24 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyCriminals are responsible for their crimes and should be punished. By stating redistribution of wealth and crime are related, you're not taking their responsibility away, you're acknowledging facts.
By saying that people who do bad things were "made that way" by a flawed society, it seems to me you are absolving those people of any responsibility for the choices they made. And to be clear, I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about right and wrong. Stealing candy bars will still be wrong even if politicians make it legal.
24 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBy stating redistribution of wealth and crime are related, you're not taking their responsibility away, you're acknowledging facts.
Criminals are responsible for their crimes and should be punished. By stating redistribution of wealth and crime are related, you're not taking their responsibility away, you're acknowledging facts.
This is ridiculous, are you saying criminals are some sort hobin hoods?
Wealth redistribution is not reasonable, people work for their money, some earn more than others, thats life.
25 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoNo, as I explained before better redistribution of wealth results in lower crime. And no, that's no justification of crime.
[b]By stating redistribution of wealth and crime are related, you're not taking their responsibility away, you're acknowledging facts.
This is ridiculous, are you saying criminals are some sort hobin hoods?
Wealth redistribution is not reasonable, people work for their money, some earn more than others, thats life.[/b]
Redistrubution of wealth is reasonable as it results in a net wealth gain.
25 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyNo, it's not, since people are generally better off in industrialized nations that have a highly redistributive policy.
LOL. It's much better to build a society based on personal responsibility. Keep stealing those candy bars. Doesn't make it right and it doesn't make them yours.
25 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLet's have a hypothetical. Let's say that, due to government ineptness, the financial system collapsed (hypothetically). Suddenly, grocery stores aren't getting deliveries of their food. People in cities everywhere are starving to death. You, however, have a garden that will support your family. Now, if you give away your food, or if someone takes it, your family starves. In our brave new world, food is wealth. the people that don't have it want yours, do they have a right to it?
No, as I explained before better redistribution of wealth results in lower crime. And no, that's no justification of crime.
Redistrubution of wealth is reasonable as it results in a net wealth gain.
25 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpSince when does redistribution of wealth equate to violating people's property rights? In a primitive agricultural society a redistributive policy may or may not be appropiate, how is it relevant to industralized nations?
Let's have a hypothetical. Let's say that, due to government ineptness, the financial system collapsed (hypothetically). Suddenly, grocery stores aren't getting deliveries of their food. People in cities everywhere are starving to death. You, however, have a garden that will support your family. Now, if you give away your food, or if someone takes it, ...[text shortened]... orld, food is wealth. the people that don't have it want yours, do they have a right to it?
25 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpNo, what I am saying is that the most rational thing rich people can do with their excess money is collectively give (a large part of) it to government since they cannot spend it on anything other than positional goods. Stealing is unlawfully taking someone's property, if something is the law it cannot possibly be stealing (just like abortion cannot be murder unless the law says so).
I believe what KN is saying is that because rich people don't need the money, it is okay to take it from them. What I don't understand is how that isn't a justification for stealing.
25 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo, now you are justifying the theft by claiming that a law makes it okay? There used to be no law against buying and selling human beings. Was that okay?
No, what I am saying is that the most rational thing rich people can do with their excess money is collectively give (a large part of) it to government since they cannot spend it on anything other than positional goods. Stealing is unlawfully taking someone's property, if something is the law it cannot possibly be stealing (just like abortion cannot be murder unless the law says so).