This sums it up well.

[myrkul]

[1715314422]

1715314422

[1715314422]

1715314422

[LewiesMan]

Truer Words Were Never Spoken!

[Ekaros]

So how many coats the guy has and did he use slave labour?

[myrkul]

So how many coats the guy has and did he use slave labour?

Slave labor? Slavery is wrong.

But that aside, what difference does the number of coats the man owns make? If he has a lot of coats, does that make it OK, somehow, to steal one from him?

[Mike Christ]

If I'm rich enough to own more than one coat, I should be entitled to my coats.  I could have a hundred coats and it wouldn't matter; they're my coats, and I'll burn them if I wanted to.  Forcing me to be generous is not the way to go.  Force at all is not the way to go, and welfare, as is the case in all of politics, is just a band-aid on the actual issue at hand, being, a disproportionate amount of rich people and a disproportionate amount of poor.  Welfare only solidifies these two social classes, it doesn't get rid of them, and yet, do the rich give more coats than the average two-coat Joe?  It hurts two-coat Joe a lot more to give up a coat than it does me, the guy with a hundred flaming coats, 'cos fuck it, I don't need all these coats, and I already gave my "fair share" away, just like everyone else.

In other words, with welfare, we're trying to keep the two-coaters and the no-coaters poor by forcing the two-coaters to make proportionally huge donations to the no-coaters.  Now the one-coaters can more easily fall into being no-coaters and then we can say, "Hey bub, you look cold--would you like a free coat?"  And by then they'd forgotten why they had no coats to begin with.

[bitcryptonit]

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

[Lohoris]

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

the problem in capitalism is that if you have more money it is easier to make more money, while if you have to start from scratch you're doomed.

also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.

[deadweasel]

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

Why is that a problem?

[myrkul]

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

Well, that's a "problem" with the nature of reality. The more resources you have, the more options you have to increase those resources. Of course, that coin has an opposite side that hardly anyone ever actually looks at: The more resources you have, the easier it is to help your fellowman voluntarily. Think about it. Isn't it more likely that a man with 100 coats is going to hand over one without the gun in his face, than the man with only two?

That doesn't make stealing the coat from the man with 100 any better than stealing from the man with 2, and worse, it makes it counterproductive. It makes the man with 100 want to resist giving to the man with no coat, because it's being done by force.

[No 1]

The poor will depend on the system. No way around it when you're born in a mud hole and told you won't be shit EVER. Not saying this is always the case but I'm surely seen it with my own eyes.. Most people that start at the bottom stay there because:

1. their born into poverty
2. lack education
3. skill-less and unmotivated

The third being a direct effect of the previous.

[wachtwoord]

also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.

Abolish law?

[myrkul]

The poor will depend on the system. No way around it when you're born in a mud hole and told you won't be shit EVER. Not saying this is always the case but I'm surely seen it with my own eyes.. Most people that start at the bottom stay there because:

1. their born into poverty
2. lack education
3. skill-less and unmotivated

The third being a direct effect of the previous.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man a fish every day, he'll depend on your good graces to survive.

[oakpacific]

Not to mention that now that you force me to give away my coat to a poor guy, I may feel it justified to not care about other poor guys out there anymore. So if big nanny handles everything well, cool. If she messes things up, don't bother with me.

[Jutarul]

pic OP

Too much of a simplification. It doesn't discuss how the coat came into existence.

[myrkul]

pic OP

Too much of a simplification. It doesn't discuss how the coat came into existence.

Someone used a machine they owned, and thread and cloth that they owned, to make a coat. The man then bought the coat from that person (apparently as part of a suit, since it matches his pants).

Doesn't change the morality of any of the actions depicted.

[oakpacific]

Who should be in a place to judge if I accumulate my wealth morally? The majority? They used to believe being a Jewish is immoral.

[myrkul]

Who should be in a place to judge if I accumulate my wealth morally? The majority? They used to believe being a Jewish is immoral.

Yeah, deciding laws by majority decision is stupid. It's better to have a simple principle, that everyone can agree on, like, say, "No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud on another person or their property," and let people choose what other additional rules, if any, they want to live under, and who they would like to enforce those rules.

[FinShaggy]

That would make more sense if the first guy had 2 coats. Taxes take 10%-ish, not everything you have. And not even all of it goes to welfare.

[Mike Christ]

That would make more sense if the first guy had 2 coats. Taxes take 10%-ish, not everything you have. And not even all of it goes to welfare.

It makes sense as-is.  The man has a coat, possibly more coats at home, and he's being "relieved" of his coat for a man who doesn't have one.  It's politics in its purest form: rob Peter to pay Paul.

[FinShaggy]

We'll give the kids a coat (Education system)
Violent people or people who have been tricked get a coat (Military)
Politicians get coats (Public Service Salary)
Even Bankers get a coat (Bailouts)

But you're worried about the POOR guy getting a coat!?!?!??!?!?

Did you know most Wal Mart employees qualify for welfare? How bout you stop bitching at poor people, and tell Wal Mart to get THEIR employees off welfare. And they aren't the only ones.