Poll: Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
- Thread starter Timmey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that at the moment the whole situation is quite adequately handled, because the US government wont tax any charity money, thus encouraging a lot of very rich people to give their money to charity. But simply taking the money from them? That is wrong, point blank.
It depends on how the wealthy got their money IMO.
If they abused the poor, then rob every cent.
If they started on the bottom and earned their way up, leave em alone.
If they abused the poor, then rob every cent.
If they started on the bottom and earned their way up, leave em alone.
I believe there is nothing wrong with being Rich, if you earned that wealth then you are entitled to it. I am a capitolist to the core in this respect. I do however believe in the American principles of requiring competition, and am against monopolies and such.Timmey said:
The thing to understand about stories like Robin Hood, or even "Red Dead Redemption", is that the people being robbed are typically presented as being corrupt, and obtaining their money through illegal or at least highly questionable means. For example with Robin Hood your dealing with a placeholder on the throne who is doing things like raising taxes, and pocketing the money, and declaring what was public property his personal domain and not allowing people to say hunt in the forests for food anymore. In most versions of the story when the proper king returns, Robin Hood stops doing the bandit thing.
When dealing with games like "Red Dead Redemption", the story is sort of trying to present the Wild West as a place of clear cut innocence and black and white, and the encroachment of civilization as a bad thing. The people being robbed being corrupt rail barons, businessmen, and politicians/cops, who cheat people and don't even follow the laws they profess to promote.
When looking at fiction, it's important to note the differance between when someone is striking against a tyrannical regime, and simply robbing people because they are wealthy.
Of course also understand that when dealing with fiction, things are clear cut in a way they aren't in real life. You for example are not typically going to find an entire regime that is as bad as most of those presented all the way through.
Also while statements in books and movies about "What right do you have to live like this, while the people starve?" aren't quite as clear cut. I mean if you worked long and hard for your money and position, you did it specifically so you could shield yourself and your loved ones from such conditions and criseses. Charity is a noble thing, and you might think less of someone who doesn't give it under circumstances like that, but that doesn't mean your right to victimize them.
What's more in situations like that in most movies and books, even if one was to re-distribute a lot of that wealth, it wouldn't make a signifigant differance during the crises. For example during a revolution, or in a city under siege, all the money you might give to the crowd aside, doesn't change the fact that there is still going to be a food shortage since people aren't able to grow/raise/slaughter it, and bring it to market.
I have mixed opinions. You see, I'm a poor person. Because of my lack of wealth I'm insulted a lot, 'cause clearly someone should be judged more by what they have then what they do. I consider my self a Socialist - Democratic and because of this people always kick me down saying I that I'm only a 'socialist' because I'm ignorant, dumb and poor.
I also hate how poor people are depicted as lazy. I know a lot of hard working people who are poorer then even me, naive enough to buy stuff from the hypocrite corporations who preach it's wrong to pirate their shit yet they do it them selves. (Sorry, I'm just bitter from the article I read on this site on how Warner brothers pirated a Anti - Piracy program)
So, the bitterness in me says fuck 'em. They're rich and they can afford to lose some money. Sure, they earned it, but why is being successful, hard working, but backstabbing and selfish any better then being kind, naive and poor?
My logic differs from my feelings though. Obviously, not all rich people are morally bankrupt. Hell, some of them even spend their money on helping other people, animals, and communities. Obviously though stealing from a few asshole rich people and a lot of kind rich people is just as wrong as letting them steal from you.
So back to the beginning, do I believe that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is a good deed? I say it depends on who's having the money stolen. If I could then I'd personally take every cent from the insurance corporations that cop out of helping people.
I also hate how poor people are depicted as lazy. I know a lot of hard working people who are poorer then even me, naive enough to buy stuff from the hypocrite corporations who preach it's wrong to pirate their shit yet they do it them selves. (Sorry, I'm just bitter from the article I read on this site on how Warner brothers pirated a Anti - Piracy program)
So, the bitterness in me says fuck 'em. They're rich and they can afford to lose some money. Sure, they earned it, but why is being successful, hard working, but backstabbing and selfish any better then being kind, naive and poor?
My logic differs from my feelings though. Obviously, not all rich people are morally bankrupt. Hell, some of them even spend their money on helping other people, animals, and communities. Obviously though stealing from a few asshole rich people and a lot of kind rich people is just as wrong as letting them steal from you.
So back to the beginning, do I believe that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is a good deed? I say it depends on who's having the money stolen. If I could then I'd personally take every cent from the insurance corporations that cop out of helping people.
Stealing from the rich is a consequence of a socio-economic system that allowed such vast polarization between the rich and poor. It's almost pointless to argue it's morality, when it comes down to it most people will do whatever they can to elevate or at least maintain their positions. The best solution is for any society to work towards systems that promote more equitable distributions of resources, as well as establishing safeguards that prevent, discourage, and punish stealing.
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
-Dostoyevsky
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
-Dostoyevsky
And what exactly is it you have that makes your statement become the only truth there is?^^Dr.Sean said:
Try at least give some reason for your point of view please.
In my opinion there are some things that are necessary to be done (dont like to use the expression moral before its well defined) while being legally wrong. Under certain circumstances stealing from rich people would be one of these things.
The rich steal from the poor ruthlessly and purposefully, so maybe a little payback is in order?
No it's not alright, that's a bunch of crap.
It sucks that some people have more money than they deserve, and that some have too little, but things like that need to be handled by the government and charity, you can't just run around stealing shit.
It sucks that some people have more money than they deserve, and that some have too little, but things like that need to be handled by the government and charity, you can't just run around stealing shit.
A high belief held by most people in the west. Which makes it so ironic that they hate communism so much.
If the rich people in question are assholes that don't need the money like in Robin Hood, I guess.
Same time postloppopoo said: