NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

Yes, he´s hungry and needs to eat. If he has no other means, absolutely no other means (not a crack-head that´s only stealing because he/she needs the drug and is into it fully aware of what it does), let him steal the food.

So why don't you offer him some food?

If his life depends on it, and there's no other option, then yes, I would be okay with it. He must survive, after all.

Actually going to have to agree with CM here.

I am in the depends camp. If the person is truly starving and would die otherwise, then yes it is okay to steal, since all they are doing is putting life above property, which I think is fine.

Bad analogy: Just like policemen don't shoot to kill robbers without a weapon.

I said yes, although perhaps depends would have been a better vote. I'm cool with it as long as they don't steal from someone in the same position as them, or if it puts someone in the same situation.

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

Of course it would be alright, as long as s/he doesn't harm nor threaten anybody.

Question: Is it my food?

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving?
Yes.
I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"
Saying that it is okay for a starving person to steal food does not mean one thinks it's okay to steal more than basic necessities.

There are ways to prove that a person stole something, for example if they still have the stolen item. There are also ways of proving if the person needed the stolen item to survive, for example if the stolen item is a TV then obviously not. There are also ways to prove that a person has a fancy house, just take a look where they live. What is it that you say can't be proven?

Are you asking why anyone would work and live in a nice house, drive a nice car, go on nice vacations and such when they could survive by sleeping in the streets and stealing only the basic necessities such as food, clothes when their only set of clothes is worn out and medicine when they get sick? Do you really think merely surviving is so nice that if you didn't have to work to survive then you wouldn't work to actually live?

Better all the hobos die (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=180) and decrease the surplus population...Humbug

Also (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=115)

how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

Baffling

Better all the hobos die (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=180) and decrease the surplus population...Humbug

Also (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=115)

R.I.P
Doctor Hobo
???--2005
"And may a flight of angels sing thee to thy--SHTEVE?! GET OFF DA LINE!!

Of course. The day a man respects the law over his own survival is a day where the human race is lost beyond recovery. I'm glad when I see people break the law for their own sake, it shows that we're still humans and not sentient resources.

I would not be okay with it. I mean everyone has a fair shot to make it in life. That person chose to not get a job. There are other ways to get food such as can drives/food drives.

I'd prefer it if the guy tries a soup kitchen, or a charity services, but sure why not. However, the person who he's stealing from also has the right to defend the food and charge the hungry hungry hobo with theft.

You realize if you prosecuted the hobo and put him in jail, you'd just be feeding him more?

I would not be okay with it. I mean everyone has a fair shot to make it in life. That person chose to not get a job. There are other ways to get food such as can drives/food drives.

The homeless person starving on the street chose not to get a job?

*remember 60 page thread*

Wait, wait wait, I'm not getting into that one again.

If people stranded on mountains eat their own dead just to stay alive, what makes you think there is a single living being who won't steal when that's their last option?!

The cure for unemployment is called, "getting a job".

You realize if you prosecuted the hobo and put him in jail, you'd just be feeding him more?

Which is good, no?

The cure for unemployment is called, "getting a job".

The cure for death is called "living". It is not always as easy as it would appear.

You realize if you prosecuted the hobo and put him in jail, you'd just be feeding him more?

Everyone wins! :D

The cure for unemployment is called, "getting a job".

And when there are more people looking for work than there are jobs?

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

No. I would not be okay with that. However, I would be perfectly okay with a starving man stealing seeds, fertilizer and a hoe. :)

And when there are more people looking for work than there are jobs?

His paper-thin attempt at an argument crumbles.

Can he obtain food legally?

And when there are more people looking for work than there are jobs?

Then you blame it on outsourcing and burn down some Indian villages.

Then you blame it on outsourcing and burn down some Indian villages.

No, you have it all wrong, you blame it on illegal immigrants, for they are takin' all our jobs.

Then you start burning down villages.;)

Click Stand;13522970']No, you have it all wrong, you blame it on illegal immigrants, for they are takin' all our jobs.

Then you start burning down villages.;)

So you blame it simultaneously on both importing and exporting labour and then go pillage, burn, rape, etc...?

I just want to know in case I have to rile up a mob.

Sure. You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

There are plenty of other options.
Food stamps.
Soup kitchens.
Asking.
Working for it.

So no.

I replied "other", because I've never starved, so I don't know what it would feel like. I think, however, that I wouldn't do it, personnaly, but then again you never know how your mind works in these situations.

Whatever the case be, I wouldn't judge him and if he were to steal from me, I'd simply give him the food (or just not care and let him do whatever). I think it's wrong to steal in general, but I'm not going to judge someone whom I can't possibly understand as of yet.

No.

but it's also not 'alright' for him to be starving in the first place

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

No, while I am not ok with him starving, I am also not ok with someone using that as an excuse to steal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I would take him to a soup kitchen or food pantry or a church.

Another thread full of bullshit posts by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't bother to find out. :rolleyes:

FACT: It is already legal to steal food if you are starving. During the Katrina disaster, the governments of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the US publicly announced a reminder of this and informed the people trapped in the city that if they had to break into closed stores to get food, water or medicine, they would not be prosecuted, but that anyone who took things like tv's or new clothing, etc, would be stopped (possibly shot) as looters.

FACT: Refusing food or water to a starving person is against the law. A starving person could take it from you and be within their rights. The government could come and take surplus food and water away from you and redistribute it. In a disaster, hoarding more survival provisions than you need for yourself and denying it to others who are in obvious need is not considered okay.

FACT: Being homeless/poor and starving are two completely different things. Starving is the condition of being in imminent danger of death from lack of food and/or water. Just being poor =/= starving. Just being poor doesn't give anyone a license to steal. But starving most certainly does, because people are more important than property.

Whether you are "okay" with that or not is irrelevant. US law, other countries' laws, and international law have already decided this matter. The law (as well as ethics and morals) are on the side of the starving person.

Another thread full of bullshit posts by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't bother to find out. :rolleyes:

FACT: It is already legal to steal food if you are starving. During the Katrina disaster, the governments of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the US publicly announced a reminder of this and informed the people trapped in the city that if they had to break into closed stores to get food, water or medicine, they would not be prosecuted, but that anyone who took things like tv's or new clothing, etc, would be stopped (possibly shot) as looters.

FACT: Refusing food or water to a starving person is against the law. A starving person could take it from you and be within their rights. The government could come and take surplus food and water away from you and redistribute it. In a disaster, hoarding more survival provisions than you need for yourself and denying it to others who are in obvious need is not considered okay.

FACT: Being homeless/poor and starving are two completely different things. Starving is the condition of being in imminent danger of death from lack of food and/or water. Just being poor =/= starving. Just being poor doesn't give anyone a license to steal. But starving most certainly does, because people are more important than property.

Whether you are "okay" with that or not is irrelevant. US law, other countries' laws, and international law have already decided this matter. The law (as well as ethics and morals) are on the side of the starving person.

Thanks for this - I was struggling with this one a bit, essentially coming down on the idea that it's more criminal for society to allow a homeless, starving person so I would have to allow them the right to steal food if there was no other way.

Yet I also don't want a victim of this, it's not exactly fair on any individual to have something stolen from them

I have some issues with it, technically, for me, it's wrong, and I was going to say I could excuse and have great sympathy with the decision to steal, if it's a decision at all but would at some level see it as wrong in terms of creating a victim of that theft.

Thanks for this - I was struggling with this one a bit, essentially coming down on the idea that it's more criminal for society to allow a homeless, starving person so I would have to allow them the right to steal food if there was no other way.

Yet I also don't want a victim of this, it's not exactly fair on any individual to have something stolen from them

I have some issues with it, technically, for me, it's wrong, and I was going to say I could excuse and have great sympathy with the decision to steal, if it's a decision at all but would at some level see it as wrong in terms of creating a victim of that theft.
Starving is an emergency condition. In a place overwhelmed by natural disaster, war, etc., there will be no usual means of delivering food. In the Katrina disaster, food stores and drug stores had been boarded up for the storm and then not opened again if their owners/staffs had evacuated, gotten cut off from the area by the flood, or were dead. What were people supposed to do? Respect the store's property and let themselves die from lack of drinkable bottled water? (It can take as little as three days for an adult human to die from lack of water.) Were they supposed to just not feed their infants or their sick and injured for however long they were going to be trapped there?

The law says otherwise. So do ethics and morals.

Now in normal conditions, the situation is a bit different. Personally, I consider it an outrage and disgrace for there to be people suffering hunger in an affluent nation like the US. But as I said, just being poor is not a license to steal in ordinary circumstances where the government and private groups offer means of getting food and water to those in need.

However, even so, if a starving person does steal food/water, the law will step in but is extremely unlikely to prosecute the starving person in any serious way, if at all. Because no one is expected to value the law over their own life, literally. A law that would require one person to die so another can hold property is not a just law.

Big difference between starving during a natural disaster and during normal conditions. I wouldn't deny a starving person food during something like a flood or hurricane, but otherwise, trying to steal my food gets you shot (if I'm at home, at least). :p

I would not be OK with a person being allowed to starve. In certain extreme cases (like starvation) theft can be hand waved, but the theft is not the real crime being committed. Society's failure to care for it's citizens is.

Starving is an emergency condition. In a place overwhelmed by natural disaster, war, etc., there will be no usual means of delivering food. In the Katrina disaster, food stores and drug stores had been boarded up for the storm and then not opened again if their owners/staffs had evacuated, gotten cut off from the area by the flood, or were dead. What were people supposed to do? Respect the store's property and let themselves die from lack of drinkable bottled water? (It can take as little as three days for an adult human to die from lack of water.) Were they supposed to just not feed their infants or their sick and injured for however long they were going to be trapped there?

I think they should take what they need, keep notes on what they take and pay for it later.

No, I'm not OK with stealing.

If the person is starving? Yes, I am okay with it.

A guy's gotta eat, as the saying goes.

I would not be okay with it. I mean everyone has a fair shot to make it in life. That person chose to not get a job. There are other ways to get food such as can drives/food drives.

The person didn't choose not to get a job. Someone who's starving to death would generally try to get a job, if they could, but something tells me that the emaciated man with holes in his shoes and his underpants on the outside isn't about to win that job interview.

