Made without permission from the publishing house or whatever, in tribute to the Anarchist tradition, as an internet pirate, I feel guiltless.
“Socialists know what is meant by protection of property. Laws on property are not made to guarantee either to the individual or to society the enjoyment of the produce of their own labor[sic]. On the contrary, they are made to rob the producer of a part of what he has created, and to secure to certain other people that portion of the produce which they have stolen either from the produce which they have stolen either from the producer or from society as a whole. When, for example, the law establishes Mr. So-and-So’s right to a house, it is not establishing his right to a cottage he has built for himself, or to a house he has erected with the help of some of his friends. In that case no one would have disputed his right. On the contrary, the law is establishing his right to a house which is not the product of his labor[sic]; first of all because he has had it built for him by others to whom he has not paid the full value of their work, and next because that house represents a social value which he could not have produced for himself. The law is establishing his right to what belong to everybody in general and to nobody in particular. The same house built in the midst of Siberia would not have the value it possesses in a large town, and, as we know, that value arises from the labor[sic] of something like fifty generations of men who have built the town, beautified it, supplied it with water and gas, fine promenades, colleges, theatres, shops, railways and roads leading in all directions. Thus by recognizing[sic] the right of Mr. So-and-So to a particular house in Paris, London or Rouen, the law is unjustly appropriating to him a certain portion of the produce of the labor[sic] of mankind in general. And it is precisely because this appropriation and all other forms of property bearing the same character are a crying injustice, that a whole arsenal of laws and a whole army of soldiers, policemen and judges are needed to maintain it against the good sense and just feeling inherent in humanity.”
Gawker, of all the news outlets, has a well sourced article here which details the community authority (Home Owners Association generally), acting contrary to common decency and simple common sense.
“Yet there is one fact concerning this head which at the present time is thoroughly established; the severity of punishment does not diminish the amount of crime. Hang, and, if you like, quarter murderers, and the number of murders will not decrease by one. On the other hand, abolish the penalty of death, and there will not be one murder more; there will be fewer. Statistics prove it. But if the harvest is good, and bread cheap, and the weather fine, the number of murders immediately decreases. This again is proved by statistics. The amount of crime always augments and diminishes in proportion to the price of provisions and the state of the weather. Not that all murders are actuated by hunger. That is not the case. But when the harvest is good, and provisions are at an obtainable price, and when the sun shines, men, lighter-hearted and less miserable than usual, do not give way to gloomy passions, do not from trivial motives plunge a knife into the bosom of a fellow creature.”
System of a Down treats this subject here. Although the lyrics lack a melodic quality they are honest words. Study after study has shown that drug treatment is more effective than more police.
Alternatively, one can research how much food is thrown away by their local supermarket chain, tonnages being the common answer. I have no easy solution and admit this protects the consumer from food poisoning.
However, how hungry are the poor in Syria?
In your nearest hobo hotel?
The law dictates and protects the smooth functioning of business. Please follow me as I construct a hypothetical situation; in the week of expiry all food products are freely distributed to the 2 lowest classes of society (prisoners and work-fit unemployed). Subsequently, private profit would be reduced, taxation would be reduced, food poisoning would increase and the citizens of Hypothetical Land would be climb up Maslow’s Hierarchy.
Who doubts that homeless men, women & children would happily sign a waiver voiding their right to sue if the food was contaminated? Assuming it wasn’t deliberate.