taking property from such organisations is somehow morally wrong?

>>39339446
Companies only give to charities for tax purposes.

>>39339487
But owning a large number of successful stores is hard work. Or everybody could do it.
Why isn't he entitled to that income for working hard?

>>39339028
farmers are paid to destroy part of their yields in order to keep the rat race running and have people continue to pay for necessities like food. while half of the world goes through an obesity epidemic, the other half is unable to eat. Stealing from bourgeois fatcats is NOT wrong

>>39339513
Does that make the donations somehow invalid?

>>39339527
He is completely entitled to it.

But my individual theft from his company removes less than a dollar from his 6 figure salary. It's hard to care when it's just a drop in the bucket.

>>39339513
But they still give.
Why do you think store thieves should extract their donations from the shelves, and not through the provided channel?

>>39339547
What if a million people agree with you, and you all take a dollar.
That's not negligible for the victim is it?

>>39339534
It means they would of given that money away no matter what. The CEO of Walmart is still making 50 mil a year regardless of what the company is doing. They toss that fucking money around because they have nothing else to do with it.

>>39338885
> Justifying it isn't even needed
proceeds to justify it three times

>>39339561
What if everyone chopped down a tree? Thats not negligible for sustainable forests!

Dumb argument.

File: bled2-onion-head-emoticon.gif (5KB, 50x50px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 50x50px

>>39338824
Couldn't have said it any better myself, OP.
Big business is the scum of the Earth.

>>39339561
Losing a million when you make 30 million a year really isn't that big of a deal is it?

>>39339527
because while he lives a life of absolute luxury there are people without food, water, and homes
why is a ceo MORE entitled to life and luxury than someone else?

id suggest reading Conquest of Bread, it's foolish to imply that the ceo did all of his work. there were countless generations before (and during) his life that worked just as hard if not harder. The ceo was almost certainly not selected on merit, crony capitalism and inheritance were probably major factors in his acquiring his wealth

>>39339584
But that's literally not sustainable.

>>39339599
According to whom? Why should he lose any? It's not yours to take.

>>39339609
Because a CEO works harder and produces more value.
If everyone could do the work of a CEO, then we'd all be able to rise up out of poverty whenever we wished.
Indeed many have. Capitalism was in the process of dramatically raising the poverty line through increased global productivity before it became hamstrung by the state.

>>39339599
If it's an unfair loss absolutely. A large store owner can spend a million very productively. That million would have produced an incredible amount of goods. More than you could buy with the million.

Arguably that money was worth more in the hands of the store owner. Taking the money wiped some of its ultimate value away.

>>39339584
I think that would erase the forest wouldn't it.

File: 354deaa3770912621bb816da070346ab.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>39339045
You're the kind of friend I need. Best comment so far.

File: unknown.png (105KB, 302x300px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 302x300px

>>39338824
>thinks that stealing from the rich is moral
go back to the antifa reddit silly commie

>>39339667
>>39339644
The point is that it's an unreasonable thing to expect. Not everyone is going to get up and chop down a tree, just like not everyone is going to get up and start stealing from walmart.

>>39338957
Lol this child and his black and white thinking. OP has good reasons for doing what he does. Sad your juvenile mind is incapable of critical thinking.

>>39340268
>OP has good reasons for doing what he does
Cringe.

>Walmart starts losing money from fucks like you
>Lay off workers
Daily reminder that you are hurting the working class

>>39340233
Well no, trees don't make a point of being widely distributed and accessible. I believe you need an axe or a saw to chop down a tree.
That's what stores however, do. Because it's a necessary function of being a store.
It's important that you do not need an axe or saw to shop.

What's realistically stopping someone from making a store which allows stealing, and their entire inventory being taken from the shelves without being paid for? People already behave like unruly mobs over mere discounts.

>>39340323
Funny thing is too that if you pay for everything you buy, and promote businesses that are highly productive, then productivity increases and goods can be produced more cheaply.

So paying fairly helps the working class.

Stealing is a crime.
But crimes aren't inherently imoral.
I personally don't care OP, as long as individuals are safe, who gives a shit about transnational corporations?

File: 1503817396996.jpg (137KB, 564x488px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 564x488px

one time I saw security guard beating the shit out of the faggot who tried to steal something. I hope that will be you one day op

>>39339667
>world currently has the ability to adequately provide for everyone
>doesnt because capitalists want to make more money and have more shit
why do you try to justify this

also frick you for implying capitalism was better without state intervention it resulted in like 5 people controlling the economy and everyone else having shit tier jobs and living conditions

File: tumblr_o1zer9HEv21v0pigno1_500[1].jpg (40KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 409x409px

What if the government takes from people and gives it to me, is it stealing?