Click Stand;13522891']The homeless person starving on the street chose not to get a job?

*remember 60 page thread*

Wait, wait wait, I'm not getting into that one again.

There was a 60 page thread? Damn, I missed it.

The cure for unemployment is called, "getting a job".

We're not talking about unemployment, we're talking about someone who's starving.

Another thread full of bullshit posts by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't bother to find out. :rolleyes:

FACT: It is already legal to steal food if you are starving. During the Katrina disaster, the governments of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the US publicly announced a reminder of this and informed the people trapped in the city that if they had to break into closed stores to get food, water or medicine, they would not be prosecuted, but that anyone who took things like tv's or new clothing, etc, would be stopped (possibly shot) as looters.

FACT: Refusing food or water to a starving person is against the law. A starving person could take it from you and be within their rights. The government could come and take surplus food and water away from you and redistribute it. In a disaster, hoarding more survival provisions than you need for yourself and denying it to others who are in obvious need is not considered okay.

FACT: Being homeless/poor and starving are two completely different things. Starving is the condition of being in imminent danger of death from lack of food and/or water. Just being poor =/= starving. Just being poor doesn't give anyone a license to steal. But starving most certainly does, because people are more important than property.

Whether you are "okay" with that or not is irrelevant. US law, other countries' laws, and international law have already decided this matter. The law (as well as ethics and morals) are on the side of the starving person.

Thanks for the info.

Big difference between starving during a natural disaster and during normal conditions. I wouldn't deny a starving person food during something like a flood or hurricane, but otherwise, trying to steal my food gets you shot (if I'm at home, at least). :p

That's ridiculous. You'd kill someone for trying to take a 2 dollar loaf of bread?

That's ridiculous. You'd kill someone for trying to take a 2 dollar loaf of bread?

No. I'd defend myself against a home invasion. Not a likely thing, but someone mentioned that we all have the right to break into stores to take food during a disaster - I was saying that under normal, non-disaster conditions, a home invasion would still be a home invasion.

Big difference between starving during a natural disaster and during normal conditions. I wouldn't deny a starving person food during something like a flood or hurricane, but otherwise, trying to steal my food gets you shot (if I'm at home, at least). :p

Which brings us onto the debate about the American 'right to bear arms'. Congratulations.

With regards to it being self defence, if guns are legal, the criminal WILL have a gun, so you must have one for self defence. If they are illegal, it is unlikely that someone breaking into your home will be carrying a gun, thus you can still both arm yourselves equally, but with rather less chance of dying.

There's no advantage to being able to defend yourself with a gun if it guarantees that your opponent will have one too :/

So, although you're saying that it's OK to steal food if your life is in danger (ie a natural disaster) as opposed to normal, when you could go to a charity or something.... in other words, in times of natural disaster life>property
yet if someone breaks into your home suddenly life<property.
Why.... because you fear for your life? ridiculous, just run out the back window and call the police from next doors garden

and yeh making guns illegal would make you fear for your life a lot less :/ and mean you would be more comfortable just calling the cops instead of shooting someone

However, I find it unlikely you would actually make that choice to pull the trigger, and it disgusts me if you actually would.

Here in the UK there was a newspaper article very recently about someone who grabbed a knife to defend against an intruder, and stabbed them in the heart... they died... turns out they were just drunk and had got the wrong house.

Could you really take a life? I hope not.

What if you knew they were innocent, yet it was a choice between YOU killing them, or you dying? these are not things you should talk so lightly about....

I'm not "okay" with stealing food, because there are other alternatives. Katrina was a special case, but under normal conditions, nobody truly NEEDS to steal. There are soup kitchens, food stamps, church assistance, etc.

Which brings us onto the debate about the American 'right to bear arms'. Congratulations.


Not really. There are plenty of other threads for that.

Even a backward source such as the bible allows for it, if I'm right.

Which brings us onto the debate about the American 'right to bear arms'. Congratulations.

With regards to it being self defence, if guns are legal, the criminal WILL have a gun, so you must have one for self defence. If they are illegal, it is unlikely that someone breaking into your home will be carrying a gun, thus you can still both arm yourselves equally, but with rather less chance of dying.

There's no advantage to being able to defend yourself with a gun if it guarantees that your opponent will have one too :/

So, although you're saying that it's OK to steal food if your life is in danger (ie a natural disaster) as opposed to normal, when you could go to a charity or something.... in other words, in times of natural disaster life>property
yet if someone breaks into your home suddenly life<property.
Why.... because you fear for your life? ridiculous, just run out the back window and call the police from next doors garden

and yeh making guns illegal would make you fear for your life a lot less :/ and mean you would be more comfortable just calling the cops instead of shooting someone

However, I find it unlikely you would actually make that choice to pull the trigger, and it disgusts me if you actually would.

Here in the UK there was a newspaper article very recently about someone who grabbed a knife to defend against an intruder, and stabbed them in the heart... they died... turns out they were just drunk and had got the wrong house.

Could you really take a life? I hope not.

What if you knew they were innocent, yet it was a choice between YOU killing them, or you dying? these are not things you should talk so lightly about....

Britain is a fairly small island. banning guns there could actually be effective. America is a giant country with miles and miles of wilderness and near wilderness and farm country. We have a history of gun ownership that goes back to the founding of the nation. Getting guns out of the hands of criminals in America would take a lot more than just making them illegal. We'd damn near have to write them out of the timeline entirely.

No. I'd defend myself against a home invasion. Not a likely thing, but someone mentioned that we all have the right to break into stores to take food during a disaster - I was saying that under normal, non-disaster conditions, a home invasion would still be a home invasion.

And someone invading your house to get food warrants killing them?

And someone invading your house to get food warrants killing them?

You wouldn't ordinarily ask them what they were doing breaking in, would you? You're not likely to be able to ascertain their motive in any case, until after the fact. The law is on your side (at least around here) if you choose to respond with force to a home invasion, unless you do so in some excessive way. The specifics vary by state, as I recall, so I wouldn't want to generalize.

So why don't you offer him some food?

Didn't you read the OP's name?

How the hell do you get from this:

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving?

To this:
I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

It's quite a jump from 'he needed food to live' to 'that man has 'stolen' my house, and for some reason I can't move him because he's hungry'.

You wouldn't ordinarily ask them what they were doing breaking in, would you? You're not likely to be able to ascertain their motive in any case, until after the fact. The law is on your side (at least around here) if you choose to respond with force to a home invasion, unless you do so in some excessive way. The specifics vary by state, as I recall, so I wouldn't want to generalize.

and killing them sounds like excessive to me....

Not really. There are plenty of other threads for that.

I was actually joking, but then I got distracted and started talking about the issue.
Oops.

Britain is a fairly small island. banning guns there could actually be effective. America is a giant country with miles and miles of wilderness and near wilderness and farm country. We have a history of gun ownership that goes back to the founding of the nation. Getting guns out of the hands of criminals in America would take a lot more than just making them illegal. We'd damn near have to write them out of the timeline entirely.

erm guns are already banned here. As in most developed countries.
You had a history of slavery since the founding of the Nation, America doesn't do that anymore- things being ingrained in culture does not make them permanent.

And I don't mean that it will get them out of the hands of criminals- if you don't mind breaking the law, you can always get nearly anything if you really want, and have enough money. Plenty of people have guns in Britain. But not EVERYONE-
Sure, banning guns in America wouldn't get rid of them. Of course not. But it would mean that you would no longer EXPECT someone breaking into your home to have a gun, as petty criminals wouldn't own them. This means that shooting someone is no longer the first response. Which currently, I would assume it would have to be- you don't really wanna take second chances if you think they've probably got a gun on them- you're gonna draw first, as it were.
Forcing a situation where the first response to a threat is to pull a gun seems like a situation where lots of people are going to get shot when the result COULD have been a stabbing, beating or just one of the people running away, most likely.

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving?Yes. Food should be freely distributed anyway.

I say no, because why would anyone need to work? Because of the need of mentally healthy people to be productive?

You wouldn't ordinarily ask them what they were doing breaking in, would you? You're not likely to be able to ascertain their motive in any case, until after the fact. The law is on your side (at least around here) if you choose to respond with force to a home invasion, unless you do so in some excessive way. The specifics vary by state, as I recall, so I wouldn't want to generalize.

Well, I must admit if someone was breaking into my home (which is a rather unlikely thing for someone trying to steal food because they're starving to do), even if it was an emaciated hobo, I'd grab some sort of weapon, like a knife or a bat, and I'd call the police right away, and, I might even injure that person with it. But unless I thought the person was trying to hurt me, I wouldn't kill him.

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

Everybody has a right to live. In order to live, everybody needs to eat.
If a person cannot afford food, I'm ok with them stealing it, although I do prefer living in a society that recognises its members right to live and tries to make sure nobody has to steal in order to eat.
I would also be ok with someone stealing medication if they need it but can't afford it. Again, though, I prefer giving it to them by way of taxes, though.

Nobody needs a fancy house to survive, so that analogy doesn't work on any level.

Remember let a starving man have some of your food and he's fed for a day, teach him how to steal and he is fed for life.

Remember let a starving man have some of your food and he's fed for a day, teach him how to steal and he is fed for life.

ROFL!:D
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/iba0356l.jpg

Would you be okay with a starving man stealing food?

If yes, then why do you support the system which puts him in that position?

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

I'm not okay with it in the sense that I wouldn't create some sort of legal framework where it's not a crime, but at the same time if someone took food from me when they were starving and desperate, I probably wouldn't press charges against them.

The problem is that if someone's starving, then the root cause needs curing, not the symptom. Jail isn't going to fix the root cause and if someone's stealing to feed their family, tossing them behind bars isn't going to help anybody.

If you live in the US and find yourself starving to death, there is something seriously wrong with you.

No, I'm not okay with letting a person steal for food. Its up to the individual to feed him or herself, not society or governments. If shit got that serious for me I would head to the woods and hunt my food. Dont know how to hunt or farm? Find out or die. From the looks of this thread, theres way too many people out there who give a rats ass for scrubs who cant figure out, or wont figure how to at the very least survive on their own.

I have always wanted to see a programme where Ray Mears survives in London by catching pigeons in Trafalgar Square to eat, or Bear Grylls Extreme Survival in Los Angeles. No one teaches these urban survival techniques - how safe is it to eat pizza from a dustbin?

