Poll: Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

[WaysideMaze]

Depends on the situation.

Are we talking about stealing from an honest, self made millionaire to fund a family of workshy Jeremy Kyle fodder?
Or are we talking about stealing from a sadistic human trafficker to help an honest family whose breadwinner has just been laid off?

Or maybe somewhere inbetween?

 

[HippySecond]

Kinda sounds like a justification for game thievery, those big corporate fat cats and little old gamer

Having said that I don't really think 'stealing' from the rich is a very good idea, you what, break into people house, steal stuff and give it to hobos?

on the other other hand, the wealthy are in a better position to assist the needy, but maybe it does'nt need to involve stealing from them

 

[Danny Ocean]

Stealing is always wrong. But i think big economical differences is wrong too.
The rich should give to the poor.

In a system where the Robin Hood system doesn't exist, we can only trust in that rich will help. I hold out hope that there are kind spirits among the wealthy.

Not quite. This is why we have taxes. It's not technically stealing, but many of the wealthy view it as such.

If you're looking at it from a moral standpoint: Stealing is wrong, but helping the poor is right. Do the ends justify the means?

If you're looking at it from an economic standpoint: There's endless debate about this, but I think that greater equality is better for everyone, so I'd say yes.

Of course, this site is American, and most of its occupants are American, so I'm gonna go ahead and raise my socialist flame shield right about now. Especially from those who view it as 'Morally Bankrupt'. Thank you McCarthy.

 

[Davrel]

Yes and no.

It depends on how the "rich" in question got their money: inherited cash that goes to fund the disgusting lives of people like Paris Hilton is fair game as far as I'm concerned. Stealing from rich people who've worked bloody hard to make themselves rich is wrong; punishing the "successful" is just...retarded.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Only if with "the poor" you mean me and with "the rich" everyone else!

 

[Chrono212]

It's wrong if you all have had the same chances in life.

But people don't get the same chances.
Although most of the rich have 'earned' their fortune in one way or another, even if it was through morally gray areas.

For example, money you are given has much less meaning and pathos behind it compared to money you have earned.

Put yourself in that position. Are you going to be more responsible with money you had to go out and earn over a long period of time or money someone has just given you with no strings attached?

 

[katsabas]

If the rich are bastards, like back home, then yeah. Also yeah, if when rich, we are talking about politicians.

 

[Dapsen]

Depends how the rich guy made the money, and how the poor guy ended up being poor.

But let's say that the rich guy is Douche McAsshole, and the poor guy is only poor because Mr. Douche took his money in some tax swindle.
Then, I think it's okay too steal from Douche and give the money to the poor guy.

 

[R Man]

To be honest, I find the idea that rich people earning their money to be a dubious assumption at best. In the early industrial revolution the most common way to get rich was to screw over other people, most of whom had lost their jobs in the countryside and were desperate and with few options. This is especially true in the Robin Hood setting where becoming a noble and getting a political voice was extremely difficult.

Also the idea that we all have the same opportunities is idealized. We want that but children of rich parents get the best resources. Many poor people are behind the 8 ball even before they are born. Remember, it doesn't have to be illegal for it to be immoral.

This also applies to taking wealth though. After all, being rich doesn't make one a criminal, and there are also many rich people who do earn it and being robbed would be deeply unfair on them, just because they are rich.

I think in the Robbin Hood context it made sense because they were being oppressed and that's how the rich were rich, because they were taking more than their fair share morally (maybe not legally) so they had no choice but to fight back.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Stealing is always wrong. But i think big economical differences is wrong too.
The rich should give to the poor.

In a system where the Robin Hood system doesn't exist, we can only trust in that rich will help. I hold out hope that there are kind spirits among the wealthy.

Not quite. This is why we have taxes. It's not technically stealing, but many of the wealthy view it as such.

If you're looking at it from a moral standpoint: Stealing is wrong, but helping the poor is right. Do the ends justify the means?

If you're looking at it from an economic standpoint: There's endless debate about this, but I think that greater equality is better for everyone, so I'd say yes.

Of course, this site is American, and most of its occupants are American, so I'm gonna go ahead and raise my socialist flame shield right about now. Especially from those who view it as 'Morally Bankrupt'. Thank you McCarthy.

Well, I don't trust in that as either a moral thing or a functional thing. Taxes aren't foolproof. And while I'm okay with it, I think there should be option for those who don't want to be part of the system to be excluded. But that's the thing there, we can't choose to not live in a government/leadership run state. We are forced to pay taxes, we are forced to pay, we have no choice of being excluded unless you want to be a hermit.

 

[JoshGod]

depends how the rich got their money and if they all started of with equal chances.

 

[Keava]

Thats the problem with fancy motto's that are taken out of context and brought to different environment without much after-thought.

In Robin Hood the whole idea of stealing from rich and giving to poor was based on the fact that the mentioned rich were oppressing the poor, their money mostly came from abuse and represented a sort of rulership that does not care about the average people, hoping only to get their money. It was quite political in its meaning.

Now in democratic/modern civilizations we have taxes, which exist to support possibility of equal chance. Something that doesn't really worked that way in feudal systems where your heritage was pretty much deciding factor in whenever you will be rich or poor.
Sure in our times the fact that you have good family helps but even starting from the lowest level you can, through hard work climb up the social ladder. From the taxes government is expected to provide such possibility by social care, education and other means.

The whole idea of robbing the rich and giving to poor, while perfect from idealistic point of view has little to no logic in our societies and only discourages people to work hard, promising the goods for nothing at all.
When Poland was under socialistic regime of USSR we had saying that roughly translated to english would go "You can lounge or you can stand, 2 grands is what you'll get" which created a big group of people that consider hard work not worth their effort, expecting to be paid for just the fact they exist.

 

[Timmey]

No. Why should my family be victimized?

Why should my family starve ?

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

The rich who work for their living and do a job are fine.

The corrupt rich who make their living from screwing the poor man over? Well, yeah, steal from them.

 

[The Thief]

Why is theft morally wrong?

I really don't know.

How's about I make a visit to your domicile and nick some of your valuables while we mull that one over, hmmm?

 

[rokkolpo]

depends on how ''honest'' the rich earned it.

frankly if they stole it from the already poor, steal it back.
stealing can also be a metaphore for unfair taxes.

 

[ethaninja]

It's wrong if you all have had the same chances in life.

Agreed. But lets remember that this was supposed to be 'medieval'. Laws were pretty bad back then, and if you werent related somehow to the throne, your lucky was pretty shit. It was all black and white back then.