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

[shinrigaku]

I believe that stealing is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. However, I do also believe that people could be a bit more philanthropic, and tend to the needs of others around them once their own needs are met.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

No, it's stealing, which is a violation of one's rights. I may sound heartless, but just because somebody is less fortunate than me doesn't mean I need to pay for it, when I've done nothing wrong and earned the money for myself through my own hard work.

Don't get me wrong, if I see a poor bum on the street, I have money that I myself don't need for me and my family, and I can trust that the bum will use it wisely, I will make a donation. But to steal, even for the "right reasons", is still stealing.

I think the big question is "Is it right to steal from honest rich people?", i.e people who earned it fair and square. In that case, no. If they didn't earn it, they are thieves themselves.

But, like my wise English teacher said, NO rich person got rich by being nice. And it's true. Then again, there are some real assholes, and some decent people. And it also depends on how poor the people are as well. If the normal person is starving so one family can be extremely well off, stealing from them is fairly justified.

What does it matter if somebody's an asshole? If he earned it through his own blood, sweat and tears, nobody has the right to take it without his consent. His life, his possessions.

 

[joshuaayt]

Ehn, it couldn't hurt the rich to lose a few dollars, methinks. I mean, they are 'rich', so they don't need ALL of it, and the poor clearly are suffering from a fairly serious deficit...
I know! Why don't we distribute our wealth evenly?!
Speaking of...

you guys do realise stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is communism. so no, its also not right to have a traumatic event as being robbed done to anyone it just isn't right unless if you stab him, watch him bleed in agony on the floor and lol at him AND GET AWAY WITH IT!!

PS Im talking from experience here people, so yer, rob me if you dont value your life

I'm curious. do you disagree with communism itself or the way communism is executed? So, is it the Idea you hate, or the Man?

 

[Danny Ocean]

I'd rather have my money in my own hand than in the government's. And I'd rather have my money in the possession of a corporation accountable by law.

So you'd rather keep your money as cash in your mattress?

Corporation accountable by law? Like Lehman Brothers or Goldstein or all those bank bosses who got off scott-free for their massive failures? Accountability is nill when money buys you justice, as seems to be the case.

Besides, for there to be effective laws there has to be a government, which requires taxes, and a police force, which requires taxes.


Then there's the small matter of public goods which can't be effectively provided without governments. Things like the police, army, fire service, and (Arguably) healthcare. Not to mention street lights, roads, lighthouses, nation-spanning pipes and cables, parks, park benches, any public areas etc...

Then there's also merit goods. These are goods where the actual utility gained exceeds the expected utility. The opposite are demerit goods like cigarettes, where the actual utility is less than the expected utility. Free markets are notoriously bad at allocating resources to these goods. Demerit goods get too much, Merit goods too little. Governments must intervene, as is the case with libraries.

Then there are externalities, where third parties either benefit or are harmed by economic decisions in which they played no part. The biggest example of a negative externality is Climate Change. Another example is the oil slick off Louisiana.

Governments didn't rise from lust for power, they are simply necessary.

It's not so much a morality issue, but a practical issue. Sure you could do that, but wouldn't it be longer-term effective just to raise the minimum wage?

Because it'll make you less competitive in the international economy. This would harm your long-term economic growth.
Taken to an extreme you have worker unions demanding payrises when the companies simply can't afford them, then you get a similar situations to the UK in the 70-80's.
It's basically arbitrarily raising the costs of production, which makes your goods cost more.

 

[Woodsey]

Why is theft morally wrong?

Because you're taking what isn't yours...

you guys do realise stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is communism.

/facepalm.

 

[Riobux]

It's not so much a morality issue, but a practical issue. Sure you could do that, but wouldn't it be longer-term effective just to raise the minimum wage?

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I'd rather have my money in my own hand than in the government's. And I'd rather have my money in the possession of a corporation accountable by law.

So you'd rather keep your money as cash in your mattress?

Corporation accountable by law? Like Lehman Brothers or Goldstein or all those bank bosses who got off scott-free for their massive failures? Accountability is nill when money buys you justice, as seems to be the case.

Besides, for there to be effective laws there has to be a government, which requires taxes, and a police force, which requires taxes.

Yes, means I'm responsible for it's use, and not the government.

What you're speaking of is corruption, something that happens in every political system.

I agree that we need some taxes, but it should be used mainly for protection of our rights. I just think that we should be able to choose if we want to be under the protection of the government, but paying for more than we asked for isn't right. It's like buying a car, but the seller says that to buy it, you must also buy a broken down old truck which you can't use which costs double the amount.

 

[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?

Ill get annoyed yes, and ill steal back from you, but then why is it wrong?

You really don't see how if everyone behaved in this fashion it might be somewhat detrimental to society?

It would be a diffrent society yes, a more competive one yes, but not necesserily wrong. I am glad that thieving is banned, but its not wrong.

You're right, it would be a different society... a craptastic one. One that few people would wish to live in. Which is why we have morals; To restrain ourselves so we don't end up living in crapsville.

Anyways, If it's not wrong what makes it right? The laws that say it's illegal, the many religions that forbid it, the social stigma it carries, and the conflict it creates all seem to paint theft in the wrong. What would you argue is at all righteous about theft?