No, I'm not okay with letting a person steal for food. Its up to the individual to feed him or herself, not society or governments. If shit got that serious for me I would head to the woods and hunt my food. Dont know how to hunt or farm? Find out or die. From the looks of this thread, theres way too many people out there who give a rats ass for scrubs who cant figure out, or wont figure how to at the very least survive on their own.

That's great for you, but as it happens, people who are actually starving to death will not have all that much time to learn how to hunt. They're also unlikely to own rifles or, for that matter, water filters (if they're living in the woods, they'll need to drink something, right?) or matches, or gas stoves, or anything else. It's unlikely that they'll even know how to track animals without alerting them, or for that matter, have any other knowledge of wilderness travel and living. I know, they could have learned about all that stuff when they still had the money, but well.... when you have the money you don't ordinarily expect to someday have to be living out in the woods skinning a rabbit for your only meal of the day.

Plus, hunting on non-designated grounds is just as illegal as stealing. And hunting on designated grounds requires, at very least, a license; which costs money; which, if they had, they'd probably spend on food rather than hunting equipment.

As for the original question: No, I'm not ok with stealing food. If they really need it, they should ask for it; or go to a charity or soup kitchen or something. In emergency conditions, of course, just about anything goes, so I can see it being acceptable there: see Katrina. But in normal conditions, there are plenty of resources available to the destitute.

... shouldn't he be on welfare to stop this kind of stuff happening in the first place?

If you live in the US and find yourself starving to death, there is something seriously wrong with you.

No, I'm not okay with letting a person steal for food. Its up to the individual to feed him or herself, not society or governments. If shit got that serious for me I would head to the woods and hunt my food. Dont know how to hunt or farm? Find out or die. From the looks of this thread, theres way too many people out there who give a rats ass for scrubs who cant figure out, or wont figure how to at the very least survive on their own.

Well, I could give you a lecture now about the superior morals of us Atheists, but I think I won't.

But if you believe that nobody deserves anything ever from society, I'll have to ask you to pay back the several thousand you have already cost the community by making use of the education provided, by using public transport, by using the public libraries, by walking on the streets it paved for you, by taking the tax breaks and child benefits your parents collected for you and by drinking the clean water provided to you.

Society exists solely because humans at some point realised that they can achieve more together than they ever could as individuals, and that helping each other brings benefits for all. It's a bit sad you haven't figured that out yet.

The survival of self goes beyond all moral codes, so stealing would be okay as the final tool for that survival. There is however something very wrong with the system if a man has absolutely no other means to get food but to steal it. So I won't accept stealing in practise although I accept it in theory. This is because I can't accept a system that forces a man to steal his food.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara

Here we go again. People just don't read.

I'm not okay with it in the sense that I wouldn't create some sort of legal framework where it's not a crime, but at the same time if someone took food from me when they were starving and desperate, I probably wouldn't press charges against them.

The problem is that if someone's starving, then the root cause needs curing, not the symptom. Jail isn't going to fix the root cause and if someone's stealing to feed their family, tossing them behind bars isn't going to help anybody.
Your last paragraph is true and taken as granted. However, your first paragraph has a problem that was already addressed in this thread: There is already a legal framework that makes it not a crime to steal food/water when you really need it and there is no other way to get it. The same legal framework, which is about emergency conditions, also makes it a crime to hoard more food/water than you need while others are in need around you.

As for normal conditions, there is already a legal framework that makes it a non-crime or lesser crime to steal food/water if you really need it right at that moment, even if there might be other ways to get it. Justice demands that people outrank property, and an actual starving person is not going to be asked to wait before feeding himself. If he commits crimes while getting the food, that will have to be sorted out after he is no longer in danger of dying from starvation. But no just society is going to punish a person for doing what they have to do to avoid dying.

So we can like that or not like that, but it is a fact, and we must work with or around it. In real life, people who don't like the idea that some of their stuff (cheap stuff too - food, water) might be taken to save the life of a starving person are the "villains" of the social story.

If you live in the US and find yourself starving to death, there is something seriously wrong with you.

No, I'm not okay with letting a person steal for food. Its up to the individual to feed him or herself, not society or governments. If shit got that serious for me I would head to the woods and hunt my food. Dont know how to hunt or farm? Find out or die. From the looks of this thread, theres way too many people out there who give a rats ass for scrubs who cant figure out, or wont figure how to at the very least survive on their own.
And some people apparently don't like to think, either.

The above post is: Ignorant, self-serving, thoughtless crap. The kind of elitist bullshit that can only exist in the head of someone who has absolutely zero idea what starvation is or how it happens. Bullshit so divorced from reality as to be utterly irrelevant.

<snip?

But if you believe that nobody deserves anything ever from society, I'll have to ask you to pay back the several thousand you have already cost the community by making use of the education provided, by using public transport, by using the public libraries, by walking on the streets it paved for you, by taking the tax breaks and child benefits your parents collected for you and by drinking the clean water provided to you.

Society exists solely because humans at some point realised that they can achieve more together than they ever could as individuals, and that helping each other brings benefits for all. It's a bit sad you haven't figured that out yet.
I agree. I want a refund of the portion of my tax dollars that went to support such an ingrate. I have often thought that the best way to deal with people who reject the idea of society as a cooperative group because they don't want to pay to help anybody else, is to let them opt out of it. They don't have to pay into the system at all. In return, the system will leave them alone. If they get sick, no public hospital will care for them. If they are victims of crime, 911 won't answer their call and the police will not rescue them nor investigate what happened to them. If their house catches fire, the fire department will come to protect the buildings of cooperative citizens around them, but let their property burn. They will not be allowed to drive on public roads, walk on public sidewalks, use public parks, or attend public schools, etc. They sure as hell don't get to vote, and the municipality they live in will not provide utility service to them, nor take away their garbage.

If they truly believe that every person should pay their own way 100%, let them teach by example and pay for themselves for a change.

But really, I think we all know that people who say shit like that don't live in the wilderness and are not totally self-sufficient. They line up to grab free stuff and services every chance they get, just like everyone else. But then they bitch when anyone else gets anything too.

I wouldn't, but not for the sake of following the law. Kohlberg's levels of moral reasoning say thats a crappy reason.
I just don't like it because the issue is its not a victimless crime; they have to steal someones property. Clearly defined definitions of ownership of property are essential for a society.


That and I find it hard to conceive of a case where there is no other option than to steal. Charity is common enough, goodwill of people, and short stints of a job. Hell, you can find enough change just walking around to buy a pack of ramen.

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything? "He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

This does assume the lowest common denomenator though. What if most people feel more pride, and would like to honestly provide for them selves and their dependants?

No.

No one should have the need to steal food.

But if you believe that nobody deserves anything ever from society, I'll have to ask you to pay back the several thousand you have already cost the community by making use of the education provided, by using public transport, by using the public libraries, by walking on the streets it paved for you, by taking the tax breaks and child benefits your parents collected for you and by drinking the clean water provided to you.


I already do give back the money that society provided me early on. I have a job and pay taxes. Or is that not enough?

I already do give back the money that society provided me early on. I have a job and pay taxes. Or is that not enough?

Well, in that case, what's your problem?

Heh, I dont have a problem. I'm merely sharing my opinion on a message board. Looking over my initial comment, it did come out kind of harsh.

Heh, I dont have a problem. I'm merely sharing my opinion on a message board. Looking over my initial comment, it did come out kind of harsh.

Well, it came across as "I need no help and won't help no one", which I took the liberty of calling bullshit ;)
Fact is, humans are social, and society works by individuals helping others. By doing voluntary work or paying taxes (taxes being the more reliable and efficient way, though).
You can regard it as trade : Society invests in the individual, and the individual eventually repays society. Sure, there are some cheats. But you don't go around claiming that trading in cars ought to be abandoned because one car sales guy sold you a crappy worthless car, do you? Same goes for any kind of social services.

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? I say no, because why would anyone need to work? They could just steal,

Don't know about other countries, but here an occasional theft in state of need (as any other crime dictated by state of need) isn't a crime. Like when you kill someone in self-defence (it is an homicide in state of need - the choice between killing and dying), or when you steal food because you are starving (choice is between theft or death), or break and enter because you are freezing (choice between breaking and entering or death).

Of course, the key word here is "occasional". There is a difference between an "occasional" theft in state of need and taking an habit at stealing... that would make the thief a professional one, not an occasional one.


and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything?
"He stole from my house even though he has a fancy house!" "Have any evidence other than your own testimony?" "Well no but..." "So you have no evidence?" "No......"

This has nothing to do with the previous, methinks.

Of course your own testimony is NEVER enough to sentence someone else for theft against your property. You'd need some material proof, like finding part of the stolen goods in the culprit's possession, or a video recording of the theft, or someone else's testimony.

Can he obtain food legally?
A starving man can always obtain food legally. He can ask for it.

So stealing it is never acceptable, no.

Big difference between starving during a natural disaster and during normal conditions. I wouldn't deny a starving person food during something like a flood or hurricane, but otherwise, trying to steal my food gets you shot (if I'm at home, at least). :p
Someone lives in Texas.

Not that I disagree.

Well, morally, if it's the only way to stay alive then of course (although I agree that's only in very rare circumstances).
Legally? I don't know, I think it's important for a society to make sure no person is ever in the position to have to steal to survive, but if they are then I don't think they should be punished very harshly.

A starving man can always obtain food legally. He can ask for it.

So stealing it is never acceptable, no.

In certain countries (U.S. I think?), it is legal to obtain food by stealing if you're starving. Your whole "it's illegal" argument is irrationnal, because it would be legal.

Also, I thought we were talking about what's morally right, not legaly...laws should be based on morals, not the other way around.

laws should be based on morals

Whose morals though?

Whose morals though?

Those of the majority, varying from one matter to another. At least that's what one of the ways.

And I am offended by your misquotation of me. Please unmisquote me as soon as possible. Otherwise, it's war.

Those of the majority, varying from one matter to another. At least that's what one of the ways.

And I am offended by your misquotation of me. Please unmisquote me as soon as possible. Otherwise, it's war.

My first thought was what misquoting, I quoted the part I was responding to, then I scrolled up and saw that I had cut the "L" off of laws. :(
Sorry, fixing...

