Should you steal from the rich and give to the poor?

  • Stealing can be right in some circumstances

    Is that what if your starving and have no food no money and your neighbor is an successful apple farmer. You asked him for one but he will not give one to you. If you take one apple you wont starve and the farmer wont even notice. See? Its only positives

  • Yes their time is over

    In the world we live in many of the wealthy peoplw do not give back. Some do, especially those who are more modern millionares. But, politicians, banks and big business people do not give. They take and take and take. We are living in a world of monopolies and no one is doing anything about it. I say we take them down. Spread the wealth.

  • Yes, its good

    The poor people don’t have the money to pay medical attention,home,food or clothes.
    They are dying cause nobody give them money.
    It’s hard to live on the street and jus sleep on a bench in a park or something.
    I was in that situation.
    But now I have a home family and I’m great.

  • Yes. The rich should give.

    To become rich it is difficult thing if you don't exploit someone
    one-way another.Most rich people don't give back to the society.
    If you are rich, you have the opportunity to corrupt the system and
    become more rich while the poor becomes poorer. I strongly believed it is good to steal from the rich and give back to the poor, because it came from the poor since the poor will not steal and become rich while the rich becomes poor.

  • Robin Hood Argument

    This shows that he is not one to disrespect the poor instead give them the means to live, but he also has the willingness to go and take place in a event where he can easily be captured but is sneaky enough to shoot and not be caught; I would say he is a hero because even though he is stealing he is giving it to the people who have zero dollars and Can't eat or buy clothes. Being a hero is someone who takes time and patience out of their day to help people and participate in events that give money or a home to the people that have no house and no money.

    Now some people can argue that he isn't a hero; but even though he is giving to the poor that is someone's money who put their time and effort in work to be able to make that money, and their money could have been passed on to family who may not have had the money they had. Stealing is also not only wrong but you could be robbing from the people who don't have a lot of money and that's basically taking away someone's clothes or food.

  • Yes, but with boundaries

    It is good to steal from the rich to give to the poor. I think this because most rich people usually don't give back to people, or animals, and when someone steals from them to give to the poor it helps them live longer and prosper. As long as they don't steal too much to where the poor become the rich and the rich become poor. Like Robin Hood, he didn't steal too much for the rich too lose their lives and wealth. But he gave enough to the poor for them to be able to pay taxes and buy the things they need.

  • I'm saying yes, but I'm kinda in between.

    If you think about it, theft is theft. Giving is good, and the poor need more. I personally think that Robin Hood was a great hero, but back then the people were being increasingly taxed. I guess it depends on the circumstances. You don't want to do it at the wrong time.

  • Yes I do!

    I believe if your filthy rich you should give fifty percent of your income to charities. I, as much as anyone like nice fancy things, cute clothes, jewelry, etc. It is fine to splurge on yourself. It is another thing to spend all of your money on none sense drivel.

  • Yes, within certain constrictions.

    Obviously it can not be a law that people steal from the rich and give to the poor. On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable when people behave like Robin Hood and do this. They realize that a lot of the wealthy did not earn their wealth with hard work and intelligence but instead inherited it and had a big head start on most of the poor.

  • Not Fair at all

    The biggest question of all: Does the Compact require congressional approval? Supporters say no, Because states are given constitutional authority to appoint electors, And therefore the Compact does not threaten federal supremacy. Opponents say yes, Because the changes would affect the election of a federal official. Both sides agree on one thing: If the Compact hits 270 electoral votes, States not involved would surely file a joint lawsuit against the member states. This would guarantee a trip to the Supreme Court, Which would determine whether Congress has jurisdiction on the matter.

    None of this drama will unfold anytime soon. Koza’s project, He concedes, Is “a long, Hard haul” dotted with near-victories and lopsided defeats. He is 74 and hopes to see a national popular vote in his lifetime, But he knows it might take much longer. All his troops can do is take it one seminar at a time—buying steaks and margaritas and beachfront hotel suites for legislators and journalists—and presenting them, At the outset, With the most compelling argument of all.

    “We have 514, 000 elected officials in this country, ” Anuzis said in Panama. “And all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for one. ”

  • Of course not!

    That's completely unfair. Those rich people worked hard for their money only to have it taken away by hostile, jealous poorer individuals? These rich people actually worked their butts off to get where they are whilst these naggy poor people are too lazy to even get off the couch. Now I know that there are some lazy and mean rich folk out there. Don't get me wrong, but it is still wrong to take their money without their consent. It's this word called "STEALING" and stealing is never okay.

  • That would be very unfair

    The main reason people are poor is because they don't work and take advantage of welfare. This is wrong and they should not be given things free if they did not earn it. People are rich for a reason, so I don't see why they should give up their money for people who don't work as hard.

  • No it is not alright.

    The money you earn is your money whether you are rich or poor, you earned it and you get your money's worth out of what you worked for. For someone; a vigilante, modern day Robin Hood, even our own government, to suddenly decide that the rich have to much and the poor don't, and then take it upon themselves to even out the playing field (stealing from the rich to give to the poor) is unfair and unjust, even to the poor person who received the free, stolen, money. The rich lose what they worked so hard for and earned to indulge themselves with, and the poor are cheated out of the chance to earn that money for themselves. It creates a broken society, where the rich no longer want to work for money they can't keep, and then expect to be given it freely like all the other poor people. And yet there is no money to give them or those that were originally poor because the rich people stopped working. Why work if its going to be stolen anyway.
    Although this is a long term look, and from the poor person point of view, free money does sound promising and even heroic is some situations, this is the truth.
    Its never good to tell a person what to do what with their money, or talk about how unfair everything i, but instead stick with what you have. No need for vigilantes.

  • Robin Hood in my way of thinking is not a hero.

    The reason I say this is because sure he is giving to the poor but he is a thief, to the rich or the people who earned there money. And the poor are either drunkards or people that are to lazy to work for money. The poor should work for their money not let people do it for them.

  • Absolutely not at all

    STEALING from the rich. Yes, its stealing. The rich work hard for their money, something you imbeciles looking in don't know to do. And 50% to charities? What about the 40 some percent that goes to our corrupt government. It is their prerogative to be philanthropic or not. Most of the richest do donate, in fact. Its not an investment bankers fault if he has more expertise than a brick layer....

  • Absolutely not at all

    STEALING from the rich. Yes, its stealing. The rich work hard for their money, something you imbeciles looking in don't know to do. And 50% to charities? What about the 40 some percent that goes to our corrupt government. It is their prerogative to be philanthropic or not. Most of the richest do donate, in fact. Its not an investment bankers fault if he has more expertise than a brick layer....

  • No, the rich should give.

    No, you should not steal from the rich and give to the poor, because that is theft. It is better if the rich can demonstrate generosity by giving. Americans are the richest people on earth, and they are also the most generous. The rich are happy to help the poor if given the chance, but forced charity is not charity, it is theft.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.