4 ms·
I'm not implying this, but there is no way that one guy should have hundreds of billions and the next person should have zilch and starve. The only thing that p
by bamboozled 3y ago
I'm not implying this, but there is no way that one guy should have hundreds of billions and the next person should have zilch and starve. The only thing that protects such an unfair system is the law. If those enforcing the law are poor enough, they will take what they require. So they should IMO.
- latency-guy2 3y ago> I'm not implying this > If those enforcing the law are poor enough, they will take what they require. So they should IMO. I guess we'll never know what words mean.
- bamboozled 3y agoPeople have been forced to eat other people in dire situations. If a lot of people got into a situation like that, they will take what they need through whatever means necessary. That is what it means. No need to pretend I'm saying all humans are criminals, but it's how it is. If inequality gets to the stage where there was 1 million starving people, or a billionaire who owns a lot of farm land with food on it, I'm pretty sure the 1 million are going to take some of the farm land and food. Maybe all of it. Is it the starving, or the one who does not share the actual criminal? The law should be enforced but if things became severely skewed towards protecting a few and letting the rest suffer, then I think the law needs to be adapted. Maybe through taxation or something else. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?