My first thought was what misquoting, I quoted the part I was responding to, then I scrolled up and saw that I had cut the "L" off of laws. :(
Sorry, fixing...

I was kidding. Have a taco.

*sends taco through teleportation device*

I was kidding. Have a taco.

*sends taco through teleportation device*

*tries to scream as taco appears in mouth*
*chokes*
:mad:

In certain countries (U.S. I think?), it is legal to obtain food by stealing if you're starving. Your whole "it's illegal" argument is irrationnal, because it would be legal.

Also, I thought we were talking about what's morally right, not legaly...laws should be based on morals, not the other way around.
I was responding to the question about whether the man could obtain food legally.

But regardless, he could also obtain it without stealing it. Beggars get fed. Panhandlers have income.

But, ignoring even that, while I would probably steal food were I starving and I saw that as my only option, I would also defend my food from starving people who tried to steal it. I don't see either action as "wrong".

It depends. If he lives in a first world country and had every chance to earn it and just failed, then that's his problem. If he lives in some fascist communist state where his poverty isn't his fault, then sure.

sure he can steal some food why not?
everyone needs to eat he's just trying to stay alive.
Would be better if he asked for food, or failing that didn't nick anything else but food.
Don't see why he'd want to nick my food though, i doubt frozen pizza is even good for you.

Ask me and I'll always find a chore or two to do so that you can _earn_ your dinner. Steal from me and it may be the last time you try.

i'd say no why? well here is the deal. i or someone else (probably a lot of other people) work hard for thier food (i don't jet as i am still going to school and such but my time will come) and then the hard working and honest people will starve because some dumb idiots that apperently don't know the meaning of nature's rule survival of the fittist (or hoever you write that) and can't get a job and if you don't work no pay no pay no food and ofcourse there are exceptions like if a person is willing to work but no one has need of him at that moment then its a diffirent story. conclusion there are rules in nations like no stealing those rules are there for a reason and that is not to disregard them but to uphold them under any circumstance besides i have never heared about someone that wasn't somewere able to get food honest its alway's drug adicts that spend thier cash on drugs instead of food that do such a thing the rest is bullshit there is alway's a way to get food in a fair way most people (in such conditions) are just to stupid or to addicted to drugs to realize.

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving?
Only if they ask first. ;)

It depends. If he lives in a first world country and had every chance to earn it and just failed, then that's his problem. If he lives in some fascist communist state where his poverty isn't his fault, then sure.

umm i don't want to say hitler was good but his fascist comunity did brought germany back from total economical death (cuase ofcourse by no one else but the allies)
and usually the communistic countries have no freedom or lots of cash but they do have food on the table as long as they work and that is arranged by the state they alway's have jobs to be filled so communists and fascists usually don't have any crime because thier citizens don't need to see democracy isn't that bad if you work you get robbed and if you don't work you rob (ofcourse that is a little exaggerated but its simple to understand) don't get me wrong i wouldn't want to live in a fascist or communist country i am merely stating that such things only happen in what you reffer to as first world countries. and that is wrong as a country doesn't have to be democratic to be a first world nation it is just more common because of a much more free economy for private sectors and such. plus greater individual wealth thanks to higher minimum wages. get my point? :)

Question: Is it my food?

Little issue about this question:

Say that if this man did not steal food, he would die, yet if he stole Bann-ed's food, such a suicide mission would ultimately end in his death anyway

I think he would have more chance stealing food from a rabid wolverine

Another thread full of bullshit posts by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't bother to find out. :rolleyes:

FACT: It is already legal to steal food if you are starving. During the Katrina disaster, the governments of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the US publicly announced a reminder of this and informed the people trapped in the city that if they had to break into closed stores to get food, water or medicine, they would not be prosecuted, but that anyone who took things like tv's or new clothing, etc, would be stopped (possibly shot) as looters.

FACT: Refusing food or water to a starving person is against the law. A starving person could take it from you and be within their rights. The government could come and take surplus food and water away from you and redistribute it. In a disaster, hoarding more survival provisions than you need for yourself and denying it to others who are in obvious need is not considered okay.

FACT: Being homeless/poor and starving are two completely different things. Starving is the condition of being in imminent danger of death from lack of food and/or water. Just being poor =/= starving. Just being poor doesn't give anyone a license to steal. But starving most certainly does, because people are more important than property.

Whether you are "okay" with that or not is irrelevant. US law, other countries' laws, and international law have already decided this matter. The law (as well as ethics and morals) are on the side of the starving person.

This is true, and everyone should read this before posting.

First, some people seem to have misinterpreted my example. What I meant it... Well, now that I think about it, my example wan't exactly the best. What I meant was that unscruplous people who had perfectly fine jobs and houses could, instead of going to the grocery store and cheating the store out of a penny (Being the moraless slug that he is:p) he could go "Shopping" at your house. Like I said, now that I have some caffeine pumped into me, it dosn't seem to great.
Those of the majority, varying from one matter to another. At least that's what one of the ways
Ah, but what if the majority say it's okay to tie Bill Gates to a tree and beat him with a stick? Or, a more reasonable example would be that we're in another depression, and the majority say it's okay to go and loot a rich mans house? Just some food for thought. Or thought for food. Depends if you're starving or not :p

The answer is that because the action was taken in the direct interests of one's life, the action was amoral. This is a so called "lifeboat situation", you know, "if you were on the boat with one other person and there was only enough food for one person, would you kill him?" sort of thing. It is a situation that, with extremely exceptional purposes, does not exist in common human discourse. There can not be any morals when it comes to the protection of one's life; that is why it is permissible to kill someone in self-defense.

There are grey areas to this rule, of course, but for the most part, you can not ascribe morality to lifeboat situations.

On a practical level, I would question the traditional Dickersonian viewpoint that poor people are by nature starving. Most of the developed countries are fighting an obesity epidemic among their poorer classes, The United States WIC program was designed specifically to encourage poor mothers to buy healthy foods instead of junk food. Obesity is exploding among the poor and middle classes in up and coming countries like China and India. That is hardly condusive to the idea that people are so poor that they need to steal to survive. So I will not debate the merits of social programs for the underpriviliged because it is not relevent to the question.

Would I approve of a person stealing to survive? Only if it could be objectively and without a doubt proven that the person was facing imminent death.

Would you be okay (Legally) with someone stealing food from someone else if they were starving? If they were starving, and they can't get food from anyone by asking for it politely.

I say no, because why would anyone need to work? Well, most people want more in life than just food and not starve. Just because I think it's ok to steal food if you're starving (under above condition), that doesn't mean I'd be ok with someone stealing a TV, just because he otherwise he'd be deprived of Lost.

They could just steal, and although almost everybody wants more than just basic nesscesities, how would you prove anything?The same way you'd prove in any other case? Whether it is allowed in an emergency to steal food or not changes absolutely nothing about the burden of evidence in the case of stealing.

and killing them sounds like excessive to me....






[QUOTE]erm guns are already banned here. As in most developed countries.
You had a history of slavery since the founding of the Nation, America doesn't do that anymore- things being ingrained in culture does not make them permanent.

So Finland and Switzerland which each have a higher gun per person ratio than the US are not developed countries? I believe in Switzerland every adult Swiss male is required by law to own a gun and is issued one by the State if not already in possession of one.


And I don't mean that it will get them out of the hands of criminals- if you don't mind breaking the law, you can always get nearly anything if you really want, and have enough money. Plenty of people have guns in Britain. But not EVERYONE-

I'd have to re-check the CIA statistics. But I believe England where gun ownership is illegal still has a higher rate of fire-arm related crime than Finland and Switzerland. Which shows that smuggling still gets weapons into the hands of criminals in the UK and they still use them once in a blue moon (which leads me to presume it's a cultural issue, there is less crime in Finland and Switzerland as well, so one can assume there is less fire-arm related crime as well).


Sure, banning guns in America wouldn't get rid of them. Of course not. But it would mean that you would no longer EXPECT someone breaking into your home to have a gun, as petty criminals wouldn't own them. This means that shooting someone is no longer the first response. Which currently, I would assume it would have to be- you don't really wanna take second chances if you think they've probably got a gun on them- you're gonna draw first, as it were.

Weapons would simply be smuggled through the Mexican and Canadian borders. You'd solve nothing. You have any idea how many miles of borders the US possesses?

Meaning the only people you punish by illegalizing fire-arms are the law abiding citizens. Great job there. Keep weapons in the hands of criminals, but remove the ordinary people a means to defend themselves,...




Forcing a situation where the first response to a threat is to pull a gun seems like a situation where lots of people are going to get shot when the result COULD have been a stabbing, beating or just one of the people running away, most likely.

Yet the UK has how many more stabbings than the US? All you achieved was replace one means of murder with another. And quite seriously. If someone broke into your house with a knife would you be much better off without anything in your possession? Or would you be better off if you both possessed fire-arms?

That's like saying whether we'd be okay with a really, really angry man killing someone.

We judge the action, not the motives. Regardless of whether we steal to eat, steal to give to the poor or steal to build ourselves a mansion, we are stealing and there are lots of reasons why that's considered wrong.

I believe in Switzerland every adult Swiss male is required by law to own a gun and is issued one by the State if not already in possession of one. Seems a bit hard to believe. And it isn't mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland either.

Seems a bit hard to believe. And it isn't mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland either.
Most pro-gun people in the US would probably quite dislike the way it actually works in Switzerland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

That's like saying whether we'd be okay with a really, really angry man killing someone.

We judge the action, not the motives. Regardless of whether we steal to eat, steal to give to the poor or steal to build ourselves a mansion, we are stealing and there are lots of reasons why that's considered wrong.

We judge motives all the time. Killing a man cause you are angry at him is wrong. Killing to defend yourself or because he beats you all the time and killing him is the only means of escape, battered wive's syndrome, are both considered both seen as actions that shouldn't be punished.

In a situation in the western world where someone has to steal to stay alive, I imagine I'lll have larger concerns than petty theft.


That, or I'll be the one stealing food to stay alive.

We judge motives all the time. Killing a man cause you are angry at him is wrong. Killing to defend yourself or because he beats you all the time and killing him is the only means of escape, battered wive's syndrome, are both considered both seen as actions that shouldn't be punished.
Yeah, but those are reactions to something someone else is doing to you. This case of stealing would be the initial action and is therefore a little bit different.

