[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm just not sure this makes the point you think it does. There are certainly some who see crime as a morally neutral way to "get one over on the system that impoverishes them", but most people find this to be an abhorrent viewpoint and have no interest in accommodating it.

[jirdperson]

I’m not who you responded to, FYI.

That said, crimes are simply whatever those in power deem them to be. Not only does this imply an obvious disconnect between legality and morality, but for groups not adequately represented by those in power, it can make living within the law virtually impossible. Take the gay community, for example. It was only in 2003 that the US Supreme Court struck down state laws banning sex between same-sex partners. At the time, 14 states still had such laws on the books - 11 still do today (even though they’re now unenforceable, they’ve resulted in multiple arrests since the 2003 ruling).

A few decades earlier, gay sex was essentially illegal throughout the entire US. Do you have any interest in accommodating the viewpoint that gay Americans being gay Americans before the past 20-50 years (depending on the state they resides in) were morally acceptable, despite habitually engaging in criminal activity? Or would that be considered abhorrent?

[SpicyLemonZest]

I certainly am skeptical of the idea of victimless crimes, for the reasons you say. But theft isn't a victimless crime, even if you're stealing from a large corporation and not a mom-and-pop store. I think it's hard to seriously engage with the idea that theft might not be a bad thing.

[tehjoker]

That's the viewpoint of someone that benefits from the system. Of course it's abhorrent if you think it works as its inimical to the functioning of the system.