Nobody wants to be poor. Nobody wants to make people poor. Nobody wants to lose money. Losing money is bad. Because it makes you poor and being poor is bad.
Should the poor recive immunity for stealing goods or services?
Even poor people want 68 inch LCD TVs with surround sound stereo. Even poor people want a new sports car every year. Even poor people want mobile phones.
I'm not talking about stealing sustinence.
prepare for some nazi views:
HELL NO!!! why should poor people steal from rich people, who work hard for what they own? some people are simply better than others, for a rich person to work his way to sucess and riches and some lazy dropout to come in and steal it, is completely stupid!!
if this happened, everything would collapse. rioting, hyper inflation, collapse of society and the workplace
so i leave you with:
NO! Poor people should not receive immunity for stealing things. But then again neither should rich people. Just because you are rich and happen to be a friend of a powerful politician should NOT be allowed to givve you immunity.
I have not discovered such a profound question in a long time. This sophisticated discourse is exactly what our society needs.
Should the poor recive immunity for stealing goods?
Yes, but only to steel food to feed family or love ones. The problem is not with the poor but with the government failure to help the poor.
People that cannot afford to buy thier own meals and stuff should not be allowed to steal it. They should be able to obtain it another way...
They should not recieve immunity, but their sentences shouldn't be harsh.
From the state.........NO
For the random niceties, stealing has no excuse, whether the person commiting the crime is poor or not.
Stealing for a necessity such as food (and no candy/cakes/"junk food" don't count since they have little nutritional value anyway, nor does stealing then eating more of it than necessary to satiate yourself) I don't mind. It still isn't right but it's not something that would bother me (unless they stole a lot of it from me).
I voted No, because it is still wrong. Also, the owner of the stolen good would end up paying for it in the end, so it is unfair to retaillers.
no, but if they steal it should be more understood and reasonable than if a rich person steals. but it won't ever be, because a) that's not treating people equally, b) everyone has their own ideas of who is rich and who is not, c) the rich people are the ones who could organise this and the won't, because they generally [stereotyping, i know, i know] don't like poor people.
Stealing is the wrong thing to do, no matter if you are rich or poor.
But if you are given the choice either to die of starvation or steal something to eat, then I certainly would recommend stealing some food.
But I think a society that forces people to such a choice is not worth living in anyway. I mean I am no Socialist or even Communist, everybody should get what they work for. But for me the basic meaning of society is making sure that those with whatever disadvantage still have a chance to make a living. Maybe without CocaCola, TV and Internet but at least with a place to stay and something to eat.
First of all I did not even vote, because its futile and most would say NO! Definitions of crime: A crime is a violation of the law, of which the STATE may exact punishment (Gardiner and Lansdown) ; A crime is an act forbidden and made punishable by law (Donald Taft). SO by this you would see that even running a red light in the middle of the night with no other cars around is still a crime, even if it is victimless! People that are poor that steal to resell the items for foodARE still thieves!
Yes of course. If you require the basics of living and are unable to obtain them.
But I'm not really talking about the poor in Aus or US, but those such as starving in Africa.
Even in Aus or US if you are genuinely unable to get food and are genuinely hungry. But that is rare.
Not, however, for luxury items like big screen tvs etc. unless for example they sell it to buy a life-saving medicene or something.
In other words, if they are given a choice to die or have serious health consequences, then I see no immorality, but if they are just trying to get luxury items to keep up with current trends, then it isn't right, that is greed and envy pure and simple.
The law as it stands accepts point of death as a valid excuse to murder - it is called self-defence, but also there is a precident where people were stuck in a cave and they killed one member to eat, and it was found to be a valid defence, also if someone holds a gun to your head and says, kill that person or I will kill you, that is also a valid defence.
i don't see the difference between the two except murder is obviously far more serious than theft.
This is the reason for the dole.
I didn't vote in the poll though as there is no reasonable option.
I don't know. Whether rich or poor it just does not sit well if someone steals from someone else. Illegally. As of course one can argue that business is stealling from customers legally by increasing prices to cover theft. But to go into a shop and take something without paying for it, is wrong. Once immunity is provided, then guess who will suffer in the end. Probably the people who pay for their items as no doubt business owners will have to calculate in the increase in theft.
Stealing comes along with it some violence.
That's why I think it shouldn't be allowed.