Yeah, but those are reactions to something someone else is doing to you. This case of stealing would be the initial action and is therefore a little bit different.

Yes, but it does not mean we don't judge others based on their motives.

A starving man can always obtain food legally. He can ask for it.So then ask for = get?

On a practical level, I would question the traditional Dickersonian viewpoint that poor people are by nature starving. Most of the developed countries are fighting an obesity epidemic among their poorer classes, The United States WIC program was designed specifically to encourage poor mothers to buy healthy foods instead of junk food. Obesity is exploding among the poor and middle classes in up and coming countries like China and India. That is hardly condusive to the idea that people are so poor that they need to steal to survive.This is because inexpensive food is fattening, not necessarily because food is abundant.

Another thread full of bullshit posts by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't bother to find out. :rolleyes:

FACT: It is already legal to steal food if you are starving. During the Katrina disaster, the governments of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the US publicly announced a reminder of this and informed the people trapped in the city that if they had to break into closed stores to get food, water or medicine, they would not be prosecuted, but that anyone who took things like tv's or new clothing, etc, would be stopped (possibly shot) as looters.

FACT: Refusing food or water to a starving person is against the law. A starving person could take it from you and be within their rights. The government could come and take surplus food and water away from you and redistribute it. In a disaster, hoarding more survival provisions than you need for yourself and denying it to others who are in obvious need is not considered okay.

FACT: Being homeless/poor and starving are two completely different things. Starving is the condition of being in imminent danger of death from lack of food and/or water. Just being poor =/= starving. Just being poor doesn't give anyone a license to steal. But starving most certainly does, because people are more important than property.

Whether you are "okay" with that or not is irrelevant. US law, other countries' laws, and international law have already decided this matter. The law (as well as ethics and morals) are on the side of the starving person.
It's one thing to take food and supplies in a natural disaster, I'd like to see the section of the US Code that allows one to take food and water under any other circumstances. Not that I disagree about starvation being an emergency situation, but seeing "FACT:" preceding the statement doesn't convince me that it really is one.

It's one thing to take food and supplies in a natural disaster, I'd like to see the section of the US Code that allows one to take food and water under any other circumstances. Not that I disagree about starvation being an emergency situation, but seeing "FACT:" preceding the statement doesn't convince me that it really is one.

In starvation/emergency situations that are so dire that people have to fight for the food, the law usually goes out the window.

During the immediate aftermath of Katrina, the law effectively went out the window. So it's ludicrous to hold it up as an example of what is legal.

I'm more than happy to share, if it's possible to do so without risking the lives of myself and my family, who I have planned for and supplied.

Then again, if they just attempt to take it without asking, and do so by force, then legally, I'm within my rights to defend myself and my family, especially if the taking of food would result in starvation for myself or any member of my family.

Maybe I should put it this way.

I'm not unreasonable, and I have no problem sharing with people in a survival situation. Most survival situations in the US can probably be numbered in a short time period, before civilization returns.

If civilization has no chance of returning, that changes the equation for me. Then I'm going to look for what contribution (perhaps knowledge or a skill) the starving person can make after being fed.

And, if they just decide that it's not worth asking me, and just decide that it's better to kill me outright, then they'll get a group discount at the cemetary.

So then ask for = get?
Not necessarily, but the option is there.

If he tries to steal my food without first asking for my food, I'm not going to treat him kindly.

Not necessarily, but the option is there.

If he tries to steal my food without first asking for my food, I'm not going to treat him kindly.Sure, conceivably the option is there, but what if he's asked for food and nobody gave him any?

Sure, conceivably the option is there, but what if he's asked for food and nobody gave him any?
I have no doubt that only an insignificant part of the population in my part of the country would refuse aid to anyone near death. Shelter, food, medicine all would be offered unconditionally. It's an unlikely situation where someone in bad shape and near death would be refused aid.

Sure, conceivably the option is there, but what if he's asked for food and nobody gave him any?
Were I that guy, I'd probably steal food.

But were I someone with food, I'd try to stop him (even if he wasn't stealing my food).

Were I that guy, I'd probably steal food.

But were I someone with food, I'd try to stop him (even if he wasn't stealing my food).

What if the guy was malnurished and had rickets? would you still stop him?
Fooooood is nice, i think starving folks are allowed to nick food once in a while, sure it's not the right way to get food but everyone needs to eat.

I have no doubt that only an insignificant part of the population in my part of the country would refuse aid to anyone near death. Shelter, food, medicine all would be offered unconditionally. It's an unlikely situation where someone in bad shape and near death would be refused aid.

You are very optimistic about humanity. Sure I could see almost everyone giving up food, but shelter? If a person just walks right up to my door, I don't know them well enough to let them sleep in my house.

Click Stand;13529532']You are very optimistic about humanity. Sure I could see almost everyone giving up food, but shelter? If a person just walks right up to my door, I don't know them well enough to let them sleep in my house.
If you recall, the victims of Katrina were offered many places to stay by private citizens all over the region. Mainly the aid was intended to be temporary and for the immediate need, we ended up having someone we helped rent a house for a year before moving back to New Orleans.

I'd not be okay with the guy stealing food from me, or anyone else. I'd berate the guy for stealing food, and be generally mean spirited...until I suddenly reverse course, and give him the food, and ask him to, the next time he needs it, just ask for food.

I'd not be okay with the guy stealing food from me, or anyone else. I'd berate the guy for stealing food, and be generally mean spirited...until I suddenly reverse course, and give him the food, and ask him to, the next time he needs it, just ask for food.

So what you mean is, you'd like to forget the right that everyone has a right to eat and live, and replace it with a dehumanizing undignified 'flick a penny to the penny makes a rich man feel good' economic transaction? You provide the food, he gives you the moral and egotistical sensation.

I put forward that he has a right to cease that bread because ultimately as a worker he produced that bread, so it belongs to him in need as a product of his labor, or that of the working class.

That can be applied to society as a whole. The man who gives the bread in this instance is a social-parasite who forces the worker to produce the bread in order to survive, then the man rips off a little off the side and gives it too the worker as a wage (just so he can survive) and sells the majority of it for a profit, in order to employ more and more slave workers and increase production and his profit.

In capitalism social-parasitism and exploitation is regarded as 'innovative' while any workers who want the entirety of what they produced are regarded as 'thieves', but in reality it's the bourgeois who are the thieves, socialism is merely righting the wrong!

So what you mean is, you'd like to forget the right that everyone has a right to eat and live, and replace it with a dehumanizing undignified 'flick a penny to the penny makes a rich man feel good' economic transaction? You provide the food, he gives you the moral and egotistical sensation.

I put forward that he has a right to cease that bread because ultimately as a worker he produced that bread, so it belongs to him in need as a product of his labor, or that of the working class.

That can be applied to society as a whole. The man who gives the bread in this instance is a social-parasite who forces the worker to produce the bread in order to survive, then the man rips off a little off the side and gives it too the worker as a wage (just so he can survive) and sells the majority of it for a profit, in order to employ more and more slave workers and increase production and his profit.

In capitalism social-parasitism and exploitation is regarded as 'innovative' while any workers who want the entirety of what they produced are regarded as 'thieves', but in reality it's the bourgeois who are the thieves, socialism is merely righting the wrong!

How do you know he's a worker? If he was a worker he probably wouldn't be starving.

How do you know he's a worker? If he was a worker he probably wouldn't be starving.

In that case he's still a worker, except he is kept in an indefinite reserve pool of unemployment in order to exert pressure on the employed labor, in this case the 'work' of this man is begging for or taking bread to survive, and the labor is the effort extracted to acquire/produce this bread.

Naturally systematically capitalism will drive down the portion of the bread loaf so to speak that it gives the worker, reducing him to the degree of surviving barely on what a human needs for himself and his family to get by, I would encourage you to even look at many households in the US and first world and this is the case, let alone if you look at the third world.

The only actual structures in society that have proven to improve the lives of workers are socialistic in origin, while they may have been implemented in a capitalist system (ie New Deal) by an idealistic leader, they are in way only temporary, ie to reduce worker suffering to put the bourgeois out of danger. So what I am talking about are minimum wages, wage fixing, unionization, legal conditions and working rights etc. While structures in place in bourgeois society may improve the lives of workers, that doesn't change the fact that the system is systematically doomed.

So what you mean is, you'd like to forget the right that everyone has a right to eat and live, and replace it with a dehumanizing undignified 'flick a penny to the penny makes a rich man feel good' economic transaction? You provide the food, he gives you the moral and egotistical sensation.

I put forward that he has a right to cease that bread because ultimately as a worker he produced that bread, so it belongs to him in need as a product of his labor, or that of the working class.

That can be applied to society as a whole. The man who gives the bread in this instance is a social-parasite who forces the worker to produce the bread in order to survive, then the man rips off a little off the side and gives it too the worker as a wage (just so he can survive) and sells the majority of it for a profit, in order to employ more and more slave workers and increase production and his profit.

In capitalism social-parasitism and exploitation is regarded as 'innovative' while any workers who want the entirety of what they produced are regarded as 'thieves', but in reality it's the bourgeois who are the thieves, socialism is merely righting the wrong!

If the workers get the entirety of what they produce, then what do the managers get? They have to eat rocks, don't they?

If the workers get the entirety of what they produce, then what do the managers get? They have to eat rocks, don't they?

The petty-bourgeois, or managers, don't own capital anyways, they simply work the capital of the bourgeois proper above them for a salary. Given this salary is obviously more than average workers. But the answer to your question is no, socialism is about liquidation of class relationships, not people, and what defines class is a relationship to the means of production, and socialism is the eventual abolition of these relations. So in short the bourgeois would just become normal workers after they are expropriated, because they no longer have any control over such production.

If the workers get the entirety of what they produce, then what do the managers get? They have to eat rocks, don't they?The petty-bourgeois, or managers, don't own capital anyways, they simply work the capital of the bourgeois proper above them for a salary. Given this salary is obviously more than average workers. But the answer to your question is no, socialism is about liquidation of class relationships, not people, and what defines class is a relationship to the means of production, and socialism is the eventual abolition of these relations. So in short the bourgeois would just become normal workers after they are expropriated, because they no longer have any control over such production.