>>39338824
You must be a nigger.
original

>>39340381
thats funny because walmarts profits have been going up for the past decade or so and yet they still havent started providing for their employees
gosh its almost as if large corporations care more about making money than caring for their employees

>>39341267
>>doesnt because capitalists want to make more money and have more shit

How retarded do you have to be to believe this?

>>39341267
But anon, the best way to make more money is to reinvest profits into increased productivity.

>>39339264
>Let's say your small store owner is successful and opens a second store.
Where did he suddenly get the capital to open a second store? Did he sell his products for more than their worth?
And how will he run two shops at the same time? Will he maybe have someone else do all the work while still reaping the profits?
Both of these aren't any better than theft. As soon as someone has more income than they can produce, it's justified to steal from them.

>>39341329
If people who work for Walmart aren't satisfied, why can't they work somewhere else that pays better?
Walmart would have to pay more to attract workers back.

You should probably ask why this isn't happening.

The amount of immoral trash visiting this website, and trying to justify themselves too is just damn too high.

>>39341454
>trickle down economics
>voodoo economics
>meme economics

>>39341441
because no matter how much money u have u arent worth more than any other average joe

>>39341281
Not really, because your mother usually pays it back by taking it up the ass from me

>>39338824

>go to large stores or stores with self checkout
>rarely outright steal stuff, just slap on barcodes where the products have similar weights
>or just use a different PLU code
>get $25 sack of nuts, dried cherries, and banana chips for $4 because I used the gummy bear PLU
>use code for bananas for expensive produce

Good shit.

>>39341491
because thanks to shitty public education and the trap that is poverty they cant just get another job? if someone has dependents how do you expect them to just quit their job without a safety net? life pro tip: the poor dont not save money because theyre bad at money management, they literally cannot afford to set aside a significant portion of their (meager) paycheck

>>39341469
A store owner makes profit by offering a service and charging for the personal inconvenience of gathering a variety of goods into one place for ease of purchase by customers.
This provides the capital to operate another store which provides the same service.
He can run two stores or he can pay a subordinate for the service of operating the limited day-to-day functions of the second store.

This all makes sense to me, where does the justification for stealing occur?

>>39339667
>If everyone could do the work of a CEO, then we'd all be able to rise up out of poverty whenever we wished.
If everyone could be at the top of the pyramid scheme, we'd all be rich!

>>39341548
You can look for a job whilst having a job.

>>39341600
But then we'd all be equally productive and the work of a CEO would pay as much as a nominal wage.

>>39341603
u realize some people have to work two jobs and have responsibilities at home to attend to right? if it was as easy as "just get a better job" people wouldnt have shit jobs

also >implying the CEO has any direct effect on each independent store
if the ceo and shareholders and middle managers died overnight, the employees would easily still be able to manage the store.

File: stealth is a vital part of metal gear online for all players.jpg (49KB, 650x666px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 650x666px

The problem with what you're doing is you're breaking the law because it suits your moral outlook on things. This doesn't work because as a society we have rules for a reason, and if everyone thought like you did (I'll break the rules as long as I don't feel bad about it) and disregarded rules on a whim then there would be no reason to have those rules.

What you're not understanding is that you as an individual are contributing to something much larger. You're right, stealing shit from a big-chain store isn't that big of a deal. But if everyone was acting like how you're acting right now we wouldn't have a functioning society. Just look at a country like Mexico, people know that producing and selling drugs only hurts people stupid enough to try them so they don't feel too bad about it, and they're only looking out for themselves because they need the money, but they're contributing to a larger crime problem within Mexico that's eating away at the foundation of their society. It's something I want you to think about the next time you steal something.

>>39341668
Sure for a few weeks or for six months the store operates.
What happens when distribution contracts end and the people who negotiate them aren't around?
Store crashes and burns.
The day-to-day operators of the stores aren't working with the long term interests of the store, only the immediate ones.

So what you're saying is that it's impossible for anyone who's unhappy with their job to spend an hour online a week looking for a new job

>>39338824
I hope you get caught and jailed you piece of shit

>>39338824
m.w.a? is that you?

>>39338841
t. Walmart shill. I worked at a billion dollar supermarket giant and the employees aren't affected whenever somebody stole something, it's hard to fire them because they don't know who to blame and it just means less shekels for the greedy corporations who are rolling in it already.

File: tg1502655716620.jpg (100KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x500px

I don't pay for plastic bags, a cucumber when I buy 2, croissants when 2 and donuts when 2.

I never realized there were this many normalfags on this board. Even just a year ago a thread like this would only have one or two dumbasses saying stealing is wrong, but this is just ridiculous.

>>39341798
I hope your parents kill themselves