this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
70 points (88.0% liked)
Communism
1714 readers
157 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sounds like you've figured out the point while believing it contradicts.
Why do you think most crimes are property crimes? Because the law is only to protect property.
I never said it contradicted. I said he was being disingenuous. He's implying that these are two different things, and that one is better than the other. It's like saying that your pantry doesn't hold ingredients for a PB&J, it only holds bread, peanut butter, and jelly.
Because the only other option, to my knowledge, is crime against another person directly, which is pretty well summed up with murder, assault, battery, slander, and libel. There's a lot of other shitty things a person can do when it comes to property, though.
There is a social understanding of "crime" as "immoral behaviour". Then there is the actual legal definition of "breaking the law". We may think police are there to stop immoral behaviour, but they are really there to protect property, through enforcing laws that are mainly established to protect property. Make sense now?
I think this just demonstrates how well indoctrinated you've been into thinking in terms of property.
Where I live, the understanding is that "crime" means "unlawful behavior." If that's not what it means where you live, I suppose we're never going to agree on this.
Cheating on your spouse is immoral, but it's not a crime, and nobody says it is. Speeding is a crime, but people do it all the time because it's practical. Very few people who gets stopped try to argue that speeding isn't a illegal.
Uh... Yeah. That's my argument. Most laws have to do with property, so naturally most crimes would be property crimes. Another poster also brought up the very good point that killing or hurting someone doesn't really benefit the criminal, whereas if you steal something you now have more stuff. This would incentivise property crimes over other types.
This is what we call an ad hominem attack. It basically means you're attacking your debate opponent instead of his argument. It's not productive, doesn't prove anything, and isn't relevant to the discussion. Avoid these.
Imagine if we were arguing about something important, like, putting pizza on pineapple, and instead of talking about the flavor profiles or the texture or whatever, I just said "I think this just demonstrates how Australian you are in terms of eating food upside down."
How slippery of you. Yes, crime literally does mean unlawful behaviour. But that's just defining the word, begging the question. The understanding is that things are considered unlawful because they are immoral.
Well... yeah??? That's kinda the point. Our society is built on the principles of marketisation and competition. It's all about acquiring property. And our society is run by property owners. So, what do you think their interests are?? Protecting their property from the hungry masses!!!
Yawn. Teach me something I don't know. I'm just bemoaning the fact that this ideology is clearly present within you, making this an uphill battle.
Okay, so we agree that crimes are against the law, and we agree that most crimes are property crimes. It sounds like you agree with my entire opinion on this subject, why are you arguing with me?
Because I don't agree with you. Go back to the start of this thread.
You think the fact that most laws concern property is just some coincidence. It isn't. It's because our laws were written by EDIT PRIVATE property owners.
I took a look back through my comments in this thread, and I suggest you do the same. At no point did I comment on the reason that the law is what it is. Of course our laws are written by property owners, everyone in the country is a property owner. Why do you think that matters?
Let's say there's a magic world where there is no owned property. There is only stuff, and people can use or not use stuff as they see fit. Who gets to make the laws here? Answer: people who get to use the stuff.
But wait, maybe we just can't own the property, but the country can. It's the country's stuff, and we get to use it because we belong to the country. Who gets to make the laws now? Answer: the people running the country.
You're acting like "property owner" is some bourgeois upper-class term, when it literally just means you have a thing and can decide what happens with it.
Oh ffs I should have known you'd be this pedantic.
Capitalists. The owners of private proerty.
The average person has ZERO private property, even including owning their own homes.
Jesus fucking christ that is such an insufferable attitude. You must have known this is what I was talking, and decided to ignore it anyway, to score debatebro points.
Your definition of private property must differ from "a thing that a private individual owns", then. Please enlighten me, so we can be on the same page.
...But of course it does. I'm intrigued that's what you think it means. Every individual is a private individual - that would make all property private property, even your own toilet paper. That's absurd. That's personal property.
Private property is absentee ownership; property owned for profit. A house owned to rent out, a copper mine, a business. Property that is owned by someone despite others making use of it, and the owners' presence being unnecessary.
Ah, I see. No wonder we were butting heads. I will admit, then, that I had been operating under a misconception, then. Mine's the legal definition, yours is the Marxist one. Given where we are, I suppose that makes more sense to use.
So with this new information, do I understand correctly that your stance is that police only exist to protect private, non-movable property?
Okay, i respect not raising the tone along with me. I got a bit flustered there but I've had some sleep since then so I can chat mote sanely.
Yes, I've been working under the Marxist definition - I believe it makes more sense. It delineates the class divide we are living within. Those without private property are working class, and those with it are largely capitalist, with some grey area where small business owners are concerned.
Capitalists are able to leverage their assets and wealth to exert untold influence on politics, and have done so across centuries to establish the world we are currently living in.
That's their distinct purpose, yes.
So why do traffic stops exist? Vehicles are personal property, police shouldn't care at all about what happens to or in them.
Social control. Y'know, i actually thought we were having a conversation for a second, there... Just like in the original image, I didn't say protecting private property is their only function. And you haven't really pointed out a contradiction - yes, cars are personal property, but traffic stops aren't protecting the car...
Social control is keeping people in line.
That's just blatantly untrue, all kinds of actions are criminalized that have nothing to do with property. My hot take is that most crime is property crime because that's the kind of crime that the perpetrator actually benefits from. If you steal something, you now have that thing. If you murder someone, you're not any better off than before (aside from whatever loot your victim might drop, which is generally not worth it).
And in a system predicated on private property, that becomes the most heinous crime.
The only reason there are laws beside theft and fraud etc, us to give the illusion that police are there to protect people. And also, murder and rape are kinda problematic for the bottom line.