In other words, yes...

In other words, yes...

In other words, no actually. The bourgeois will become workers as soon as they are expropriated and will have free self-determination over the full value of the products of their labor, all they will not be free to do is use such labor appropriations to exploit other others from their freedom also.

In other words, no actually. The bourgeois will become workers as soon as they are expropriated and will have free self-determination over the full value of the products of their labor, all they will not be free to do is use such labor appropriations to exploit other others from their freedom also.

Relax, AP it was a joke.

It's one thing to take food and supplies in a natural disaster, I'd like to see the section of the US Code that allows one to take food and water under any other circumstances. Not that I disagree about starvation being an emergency situation, but seeing "FACT:" preceding the statement doesn't convince me that it really is one.

And you setting up strawmen and persistently refusing to acknowledge the difference between emergency and non-emergency and between starvation and just being poor, doesn't convince me that you (and some others in this thread) aren't just spinning bullshit for the sake of (yet again) copping a hostile and elitist attitude towards the poor

1) I never said that the law allows one to take food and water under ANY circumstances. In fact, I made clear that the opposite is the case -- the law only allows you to take food and water under dire emergency circumstances but does not allow it under normal circumstances.

2) I stated more than once that poverty =/= starvation. Poverty is a bad situation but not an immediately life-threatening condition. Starvation is an immediately life-threatening condition. You cavalierly pretending otherwise is meaningless and irrelevant.

The OP posits a STARVING man. According to the law, a STARVING man has every right to save his own life by taking food and water if he cannot get it by any other means. He doesn't have to have been poor before he started starving. In a disaster situation, the rich can run out of food and water just as easily as the poor, and they both have the same rights to save themselves. Address the OP and stop trying to make this into another of your "screw the poor" rants.

What Myrmidonisia would prefer I believe is making the 'starving man' an economic product so to speak, he needs food to live, and the 'compassionate' rich man gives him bread, the rich man feels good about himself and the poor man is fed. I mean I know libertarian views result in an unconsciousable unit mentality, but he takes it too a new level.

In that case he's still a worker, except he is kept in an indefinite reserve pool of unemployment in order to exert pressure on the employed labor, in this case the 'work' of this man is begging for or taking bread to survive, and the labor is the effort extracted to acquire/produce this bread
Good one! Wait, you're serious, aren't you?
Naturally systematically capitalism will drive down the portion of the bread loaf so to speak that it gives the worker, reducing him to the degree of surviving barely on what a human needs for himself and his family to get by, I would encourage you to even look at many households in the US and first world and this is the case, let alone if you look at the third world.

Explain the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and any other 20th or
21st century Communist country, and tell me who has more: The "oppressed" workers who have plenty of food and even luxury items, or those freed under Communism. And don't start talking about Capitalist myths:rolleyes: because that gets old after the 8th or 9th time you say that.

The only actual structures in society that have proven to improve the lives of workers are socialistic in origin, while they may have been implemented in a capitalist system (ie New Deal) by an idealistic leader, they are in way only temporary, ie to reduce worker suffering to put the bourgeois out of danger. So what I am talking about are minimum wages, wage fixing, unionization, legal conditions and working rights etc. While structures in place in bourgeois society may improve the lives of workers, that doesn't change the fact that the system is systematically doomed.

Explain the fall of the Soviet Union, the poor state NK is in, and why the US hasn't been utterly destroyed by our "Oppressed workers".

Morally? Sure. Legally, no. If I were a judge or someone else sworn to uphold the law, theft is theft and I can't allow that to happen. Now, if I were just an innocent bystander who saw it happen, you can be pretty damn sure I wouldn't tell anybody.

So why don't you offer him some food?

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." -- Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

Good one! Wait, you're serious, aren't you?


Explain the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and any other 20th or
21st century Communist country, and tell me who has more: The "oppressed" workers who have plenty of food and even luxury items, or those freed under Communism. And don't start talking about Capitalist myths:rolleyes: because that gets old after the 8th or 9th time you say that.



Explain the fall of the Soviet Union, the poor state NK is in, and why the US hasn't been utterly destroyed by our "Oppressed workers".

Sorry, did someone hear something?....

Sorry, did someone hear something?....

You ignored his statement, man...the Soviet Union DID fall...and there was a reason. It's historical fact so you can't just wave it away. We may disagree on the reasons for its failure but at least acknowledge the solid facts that are presented to you.

And you setting up strawmen and persistently refusing to acknowledge the difference between emergency and non-emergency and between starvation and just being poor, doesn't convince me that you (and some others in this thread) aren't just spinning bullshit for the sake of (yet again) copping a hostile and elitist attitude towards the poor

1) I never said that the law allows one to take food and water under ANY circumstances. In fact, I made clear that the opposite is the case -- the law only allows you to take food and water under dire emergency circumstances but does not allow it under normal circumstances.

2) I stated more than once that poverty =/= starvation. Poverty is a bad situation but not an immediately life-threatening condition. Starvation is an immediately life-threatening condition. You cavalierly pretending otherwise is meaningless and irrelevant.

The OP posits a STARVING man. According to the law, a STARVING man has every right to save his own life by taking food and water if he cannot get it by any other means. He doesn't have to have been poor before he started starving. In a disaster situation, the rich can run out of food and water just as easily as the poor, and they both have the same rights to save themselves. Address the OP and stop trying to make this into another of your "screw the poor" rants.
All I'm asking for is a reference to the part where you say "According to the law...". Is that too much? Apparently so.

You ignored his statement, man...the Soviet Union DID fall...and there was a reason. It's historical fact so you can't just wave it away. We may disagree on the reasons for its failure but at least acknowledge the solid facts that are presented to you.

What fell in 1991 was not socialism, it was a highly corrupt form of state corporatism akin to fascism, what Lenin and Stalin built in those turbulent years of class struggle and the war against fascism was quickly thrown away by revisionists like Khrushchev and Brezhnev who liberalized the economy and brought bourgeois mechanisms such as profiteering back into the economy, fueling an underground of black market gangsterist capitalism. The first dismantling of socialism came int 1957 at the CPSU conference.

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

All I'm asking for is a reference to the part where you say "According to the law...". Is that too much? Apparently so.
Another thread full of bullshit posts by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't bother to find out. :rolleyes:

FACT: It is already legal to steal food if you are starving. During the Katrina disaster, the governments of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the US publicly announced a reminder of this and informed the people trapped in the city that if they had to break into closed stores to get food, water or medicine, they would not be prosecuted, but that anyone who took things like tv's or new clothing, etc, would be stopped (possibly shot) as looters.

FACT: Refusing food or water to a starving person is against the law. A starving person could take it from you and be within their rights. The government could come and take surplus food and water away from you and redistribute it. In a disaster, hoarding more survival provisions than you need for yourself and denying it to others who are in obvious need is not considered okay.

FACT: Being homeless/poor and starving are two completely different things. Starving is the condition of being in imminent danger of death from lack of food and/or water. Just being poor =/= starving. Just being poor doesn't give anyone a license to steal. But starving most certainly does, because people are more important than property.

Whether you are "okay" with that or not is irrelevant. US law, other countries' laws, and international law have already decided this matter. The law (as well as ethics and morals) are on the side of the starving person.
Reading is fundamental, but I guess it's "too much to ask" of you, eh? I guess so, since you failed to notice the references to the law in my post, even though you were "responding" to it yourself. I use the word "responding" very loosely. You were really not responding to my statement at all, obviously, since you had no idea what was in it. Instead you just used it to try to prop up a strawman argument that I never made (and nobody else has, either).

I have been talking about the law (US and international) all along. Since the OP posited both a "starving" condition and a "legally okay" standard, the law in regard to starvation is what matters here.

Since the law (US, UN, many other countries' internal laws) already forgives stealing food in life-threatening hunger situations and since poverty =/= starvation, people's bitchy attitudes towards those who are generally less fortunate than them are 100% irrelevant to the topic.

The bourgeois will become workers.

In this day and age are you saying they don't work, well you can fool me, and how did they get there, once again according to you by not working. Well I will tell you what many of them had to work to rise up and get up to the top many of them were 'workers' or middle managers and their hard work and determination has allowed them to move up the 'system' rather than your ideal world where every one gets the same regardless of what you do yeah that's going to allow civilisation to progress

Reading is fundamental, but I guess it's "too much to ask" of you, eh? I guess so, since you failed to notice the references to the law in my post, even though you were "responding" to it yourself. I use the word "responding" very loosely. You were really not responding to my statement at all, obviously, since you had no idea what was in it. Instead you just used it to try to prop up a strawman argument that I never made (and nobody else has, either).

I have been talking about the law (US and international) all along. Since the OP posited both a "starving" condition and a "legally okay" standard, the law in regard to starvation is what matters here.

Since the law (US, UN, many other countries' internal laws) already forgives stealing food in life-threatening hunger situations and since poverty =/= starvation, people's bitchy attitudes towards those who are generally less fortunate than them are 100% irrelevant to the topic.

If this is true, then you shouldn't have a problem finding a real live reference in either the US Code or in case law. Right? Otherwise, these are just unfounded assertions.

In this day and age are you saying they don't work, well you can fool me, and how did they get there, once again according to you by not working. Well I will tell you what many of them had to work to rise up and get up to the top many of them were 'workers' or middle managers and their hard work and determination has allowed them to move up the 'system' rather than your ideal world where every one gets the same regardless of what you do yeah that's going to allow civilisation to progress
No, they are social retardants who leech off the labor value of workers, I simply wish workers to have the full value of their labor, you do not.

No, they are social retardants who leech off the labor value of workers, I simply wish workers to have the full value of their labor, you do not.

Again I can only respond with bwhahahaha.

Do you really belive that then?

Again I can only respond with bwhahahaha.

Do you really belive that then?

Apparently he seems to think people just magically granted manager status.
He completely ignores their contribution to the work force. Any effort, idea, or situation that doesn't fit with the Communist Manifesto is wrong to him.

If this is true, then you shouldn't have a problem finding a real live reference in either the US Code or in case law. Right? Otherwise, these are just unfounded assertions.
Bullshit, and you know it.

