<p>It is, there will always be the haves and the have nots. The have nots can work hard and become the haves. Hard work (in America) can lead to great success. In other parts of the world that are not yet democracies not so much.
At any point. A lot of the rich worked hard to earn what they have. It isn’t right for anyone to take that away from someone because one day they could very well be in that position. With that being said the rich have an obligation to give back. Whether that be through charity or creating well paying jobs is up to them.</p>
<p>But who gets to decide who is rich and who’s poor? Why do you get to say who has enough? Is that anyone who has more than you? They’ve worked for their luxuries, and it isn’t your right to just take it from them. I agree with bandgeek.</p>
<p>How can you just make a blanket statement saying the rich worked for their luxuries, when over 50% of the wealthy in this country inherited family fortunes?</p>
<p>
Then what about them? Say we have a choice: we can steal a few million dollars from a billionaire, and use it to feed thousands of starving children, or we could not steal, and let those children die. What would you do?</p>
<p>I agree that starvation is terrible, but it is still not my money to give. If it was mine, I’d agree with you in an instant. But I honestly don’t feel that it’s my place to tell someone what they have to do with their money — inherited or not. Is it right? Nope, but it’s freedom. If everything was equal, we would be a socialized nation rather than a democratic one…and I prefer the democracy.</p>
<p>
Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive; it is capitalism that would be precluded.</p>
<p>So, let me get this straight? You’d let millions of children starve to death, if you could have stolen from billionaires to feed them, simply on the principle that you think the rich should be allowed to be rich?</p>
<p>Economic principles make people say funny things.</p>
<p>I wonder what the billions of human poor would say…</p>
<p>Hmm… :?</p>
<p>10char</p>
<p>It isn’t anyone’s fault in particular that there are people starving to death around the world. The rich do give millions and millions to charity to feed the hungry. The money usually gets lost in bureaucracy or stolen by corruption. Look at the famine in Somalia or the troubles in Hati, so much of the aid money isn’t being used to aid. Greedy corrupt governments are a bad thing. I’m so happy that the Middle East is finally demanding democracy, and I can’t wait until everyone gets to live in a free country. </p>
<p>Where are you getting over 50% of the rich inherited their fortunes?
Even people who inherit money have to work somehow. Money doesn’t last forever if all you do is spend and never get back.</p>
<p>
Actually, it is the fault of neo-colonial capitalism, which is controlled by the rich, no?</p>
<p>
Some of them. But it’s not enough. They have so much that not everyone else can have enough, yet giving back small amounts makes it better?</p>
<p>
Hence why charity is inadequate.</p>
<p>
Page 40: <a href=“http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/16-4/765-841.PDF[/url]”>http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/16-4/765-841.PDF</a></p>
<p>Not that it’s relevant. Even if someone “works” to do something wrong, it doesn’t make it right.</p>
<p>So, now that you’ve sufficiently dodged around the issue, would you like to answer the question? When given the choice of stealing from billionaires or letting millions of children starve, suffer, and die, which do you choose?</p>
<p>What a rich man does with his money is not the business of the poor man (or the working man), though the poor man may use his own money to save his neighbor. Most people in the world do things only to benefit themselves. If a rich man doesn’t want to give money to the poor, it is because it won’t benefit him in any way, and it’s not our place to take that money from him, even to benefit the poor and starving. If the poor steal it by their own accord, they’re doing it to benefit themselves. Is it right? Probably not. But a lot of things aren’t “morally right” and we do them anyway. I feel like most problems in the world would be solved if everyone just started to treat each other with kindness.</p>
<p>
So your answer is, “Yes, let the children starve.” Nice.</p>
<p>Did you expect me to say no? We’re all going to have conflicting opinions, of course.</p>
<p>When someone gives millions and millions of dollars it is enough. They shouldn’t have to give up all the money they’ve worked hard for when they give a lot. (This really only applies to America and similar countries, there are countries that the rich don’t give at all and it causes many to suffer)
I wouldn’t steal from them. It isn’t my right, I am ok with people stealing food for themselves when they have no other options. Stealing other people’s money even when the intention of it is good is wrong.
“Thou shall not steal.”
Playing on emotions doesn’t change the fact that stealing is wrong.
Charity does work when corruption isn’t rampant. In the US aid for disasters usually works quite well.</p>
<p>
Please do not tell me you’re trying to pull religion here. Because, honestly, I’ll pull a bunch of Bible passages condemning the rich to hell and saying people should do everything they can to help the poor.</p>
<p>
Why is stealing wrong? Why do the rich have the right to have so much?</p>
<p>
I just expect people to care about their fellow human beings. But I suppose that’s a mistake.</p>
<p>I do care about human beings. But there’s only so much we can do for each other.</p>
<p>I’m not going to say I’m not pulling religion because technically I am. The bible has never said anywhere “Steal from the rich.” It does condemn the rich and it does say help the poor but it doesn’t say steal from the rich. It also preaches love and forgiveness. One of the apostles, Matthew was rich and changed to help the poor so it doesn’t just condemn rich, it shows that they can change and be good. Matthew certainly is not in hell right now and if he is, help the rest of us.
Well for one Judaism, Christianity, Islam and most major religions say stealing is wrong. It’s not right to have double standards stealing from the rich is ok if you are going to feed the poor because once you get down to it most people steal for selfish reasons. </p>
<p>(I’m pretty sure at some point a moderator might delete this because of all the religion.)</p>
<p>
The words of someone who has never gone truly hungry.</p>
<p>
Hm, so the rich can only be good after they have stopped being rich? Sounds about right.</p>
<p>
Like feeding the starving?</p>
<p>I don’t know. I’m not god (or any higher power) so I can’t judge. I can say there are rich people who do good things for humanity and there are rich people who do bad things. Whether or not they are ‘good’ is not my place to judge.
No like getting more drugs or alcohol or a nicer car. (mostly drugs)
I’ve never heard of one real modern person who actually stole from the rich to help the poor.</p>