Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ohmin, Jan 16, 2017.
Case in point: we just celebrated MLK Jr.'s works two days ago.
You can read minds? I don't WANT to use violence. It is a valid option in that scenario though. Perfectly happy to resolve with threat of violence. Or I can call the cops and let them use violence to get my property back. Functioning car is critically important for me to stay employed. Or should I just have Obama send me cash?
hey, I don't want to use violence I just need the wealth to be redistributed. it is critically important for me that the wealth is redistributed
Stealing is immoral? You don't get as rich as those 8 without being wildly immoral. Redistributing wealth is certainly not immoral, it is, on the contrary, moral, as it is going to save and improve lives.
But this must be shown to be true, not merely assumed to be true (even if it is a relatively safe assumption), thus then it would not be stealing to take their assets and put them to use helping those they have harmed. Otherwise it becomes merely theft, and without showing whom and how was harmed, those that steal it are as likely as not to use it towards their own selfish purposes.
Besides, I'm sure, however rare it may actually be, it is possible for some people to amass such great wealth without actually having done anything wrong (other than, arguably, not being as charitable with it as they could have been). Maybe not in the top 8 perhaps but...
Private property is theft.
no no, that can't be right, let me try;
MOST private property is theft.
When even in our countries there are still people without enough to live a dignified life, I don't really see how there is an option to not be morally wrong with that much property.
Added to that is the whole uselessness of their porperty that they can't use or consume themselves, and are just hogging it so nobody else can have and enjoy it. Deeply perverse.
If there are people that have trouble affording clothes and there are companies that destroy expensive brand clothes when it goes out of season so it remains expensive then something is broken.
capitalism has not failed itself. worse, it failed nearly everyone.
Hoist the red flag lads, it's time for hammer and sickle to take over!
WACHT AUF, VERDAMMTE DIESER ERDE
DIE STETS MAN NOCH ZUM HUNGERN ZWINGT!
The People on this forum have spoken viva la revolution!
Abolishing private property is theft.
See, I can make silly statements too! Take that 19th century French Anarchist guy!
(On a related note, you might like this: http://politics.stackexchange.com/q...e-a-property-is-theft-counter-argument-to-a-t )
So would you argue that being wealthier than others while there are any that don't live a "dignified life" is inherently morally wrong? Or does this only apply to M/Billionaires? Or only to the higher value Billionaires?
Separately: What would you consider a "dignified life"?
Please note I'm not really trying to mount an argument here, I'm just curious to explore what your views are on this more.
I get where you're coming from here... but I don't think in most cases they aren't actually using their wealth. They probably aren't optimally using their beach house(s) to be sure, but for the most part they are using their wealth as leverage and towards investment. Of course, I think a lot of them are using it immorally anyway, but possibly not all of them. There may also be some that are effectively sitting on it as you describe, which is certainly wasteful, though I don't know if I'd call it perverse exactly.
I'd agree at least with this part of your statement, though I think food is the larger issue here. Of course some of it is simply perishable and that can't be avoided, but better logistics for distributing food could make it work much better. I do know that a lot of grocery stores are more likely to give food to charities than simply throw it out (pending certain factors), but by no means is it all of them.
Clothes stores are more likely to give away non-Brand clothes as well, but it's minor, and overall the situation is still wasteful compared to marking down the Brand clothes even at least temporarily, let alone donating them.
We now return you, dear reader, to our regularly scheduled Communism Celebration thread already in progress.
Socialist - communist party.
Do people actually think that the communist ''revolution'' in Russia had any positive effects for the country?
No, that is a silly question. it was hijacked by Stalinism.
I refer to my earlier reply to burnpyro saying stalinism stuff
Nope, but then again, just like in China now, it isn't actually communism, though both like to refer to themselves like that. Those in control just used the idea of "power to the people" to stay in control.
Not that I'm advocating for communism, I think an ideal society is more of a mix of capitalism and socialism.
Separate names with a comma.