Most of us are just selfish by nature and that what makes stealing dangerous.
GREED vs. THEFT = VIOLENCE
Cancel GREED and you will cancel THEFT and VIOLENCE.
Everyone should start by doing away with selfishness, then there wouldn't be any stealing.
But that's very much impossible, I think. People are born to be selfish in order to survive.
What I think that a government should do is to raise more TAX against the richer class and lower TAX for the poorer class. I think rich people are getting richer and richer while poor people are getting poorer and poorer. With the money that the rich people have, it's becoming easier for them to get wealthier and the poor people who don't have enough money to invest, it's more difficult for them
to strive in life and succeed.
Though this is also difficult because large investments are necessary to keep the country progressing. But the welfare of the poor should be in the highest priority. What is progress when there are people who are starving or living in poor standards.
The tax collected should be used for provisions for the poor like providing free high quality education for the poor. The poor people should have enough resources to use and capability to succeed in life. I think the key for a better country is to pull as many brains out from a well of determined people.
In short, if people have brains, nobody would be stealing. And I'm speaking with no exemption to people in the government. They don't have brains so they steal from the people's money.
As Jesus said, "Give a person a fish and you'll feed him for a day. But teach a person how to fish then he wouldn't be begging or stealing other people's fish".
I'm not so sure I can agree with that. Being poor is not just a case of not having money or a job. There are many people who aren't surviving society. You get those who are addicted to drugs who are living on the streets, you get children who have to fend for themselves during the afternoons when their parents are working, you get people who are bored and don't know what to do with themselves, drunks who are not really conscious of what they are doing. Somehow we all are probably responsible and we have to find a solution for fixing it. I don't think however that immunity will provide an answer. It will probably only make the problem worse.
They are not poor, they are miserable.
Being poor is when you don't have money or a job or starving or homeless or dirty wandering in the streets or having a poor parent or having no parent at all to feed you.
Being miserable is just not being satisfied and having no direction in life or don't know how to struggle against problems and emotions. No one can help them but themselves or support from their loved ones.
I don't think immunity is helpful either. It will only open up windows for violence.
No, just no. It would be too open to abuse, it renders people unequal in the eyes of the law, it would randomly harm others, it encourages laziness ...
Certainly there could be serious consequences, but that doesn't make it less moral. I think if your dependents are starving, the moral thing to do would be to steal, if you cannot find any other way.
Mitigate the consequences is the obvious answer, although I am not arguing this is easy.
Although violence often accompanies theft, I am not condoning that. I am arguing that the theft is moral under certain circumstances.
I think it follows that the right choice for society is to aim towards making sure there are no such people as to need to resort to this. It would be extremely hard for anyone in Australia to argue this is their circumstance.
I guess you're right, especially when you have a loved one who is severely sick and you need money to buy medicine or to pay hospital expenses. It would be the moral thing to do. Being poor shouldn't be an excuse if you really love the person. But he should be careful not to get caught though, you may not know if the person you are stealing from is carrying some weapon.
But I think it is the government's duty to avoid this kind of circumstances. The government should help when the poor gets into some emergency and there's nobody else to turn to. If the government can't do that then government is useless. The government should watch the welfare for those who are most vulnerable.
and I leave you with:
KILL PROFIT BASED SYSTEMS THAT REWARD GREED AND PUNISH HELPLESS PEOPLE
There's absolutely nothing wrong with socialism, or communism for that matter. Both are perfectly valid methods and work quite well in a lot of countries across the globe, and in others... not so much. Capitalism and Democracy are no different, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
The issue is when people get greedy and screw the systems up. Just because Russia did it wrong and they were our enemy in a war, doesn't make the system evil. Even though that's what the people controlling the money in a capitalistic system would love for you to think. If they convince everyone that it's evil, you won't think you want it, and thus a purely capitalistic system in which you are made to screw yourself is born.
That said, I don't think allowing theft is really any kind of answer. That's just asking for anarchy, and anarchy is a system in which the people within it will eventually no longer be in anarchy. People naturally look for a leader, or order, or structure, to their society. A system that starts as anarchy is bound to become a dictatorship before too long.
I'll leave you with this gem:
Trickle down is like poring water down some stairs. In theory some of it will reach the bottom, but when the people at the top start laying carpet on their stairs, the likelihood of seeing the water farther down becomes less and less.