Did you know that you could be prosecuted for the possession of stolen goods if those goods were given to you for free, whether or not you knew it was stolen?
Okay, here is the law: If you bought goods without knowing it was stolen, you wont be prosecuted. In order to be prosecuted you have to be aware that the goods were stolen when you bought them.
The problem is, however, that the State has made the assumption that if you don’t pay for goods – that is, you received them for free – then you should have suspected they were stolen and turned them down. Ultimately, the State can prosecute you for receiving stolen goods that you didn’t even know were stolen… simply because you received them for free.
The only difference, the only variable, between the two scenarios is… the price!
Should you inadvertently accept goods that were stolen though you didn’t even know, whether or not you received them for free makes the sole difference between prosecution and not!
I find this to be highly socialist. Here is a perfect example within our society of laws being highly socialist.
Never mind the fact that the goods were stolen… it is apparently an irrelevant variable. What matters is whether or not you paid for them. What matters is whether or not the exchange was one of capitalism. What matters is whether or not the parties participated in the capitalist agenda, whether there is… sales taxation? (I guess?!)
I am quite upset about this. Not that I have anything against socialism in general, but the shear fakery and hypocrisy of our own society… of the corruption of a capitalist government to interfere with law. Socialism. If you ask me, a government should neither be socialist nor capitalist… economics and the profit motive should be left out entirely of politics.
For law to step in and dictate to me that any price other than zero is the only acceptable price for a transaction… well, that is just interference by the government in the economic trade of goods. How is that anything short of socialist?
All else being equal, why should “But I paid for it with my own money” be a valid defense when standing in front of a judge? What is the actual difference between, “I paid $1” and “I paid $0”?
I understand that thieves should be prosecuted. I understand that stolen goods should be given back to their rightful owners. I understand that anyone who accepts stolen goods (for any price), knowingly or not, only aids the thief’s and promotes the problem of thievery. And if the receiver of stolen goods knew the goods were stolen, no matter how much they paid, yes, they should be prosecuted for promoting the problem. But I don’t get where the government gets off letting the naive go simply because they paid while prosecuting other naive simply because they didn’t. How does that make sense? How is that fair or just?
I just dont get it. The sticker price decided upon by the person selling it makes the difference in my own legal culpability.
Why doesn’t the judicial system just step in now and dictate prices altogether? It makes more sense to regulate all transactions rigorously just to prevent thievery, instead of prosecuting people for taking advantage of a good deal… which, by the way, is what capitalism and entrepreneurship is all about.
Laws made by corrupted, capitalist politicians have actually managed to weasel in a capitalist caveat. Essentially, you are protected from prosecution – even from the illegal purchase of stolen goods – if you paid a reasonable price.
Can an individual protect themselves from prosecution if they have a receipt proving the transaction occured, even if the price on the receipt is a zero?