Comments on: Taking What You Need May Be a Listed Crime, but That Doesn't Mean You Shouldn't Do It!

By: Montag

Montag — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:09:12 +0000

ahh, the sweet ache of unrequited lustiness. almost totally unrelated, but each time i visit the blog Stop Me Before I Vote Again, i come away with the Smith's Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before stuck in my head.

By: Red Queen

Red Queen — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:47:40 +0000

I’m suddenly having uncomfortable feelings of lustiness for Father Jones. (fans self)

I also now have a Smiths song stuck in my head.

But why is it that we think that property has more rights to sit unmolested by people than people have to unused property needed for basic sustenance?

By: Montag

Montag — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:56:20 +0000

“the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession”

read a certain way, (emphasizing the words ‘person,’ ‘intention,’ and ‘permanently,’) this legal definition might indicate that stealing to put food on the table in the manner described in the article might not even rise to the level of a crime, let alone sin. you know, so long as the defendant can afford a good defense attorney.

By: JRB

JRB — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:48:36 +0000

You make a very persuasive case, Monsieur Tag. Subsistence: a worthy goal, indeed.