1) As usual with you, with your obvious errors exposed, you move the goal posts. First you respond to a post full of references to the law by demanding to see where I said "according to the law." With that error pointed out, you now want citations of specific laws. And what will you want after that -- personal visits from the judges and legislators to your house to attest to their own work?

2) I don't have to sift through the laws of the world for proof that it is legal for a person to save their own life for one simple reason: The default condition of all activities is legal. A thing is not illegal unless a law says so. So if you think it is not legal to take food if you are starving, you should be able to provide the laws that say so. If there are none, then it is legal. So basically, you are the one making an assertion -- that it is illegal -- and you should be the one providing proof by coming up with the laws that say people facing death by starvation will be prosecuted for theft if they take food/water without permission. At least you should be able to come up with some cases of starving people being prosecuted for feeding themselves.

3) To that end, I challenge you to show me one current law that says that a human being must be allowed to die from starvation/thirst in order to protect another person's property rights. And don't pull any bullshit about burglars making themselves sandwiches while they rob suburban homes. The OP topic is about STARVING people, so I expect you to find examples where people facing starvation are not allowed, by law, to get food.

4) I made mention that the law forbids denying a starving person food or water. In some countries, the law tries to force "good samaritan" behavior, but in most (including the US) it does not. But knowingly letting a person die of starvation/thirst while you withhold food/water which you could have given them, can be interpreted as murder or manslaughter if a prosecutor feels like trying, and those are illegal. Even you should know that. Furthermore, historically, in emergency situations like the rationing of WW2, hoarding was specifically illegal because without it, some would have prospered and been healthy while others would have starved or otherwise suffered. The emergency condition is what made the difference.

5) Do you really need to have the UN resolutions and treaties regarding human rights read to you to know that there is legal foundation for the assertion that access to food and water is a human right and that in cases of dire need (starvation) it is a human rights violation to deny such access? And do you need to be reminded that the US is bound by those resolutions and treaties because we are signatories to them?

I personally believe that the only reason you are arguing this is because you made a stupid mistake in not properly reading my post in the first place, and you just don't want to admit it, say "oops" and move on. But the more you argue, the more petty and ill-informed you make yourself look.

What if the guy was malnurished and had rickets? would you still stop him?
Fooooood is nice, i think starving folks are allowed to nick food once in a while, sure it's not the right way to get food but everyone needs to eat.
To survive, yes, everyone needs to eat. But, guaranteeing that everyone gets to eat leads to some pervense incentives I'd rather not create, so I'd rather withhold food from people who cannot acquire it themselves. That produces better outcomes overall.

For Myrmidonisia:

Just for you (but everyone can respond, of course), I did a few google searches. As I suspected, the topic is very, complex and directly on-point info is hard to find. However, I found the following that may be of interest to a person who is actually willing to read fully and with attention, analyze different sets of related information, and then apply some thought:

A) http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6879&context=expresso


A 50-page paper (on screen, not a pdf) on the subject of looting and law, by Stuart P. Green, L.B. Porterie Professor of Law, Louisiana State University.

In this, he begins from a controversy that surrounded some news photos taken during the Katrina disaster and goes on into an indepth discussion of US laws and the social and practical realities of looting. He draws lengthy and detailed discussions between what he calls "bad looting" and "good looting". He defines "good looting" as the kind that does relatively little damage to the victims who are stolen from but prevents massive damage that would otherwise happen to the looters (such as dying from lack of food, water, medicine or shelter). He outlines what he considers the inadequacy of many states' laws to deal with the practical and ethical drives behind looting and their sometimes failure to distinquish between "good" and "bad" (often treating professional criminals who exploit disasters the same as otherwise law-abiding people who steal just what they need to survive until help gets to them). He lays out his arguments for a legal standard for looting-specific laws, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with.

His footnotes are extensive and contain direct references to many legal sources. However, it contains precious few live links. But you should still be able to find what you want if you search for the references.

B) Human Rights Education Associates
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=145

This educational resource site outlines UN human rights/hunger rules and gives links to the relevant resolutions, treaties and agreements, making it clear that, under international law to which the US is a signatory, access to food and water is a human right, legally speaking.

So, with these two (not perfect but not bad, either) supportive examples, my argument is that there are some laws that specifically allow the stealing of food and water for survival in emergency situations, there are no laws making it illegal for people to take necessary action to preserve their own lives, and there are laws stating specifically that all humans have a legal right to access food and water, so therefore, it is already "legally okay" for a starving person to steal food/water if he has no other way of getting it in order to avoid imminent death. That has been my argument from the beginning.

"Legally okay" does not always equal "legal." It just means that the law will judge the act and the circumstances and decide what action to take, and in cases of dire necessity for survival the law is not going to prosecute a starving person for doing what they have to do to feed themselves. I maintain that it is legal to preserve your own life, but that does not mean that theft is legal. What it means is that, under the particular circumstances, the law deems the theft "okay" and will decline to prosecute the person who did it, provided the person ever gets found. In cases of widespread disaster, like Katrina, the law will likely not even investigate claims of theft of such things as small amounts of food and water beyond determining that they were more likely taken by people who needed them than by criminals exploiting the disaster for profit by theft.

I would prefer a system set up so the man wouldn't HAVE to steal food in the first place.

I would prefer a system set up so the man wouldn't HAVE to steal food in the first place.

That's the first thing you've ever said that I agree with. I may faint.:D

For Myrmidonisia:

Just for you...


Reading. Lot's of work on my part to prove your assertions. Good thing I like research.

and killing them sounds like excessive to me....

So Finland and Switzerland which each have a higher gun per person ratio than the US are not developed countries? I believe in Switzerland every adult Swiss male is required by law to own a gun and is issued one by the State if not already in possession of one.

You're right on that one, Switzerland has one of the highest firearm ownership ratios in the world.

Yet the UK has how many more stabbings than the US? All you achieved was replace one means of murder with another. And quite seriously. If someone broke into your house with a knife would you be much better off without anything in your possession? Or would you be better off if you both possessed fire-arms?
Actually...the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is almost 4 times higher than the UK. We do have a problem with stabbings, I'll admit though.

I'd have to re-check the CIA statistics. But I believe England where gun ownership is illegal still has a higher rate of fire-arm related crime than Finland and Switzerland. Which shows that smuggling still gets weapons into the hands of criminals in the UK and they still use them once in a blue moon (which leads me to presume it's a cultural issue, there is less crime in Finland and Switzerland as well, so one can assume there is less fire-arm related crime as well).

I'm afraid you're slightly off the mark there, England and Wales have the second lowest firearm homicide rate in the world (according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime) just behind Singapore. Whereas Switzerland is a fair bit below, they have similar statistics compared to Canada or Portugal. There isn't much of a difference in the homicide rates between Switzerland and the UK, either.
But lets not get into gun control on this thread.

Would I allow a starving person to steal? Well its a conundrum, I'd feel obligated to provide him/her with food, but if they broke into my home I'd maybe see things differently. Of course I would try and reason with them, "take what food you want" but I doubt that they'd be in a state where they would think clearly. They might attack me, in that case, I'd defend myself, starving hobo or no starving hobo.:sniper:

Reading. Lot's of work on my part to prove your assertions. Good thing I like research.

Read for your own pleasure. I have no expectation that you will drop your ridiculous argument, or that any argument you come back with will be any more on point than anything else you've said to me so far. After all, you started out by declaring that a post that referenced "the law" over and over had not referenced "the law," so clearly you don't read to comprehend what the writer was saying.

I look forward to your next, new, spiffed up strawman, but I'm unlikely to argue it -- especially if it's just a repeat of the one you already posted -- because:

-- You started with a strawman, trying to claim I made an argument I never made. My response to you is only to make it clear to other readers that you did that, and what my argument really is. I've done that, so I'm done, as far as I'm concerned.

-- I have laid out my argument in its entirety. Now it is up to people to decide whether they agree with me or not. I already know you disagree with it, but I personally think your counter-arguments are bunk and that I'm never going to shake you off them, so I'm not inclined to keep arguing those particular points.

-- Your arguments are OFF TOPIC because the OP is about starving people, not poor people in general. I will not engage in a thread hijack.

So unless you can show me that the law does not excuse the crime of theft if it interferes with the perfectly legal act of saving one's own life in an emergency, and unless you can come back with a response that is actually on topic for the thread, I have nothing more to say to you beyond what I've already said.

Read for your own pleasure. I have no expectation that you will drop your ridiculous argument, or that any argument you come back with will be any more on point than anything else you've said to me so far. After all, you started out by declaring that a post that referenced "the law" over and over had not referenced "the law," so clearly you don't read to comprehend what the writer was saying.

I look forward to your next, new, spiffed up strawman, but I'm unlikely to argue it -- especially if it's just a repeat of the one you already posted -- because:

-- You started with a strawman, trying to claim I made an argument I never made. My response to you is only to make it clear to other readers that you did that, and what my argument really is. I've done that, so I'm done, as far as I'm concerned.

-- I have laid out my argument in its entirety. Now it is up to people to decide whether they agree with me or not. I already know you disagree with it, but I personally think your counter-arguments are bunk and that I'm never going to shake you off them, so I'm not inclined to keep arguing those particular points.

-- Your arguments are OFF TOPIC because the OP is about starving people, not poor people in general. I will not engage in a thread hijack.

So unless you can show me that the law does not excuse the crime of theft if it interferes with the perfectly legal act of saving one's own life in an emergency, and unless you can come back with a response that is actually on topic for the thread, I have nothing more to say to you beyond what I've already said.
What in the world did I say that made you so mad? I've said very little in this thread. What I have said, more or less agrees with you. Talk about strawmen -- a term which I believe you have misused. But that's okay, most people do.

I would not be OK with it. Granted I would understand it, as it is natural instinct to extend your life, and food is required, however it is against the law, and if it was my food I'd hope the starving bastard was dealt with swiftly. I paid for it, he didn't.

I would not be OK with it. Granted I would understand it, as it is natural instinct to extend your life, and food is required, however it is against the law, and if it was my food I'd hope the starving bastard was dealt with swiftly. I paid for it, he didn't.According to what Muravyets has posted, it is legally okay for this to occur, so this means the "starving bastard" wouldn't be dealt with at all.

