Discussion in 'Politics' started by Daal, Mar 6, 2012.
Poll and I will follow up later
change it up a bit. things are not always black and white. you are dying of hunger and accross the street your rich neighbor has an apple tree that he just lets the apples rot on every year. is it immoral to go take one of the apples?
or you are stranded in a blizzard. you are sure to die without shelter. you come across the vacation home of a rich guy. is it immoral to break into that house to save yourself?
If you mean making the tax code more fair, yes. But it's not stealing. It's bringing it back in line to how it used to be before the plutocrats took over.
I'm talking about normal situations in everyday life. Rich guy drops a $100 bill, do you give back?
That kind of thing
Would it make a difference to you if the neighbor across the street was middle class? You are still starving. The apples will still rot.
The same could be said for the shelter. The decisions in the above examples would not change for me based on the neighbor's wealth.
If the rich guy gave you an apple. Then gave you apple seeds and land to plant in.
If you didn't not work the land should the rich guy give you an apple next year.
just trying to stay within the theme of what the op presented
So if the government robs on your behalf, that makes it okay.
So if the government murders on your behalf, that makes it OK?
I know. I am not critiquing your previous post. I agree with you that everything is not always black and white. In the examples you presented, assuming there were no alternatives, I would take the apple and the shelter. However, the wealth of the neighbor would have no impact on my decision.
Separate names with a comma.