If it's neither right nor wrong it would have no impact on how we live our lives. It has to be one of the two, and I can't think of any reason it would be the former over the latter.

 

[Timmey]

I guess if I was rich I would not to be robbed, just as if I was poor I would not like to starve. I would say that it ultimately depended on the situation.

 

[Socius]

It makes me sad to see how many capitalists you find on this forum.
Of course stealing is wrong. But if like in the Robin Hood scenario the money he steals from the rich allready have been stolen from the poor based on false taxe collections and such I find it to be more than ok, its even admireble!

 

[Danny Ocean]

Yes, means I'm responsible for it's use, and not the government.

And what about if a group of guys comes along and steals it off you?

What you're speaking of is corruption, something that happens in every political system.

What I'm speaking of is not corruption, it is accountability. Corruption does indeed happen in every system. Accountability is the extent to which the people can bring the corrupt to justice. Without a Government and associated legal system, their simply is no accountability beyond grabbing a gun and trying to kill or capture them yourself. It's a huge step backwards.

I agree that we need some taxes, but it should be used mainly for protection of our rights.

At least you concede that a government is required.
What about the rest of my post concerning Public Goods, Externalities, and Merit/Demerit goods? I might've edited that in after you clicked quote.

I just think that we should be able to choose if we want to be under the protection of the government, but paying for more than we asked for isn't right. It's like buying a car, but the seller says that to buy it, you must also buy a broken down old truck which you can't use which costs double the amount.

You can choose, but it's all or nothing. You could always grab your wealth and move to a more unequal society like Saudi Arabia or Brazil, just be prepared to face the consequences of lower levels of government protection and the resulting unequal and so violent societies.

It's more like buying a car, but paying more for it so that the seller can afford to give someone else a car, who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, it using a discounted price. I think that's the right thing to do.

Its neither right or wrong, its natural.

So are rape, war, and dying from painful diseases.

 

[Downfall89]

No, it's stealing, which is a violation of one's rights. I may sound heartless, but just because somebody is less fortunate than me doesn't mean I need to pay for it, when I've done nothing wrong and earned the money for myself through my own hard work.

Don't get me wrong, if I see a poor bum on the street, I have money that I myself don't need for me and my family, and I can trust that the bum will use it wisely, I will make a donation. But to steal, even for the "right reasons", is still stealing.

I think the big question is "Is it right to steal from honest rich people?", i.e people who earned it fair and square. In that case, no. If they didn't earn it, they are thieves themselves.

But, like my wise English teacher said, NO rich person got rich by being nice. And it's true. Then again, there are some real assholes, and some decent people. And it also depends on how poor the people are as well. If the normal person is starving so one family can be extremely well off, stealing from them is fairly justified.

What does it matter if somebody's an asshole? If he earned it through his own blood, sweat and tears, nobody has the right to take it without his consent. His life, his possessions.

..

As I said, he earned it through OTHER PEOPLE'S BLOOD SWEAT AND WHATNOT. Not his. Which is generally true. But still, you probably shouldn't steal from them anyway.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

No, it's stealing, which is a violation of one's rights. I may sound heartless, but just because somebody is less fortunate than me doesn't mean I need to pay for it, when I've done nothing wrong and earned the money for myself through my own hard work.

Don't get me wrong, if I see a poor bum on the street, I have money that I myself don't need for me and my family, and I can trust that the bum will use it wisely, I will make a donation. But to steal, even for the "right reasons", is still stealing.

I think the big question is "Is it right to steal from honest rich people?", i.e people who earned it fair and square. In that case, no. If they didn't earn it, they are thieves themselves.

But, like my wise English teacher said, NO rich person got rich by being nice. And it's true. Then again, there are some real assholes, and some decent people. And it also depends on how poor the people are as well. If the normal person is starving so one family can be extremely well off, stealing from them is fairly justified.

What does it matter if somebody's an asshole? If he earned it through his own blood, sweat and tears, nobody has the right to take it without his consent. His life, his possessions.

..

As I said, he earned it through OTHER PEOPLE'S BLOOD SWEAT AND WHATNOT. Not his. Which is generally true. But still, you probably shouldn't steal from them anyway.

Are you speaking of corporate competition or just him literally taking the money?

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Unfortunately for everyone that defends the "Robin Hood method", it is completely moot in the modern era. Back then, there was no hardworking "middle class" in between. There were the wealthy and those who served the wealthy.

Ask me again when the lords that we serve to work on the land they own decide to create taxation that makes it completely impossible survive in the harsh conditions that our primitive lifestyle creates.

 

[Legend of J]

Nope its not right for them to steal.

 

[Marter]

If the rich earned their money legitimately, then I would say that you have no right to take it from them. If they got it through illegal means, then taking it might not be such a bad idea.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

The thing with Robin Hood is that he didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor for it's own sake. He did it beacuse the populace was being taxed to the point that they couldn't afford to feed their families, which was rendering them poor. In a sense, Robin Hood was the only thing keeping them alive.

I suppose that as a deed of rebellion against an opressive regime, "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor" can be viewed as an act of moral justice. However, in most cases, stealing is wrong no matter what purpose it serves. As Arkhangelsk said, if the wealthy obtained their riches through wrongful means, that makes them thieves themselves.

But that does bring an interesting question. Is it right to steal from a thief? If he stole something from you, do you have the right to steal it back?