Apparently he seems to think people just magically granted manager status.
He completely ignores their contribution to the work force. Any effort, idea, or situation that doesn't fit with the Communist Manifesto is wrong to him.

On the contrary, the petty-bourgeois (managers etc) can in some cases be just as oppressed as some workers, petty-bourgeois are by definition people who are employed to maintain the capital (workers) of the bourgeois, and are paid a wage/salary to do so. I am not against coordination, just that any representative should be a worker themselves and be democratically elected with right of recall as a coordinator. The bourgeois proper are the ones I referred to as social parasites, they are the ones who own 'productive capital', as in they control a means of production which produces a 'need/s' of others, so they can extract profit from their capital (workers) who produce this product, which in turn the workers must buy back from the bourgeois to survive etc, a vicious circle etc, the workers produce a product, they receive a tiny sum of it's value as a wage, the bourgeois sell it back to the worker at an even greater profit. The tools of production you might add? And who do you think makes them? The workers of course.

Capitalism if you really put your mind to it makes no sense.

On the contrary, the [snip] (managers etc) can in some cases be just as oppressed as some workers, [snip] are by definition people who are employed to maintain the capital (workers) of the [snip], and are paid a wage/salary to do so. I am not against coordination, just that any representative should be a worker themselves and be democratically elected with right of recall as a coordinator. And by "democratically elected," you mean "handpicked by the CP, because they know best."The [snip] proper are the ones I referred to as social parasites, they are the ones who own 'productive capital', as in they control a means of production which produces a 'need/s' of others, so they can extract profit from their capital (workers) who produce this product, which in turn the workers must buy back from the [snip] to survive etc, a vicious circle etc, the workers produce a product, they receive a tiny sum of it's value as a wage, the [snip] sell it back to the worker at an even greater profit. The tools of production you might add? And who do you think makes them? The workers of course.This completely ignores the fact that someone had to pay for the means of production being errected in the first place, someone has to pay for the fix costs (such as electricity, rent, etc) and whatnot. It's usually the owner that's responsible for paying for all this, without which the workers would have no work in the first place.Capitalism if you really put your mind to it makes no sense.Indeed. Why would a Wookie want to live with the Ewoks in the first place?

Incidentally, you fucked up your Commie-catchword grammar again.

And by "democratically elected," you mean "handpicked by the CP, because they know best."This completely ignores the fact that someone had to pay for the means of production being errected in the first place, someone has to pay for the fix costs (such as electricity, rent, etc) and whatnot. It's usually the owner that's responsible for paying for all this, without which the workers would have no work in the first place.Indeed. Why would a Wookie want to live with the Ewoks in the first place?

Incidentally, you fucked up your Commie-catchword grammar again.
You essentially quoted alot but said nothing at all, certainly nothing which in any way diminishes my statement. Instead you rather strangely said something about 'paying costs', which makes no sense seeing as it's the workers who fix any problems in the infrastructure generally or tools of production, the and the money the bourgeois use to pay for such maintenance in the form of a wage commission to the worker to fix it is paid for by the bourgeois extracting profit from his capital (workers), so it's self-perpetuating.

Again, your emotion is showing, I can feel your anti-communist anger through my keyboard.

And by "democratically elected," you mean "handpicked by the CP, because they know best.

The Communist Party is the political expression of the economic power of the working class, just as conservative and libertarian parties are the political expression of bourgeois economic power, both exist to defend that class. You slander the Communist party, you slander the working class friend, all power to the workers.

You essentially quoted alot but said nothing at all, certainly nothing which in any way diminishes my statement. Define "democratic elections" then.
Instead you rather strangely said something about 'paying costs', which makes no sense seeing as it's the workers who fix any problems in the infrastructure generally or tools of production, the and the money the [snip] use to pay for such maintenance in the form of a wage commission to the worker to fix it is paid for by the [snip] extracting profit from his capital (workers), so it's self-perpetuating.Fix the grammar in that. As it stands, it makes no sense, linguistically. (and I don't just mean the abyssmal misuse of French words)
Again, your emotion is showing, I can feel your anti-communist anger through my keyboard.I don't oppose you because you're a communist. To believe that was my main motivation would be folly.

The Communist Party is the political expression of the economic power of the working class, just as conservative and libertarian parties are the political expression of bourgeois economic power, both exist to defend that class. You slander the Communist party, you slander the working class friend, all power to the workers.

All power to the workers? So that the workers can grow fat, rich and corrupt, no doubt.

The Communist Party is the political expression of the economic power of the working class, just as conservative and libertarian parties are the political expression of [snip] economic power, both exist to defend that class. Congratulations. Your French is improving. I'd still welcome it if you quit tossing it around like salt on potatoes.You slander the Communist party, you slander the working class friend, all power to the workers.Says who? The Communist party or the workers? Or is it what the workers would say, if they weren't acting against their interests or had a false conscioussness?

Define "democratic elections" then.

Voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, systems of appeal, and so on.

Fix the grammar in that. As it stands, it makes no sense, linguistically. (and I don't just mean the abyssmal misuse of French words)
I don't oppose you because you're a communist. To believe that was my main motivation would be folly.

Alright then, here it is, those who are paid to perform maintenance on the tools of production or infrastructure are workers also, and are paid a wage (in the form of a commission) to do such repair work. And what the bourgeois pay them is extracted profit from their capital (ie workers), your maintenance point makes no sense precisely because the bourgeois do not repair anything. Bourgeois 'money' isn't abstract and inherent to a certain individual, gifted at birth with 'money'. 'Money' or value is extracted through having workers produce something and then taking the majority of the value of that product and keeping it, while only giving the worker a strap of the value of what they produce.

Also, bourgeois is a word, if you don't understand it's full meaning in a Marxist conception then I suggest you use google.

Congratulations. Your French is improving. I'd still welcome it if you quit tossing it around like salt on potatoes.Says who? The Communist party or the workers? Or is it what the workers would say, if they weren't acting against their interests or had a false conscioussness?
Some workers do act against their own interests, but I would venture that number isn't so high, the majority of the support for capitalism comes from the conservative religious middle-lower classes and the petty-bourgeois.

As for the point of the Communist party and the workers, your trying to make things confused and more complicated than the truth of the matter. And the truth is, the interests of the bourgeois and the workers are irreconcilable, the State itself exists as a representation of this antagonistic contradiction, one class over the other. Simply put, the interest of the working class is too rule.

Voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, systems of appeal, and so on.Sounds more like the US and Western Europe than any communist countries out there.

Alright then, here it is, those who are paid to perform maintenance on the tools of production or infrastructure are workers also, and are paid a wage (in the form of a commission) to do such repair work. And what the [snip] pay them is extracted profit from their capital (ie workers), your maintenance point makes no sense precisely because the bourgeois do not repair anything. [Snip] 'money' isn't abstract and inherent to a certain individual, gifted at birth with 'money'. 'Money' or value is extracted through having workers produce something and then taking the majority of the value of that product and keeping it, while only giving the worker a strap of the value of what they produce. Of course they keep the majority value of the product. It goes to pay other workers for maintenance and whatnot or reinvest it in the company. Mayhap you are confusing profit and earnings. Profit tends to be much lower.
Also, [snip] is a word, if you don't understand it's full meaning in a Marxist conception then I suggest you use google.And I'm quite sick of it being used as spam. Also, I seriously suggest you look up the difference between adjectives and nouns, since you seem to show deficiencies in being to tell them apart.

Some workers do act against their own interests, but I would venture that number isn't so high, the majority of the support for capitalism comes from the conservative religious middle-lower classes and the [snip].Prove it.
As for the point of the Communist party and the workers, your trying to make things confused and more complicated than the truth of the matter. And the truth is, the interests of the [snip] and the workers are irreconcilable, the State itself exists as a representation of this antagonistic contradiction, one class over the other. Simply put, the interest of the working class is too rule.You're equating workers and working class. Prove that we live in a class society first.

Prove that we live in a class society first.

Heh there is no doubt about that one for anybody who lives in the UK.

You're equating workers and working class. Prove that we live in a class society first.
Look, I know it's hard to look at reality, but realizing that we live in a class society is as easy as opening your eyes.

Look, I know it's hard to look at reality, but realizing that we live in a class society is as easy as opening your eyes.I disagree. The stark division of society between Aristocracy, Citizenry (or "Bourgeoisie"), and Workers as it was the case in Marx's time has largely ceased to exist. The Citizenry and Workers have become intermingled and while there are still differences in status mainly due to pay, there is no real dividing line between the better off and the poor, more of a blur. Aristocracy has all but vanished in most of Europe, primarily due to the World Wars.

You may now prove that this is not the case, and that your argument, that we live in a class society, is true.

I disagree. The stark division of society between Aristocracy, Citizenry (or "Bourgeoisie"), and Workers as it was the case in Marx's time has largely ceased to exist. The Citizenry and Workers have become intermingled and while there are still differences in status mainly due to pay, there is no real dividing line between the better off and the poor, more of a blur. Aristocracy has all but vanished in most of Europe, primarily due to the World Wars.

You may now prove that this is not the case, and that your argument, that we live in a class society, is true.

If anything modern society has brought class into a more clearer light, and the fact that the vast majority of people are working people, who work for a wage. Your intellectually dishonest attempts to 'blur the line' are dangerously naive. The aristocracy was gobbled up into bourgeois society just as Marx predicted as industrialization advanced, and the landed peasants were soon the follow, what we have left today is a quasi-modern middle-lower class living in more rural areas, usually very religious, but soon enough they will be proletarianized. Your 'argument' fails firstly because you fail to even define between feudal society and bourgeois society, which if you claim to understand the 18th century you probably should. All I can calculate is that you know your wrong and are just playing this out.

If anything modern society has brought class into a more clearer light, and the fact that the vast majority of people are working people, who work for a wage. Your intellectually dishonest attempts to 'blur the line' are dangerously naive. The aristocracy was gobbled up into [snip] society just as Marx predicted as industrialization advanced, and the landed peasants were soon the follow, what we have left today is a quasi-modern middle-lower class living in more rural areas, usually very religious, but soon enough they will be proletarianized. Your 'argument' fails firstly because you fail to even define between feudal society and bourgeois society, which if you claim to understand the 18th century you probably should. All I can calculate is that you know your wrong and are just playing this out.You have no clue what you're talking about, do you?