CokedUpHobit64 said:

A company is a business enterprise based on the concept of earning profit for sales.  We have enough technology and resources at our disposal to equip everyone in the U.S. with every basic resource that they require and become self sufficient through natural sources of energy.

If everyone has access to everything they need, the desire to take something from another person is void, considering they have the same access to whatever that may be.  We desire to steal because people have better things than us.  Better computers, better cars, better anything.  You have to realize that the only incentive we have for getting the latest and greatest whatever out their is money value and marketing. 

Money is not necessary at this time in our civilization,its just an illusion created for people to set themselves higher up on the social totem pole than others.

---

CokedUpHobit64 said:

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism.  They all might have been a relevant option at one time, but they are now obsolete.

---

Quote:

MisterMuscaria said: The last thing I yoinked was a jar of olives, and that was because I was drunk.

---

The Cypher said:

Quote:

MisterMuscaria said: The last thing I yoinked was a jar of olives, and that was because I was drunk.

---

What the hell, man.  If anyone ever stole my olives during a party I'd beat him to death with the jar.

---

CokedUpHobit64 said:

Being hardwired to steal is just bullshit.  Yes, one of the things that defines us as humans is a yearning to need more.  But once our materialistic needs are met, we use that desire to create and share what we create.  If we were provided with everything material we needed, which is entirely possible, we would use our discontent to achieve amazing positive things.  Because of our monetary system, we substitute learning and creating with stealing and competition.

I think technology is one of the greatest things humans have created.  We've reached the point were machines can create half of the things we use everyday.  I'm not saying theirs a need to leave technology behind, but make it widely available like it should be for everyone to use.  The only reason this isn't the case is because of others need for profit and competition.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but its not impossible to achieve a complete egalitarian society.  Just the fact that others are thinking along this same line of thought shows that we aren't hard wired to behave in a competitive capitalist society.  It might be how things are, but it is completely unnecessary.  The only reason we're living like this is because their hasn't been enough people to rebel against this type of system.

---

Brugman said:

Wow, just wow. If you want to know what's wrong with the American dream, look at WhiskeyClone's posts.

---

WhiskeyClone said:

If you don't have as much money as you think you deserve, it's probably your fault.

---

Quote:

The majority of social scientists believe that income inequality currently poses a problem for American society with Alan Greenspan stating it to be a "very disturbing trend."[3][4]

---

Quote:

A 2004 poll of 1,000 economists showed that the majority of economists favor "redistribution."[6] A study by the Southern Economic Journal found that "71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government."[7]

---

Quote:

Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[8][9][10][11][12] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.[13][14] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[15] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.[16]

---

Quote:

As I've often said... this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing. - Alan Greenspan, June 2005

---

Quote:

The data revealed that reported income increased by 9% in 2005, with the mean for the top 1% increasing by 14% and that for the bottom 90% dropping slightly by 0.6%.[11]

---

Quote:

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.

---

Quote:

Economists Timothy Smeeding summed up the current trend of rising inequality on the pages of the Social Science Quarterly:[21]

Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution.

---

Quote:

..many social scientists, such as economists Paul Krugman and Timothy Smeeding and political scientist Larry Bartels, point to public policy as the main cause of inequality. They point out that education cannot be the cause of the widening gap between the top 1% and everyone else, including well-educated professionals, and that the U.S. is unique in having experienced such a rise in inequality - a trend that, if caused by education, would have manifested itself in other developed nations.[23][24][21]

---

Quote:

According to Gini coefficient data, income inequality in the U.S., already among the highest in the post-industrial world,[15] has risen considerably between 1967 and 2005 among households[39] and individuals.[40]

---

all quotes taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

you wanna see something even more Fucked up?



The wide income discrepancies within the top 1.5% of households [in the US].

Quote:

Today there are approximately 146,000 (0.1%) households with incomes exceeding $1,500,000, while the top 0.01% or 11,000 households had incomes exceeding $5,500,000. The 400 highest tax payers in the nation had gross annual household incomes exceeding $87,000,000. Household incomes for this group have risen more dramatically than for any other. As a result the gap between those who make less than one and half million dollars annually (99.9% of households) and those who make more (0.1%) has been steadily increasing, prompting The New York Times to proclaim that the "Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind." Indeed the income disparities within the top 1.5% are quite drastic. While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are relatively poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are relatively poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households.[37]

---

Quote:

Do the problems inherent in the US system justify shoplifting?  Yes or no?  If yes, how so?

---

Quote:

Quote:

Do the problems inherent in the US system justify shoplifting?  Yes or no?  If yes, how so?

---

i have another answer for this, theft without causation is unjust, however, stealing that which has been stolen from you (ex. money in the form of material goods) is justified, so, in this context, 2 wrongs do make a right, another example would be that if someone stole my wallet, i would be justified in stealing the wallet back.

---

Quote:

You could rationalize any crime against any wealthy person this way.

---

Quote:

If other people have more money than you, it does not mean they stole it from you.  Having money is not a crime, sorry.  Not in a free country anyway.

---

Quote:

my point has always been that theft is not justified simply because the victims have more money than the perpetrators.

---