What is the most harmless "crime"?

Very funny. Except that if you look in a dictionary you'll see that the definitions of rape and consentual sex are not compatible.
Whereas stealing and downloading music are far more similar, not being opposites and all that.
By "more similar", you mean "not the same"? People (not me) would argue that you can't consent if someone is underage.

Taking someone else's creation, the making of which is his livelihood, is a lot closer to harmful, whether it's music, software or a physical item.
By "closer to harmful", that's a roundabout way to admitting "not harmful"?
 
The "bundle of sticks" concept in property rights refers to intangible rights. The right to occupy an apartment if you pay rent is not a physical thing, but is one of the "sticks" available for the owner of the property to sell. Just because it is intangible does not mean someone should be able to exercise the right for free.
This thread is about harm, not rights.
 
Downloading child porn. If you arent making it, you are harming nobody.
 
It is harmful to our free market capitalistic system to have someone steal an item that the law recognizes as belonging to somebody else.
That's pretty tenuous, and is basically what you or somebody said earlier and I already responded to. There is nothing about the law that is intrinsic to free market capitalism, and you could make that claim about _any_ law presented - "it causes harm to have someone do something which is against the law".
 
As an aside, an interesting thing in UK law is that downloading is counted as "making" child porn. (I don't know if this is true in some US states too?)
 
Downloading music.

It's like one guy buying something giving it to his friends to copy and giving it back and giving it again. Whats the difference with that and just copying it and giving it to people that way? Buying something means you can do any non-commercial thing with it, so hows that 'stealing'?
 
Actually, you're not. The tags are there because federal law requires that all stuffed pieces of upholstry, mattresses, etc. have a description of the fabric and filling. These descriptions usually come on, of course, little tags. Once you buy it, you can do whatever you want with it.

The owner can, but what if you invite me over for a beer and I sneak into your room and tear off the tag of your mattress? :mischief:

To add to the list of 'harmless crimes' I would have to add:
1. Alternate side parking when there is absolutely no snow on the ground.
2. Not getting your pet licensed with the city (rabies shots, etc. is still important)
 
Downloading music.

It's like one guy buying something giving it to his friends to copy and giving it back and giving it again. Whats the difference with that and just copying it and giving it to people that way?
Giving a a friend something to copy probably violates intellectual property rights also. So there is no difference
Buying something means you can do any non-commercial thing with it, so hows that 'stealing'?
With intellectual property, you are paying for your fair use of that property - which i generally the copy you purchased plus a back-up copy for disaster recovery purposes. You are not purchasing the right to be a mass distributor.
 
Well here's another one: Copying a CD that you've bought onto your own mp3 player to listen to.

At least, my understanding is that we don't have the concept of "fair use" covering this in the UK (though the Government has suggested it is looking into changing this).

Example for the US: Buying a DVD and then either using software to play it on Linux, or if it's a region-encoded DVD for the wrong region, using software to get round that. Not to mention the source code to a programme which could do either of those.
 
How about not physically restraining my insured body inside of my insured already-paid-for vehicle while I, a government-licensed vehicle operator, operate said vehicle. :mad:
 
I'm so annoyed. I had brilliant comments & responses all typed out & lost the whole thing by accidentally right clicking.:cry: I give up.

LucyDuke, I think you misunderstand me. I do not blame an animal for it's actions. I blame it's owner if they are irresponsible.
 
Actually, if you overindulge in your speeding, jaywalking, or littering habits, you can be incarcerated in many jurisdictions. Most of the time you will get a mere infraction, but repeat or very excessive violations can be treated beyond the mere infraction level.

Yes, but in those situations you aren't being charged with the original infraction of say jaywalking, you're being charged under a new and different statute: that of being a scofflaw (or something similar, depending on the jurisdiction) which is a usually a misdemeanor.

In the larger cities of the U.S., it's pretty hard to get arrested for most misdemeanors and almost impossible for infractions. District attorney's don't want to bother because it's mostly a waste of time and they have bigger fish to fry (serious crime). Additionally and generally, a peace officer can arrest someone for a misdemeanor only if the offense was committed in the officer's presence; otherwise he needs a warrant from a judge. That's another reason not a whole lot of attention is paid to misdemeanors.
 
most harmless crime is any crime I committ.
 
I'm so annoyed. I had brilliant comments & responses all typed out & lost the whole thing by accidentally right clicking.:cry: I give up.

LucyDuke, I think you misunderstand me. I do not blame an animal for it's actions. I blame it's owner if they are irresponsible.

I understand that, the thing that bugged me was that you used the pit bull as the example. To me that's on par with, say, someone talking about how people should be allowed to do X and you say "even if it's a black guy?"

To stay on topic, here's another harmless crime: owning a "pit bull" in a place where they've been banned.
 
Back
Top Bottom