>>1438>Yes it does. If you steal back from what was stolen from (people like) you, it's definitely less theft than if you stole something you have no claim to.The product was not stolen though, only the surplus value of the workers who created it, who (presumably) aren't you. If you stole surplus value and distributed that to the people it was stolen from that would be just, but that's not what you're doing. You might as well steal your neighbors tractor because they didn't pay someone else the full amount to rebuild it.>Obtaining the stolen thing is an end.When people say "the ends justify the means" they mean that from a moral perspective a negative action is justified by some positive outcome. Your consumption of the spectacle is not a moral end.>Except that by getting something for free, you are able to get more things in total. How did you miss that?Once again "end" is referring to some moral outcome, "getting more things" is not a moral outcome. Just like stealing the rims off some grannies car and getting "more rims" isn't a moral outcome.>By getting something without paying for it, you hurt the profitability of the business and hasten the falling rate of profit.You're redirecting profit from one industry to another because you're spending your funds anyway, capital will simply be reallocated to those industries which are making more profits on account of you spending the same amount of your wage on different things.This probably isn't worth my time though, feel free to destroy all my points here, and that's what passers by will remember about this thread. I am unlikely to respond.