I agree with almost everything you say. Unemployment is a condition practically exclusive of developed countries, in poor countries and in the third world there is no such thing, and to believe that someone is going to take responsibility for the fact that you think you don't get opportunities is completely meaningless.
Man is the one who creates the opportunities, nobody else, to believe that opportunities are relative to everything except oneself is the beginning of decadence; at some point the land of free men became the land of freedom, and then the land of freedom became a free country, and then the free country became a liberal state, and that's basically the transition towards slavery, when we externalize freedom. Men are no longer free but in a matter of the "freedom" that the rulers give them.
The same analogy we can make when talking about the "land of opportunities". The change is always subtle.
On the other hand, in the following we will have to disagree.
When an entire class of people have been kept from living a free and prosperous life, many of those people will start to steal what they need. It's not a matter of morals or ideals, it's simply cause and effect. If people in a poor area start dealing drugs despite the law and despite the threat of danger, why do you think that is? If there are no immediate opportunities to obtain basic needs and selling drugs pays 5 times the average job, guess what people are going to choose?
It seems to me that what is established in this part contradicts, in a certain way, the previously mentioned. Freedom is not something that is taken away, it is something that has been lost little by little and by consensus, people have voluntarily chosen to change their freedom for security, and only when freedom is lost to such a level that people begin to feel chained, is that the idea of freedom is again taken.
The theft or moral degradation has no justification. Since when to be in conditions of need gives the right to attack others? that is inconceivable.
Of course when there is a disconnection between the laws of the State and the morality of the people there will be chaos, robbery and misery, because one of the things that history has taught us with repeated evidences is that by simple laws you cannot govern men.
However, there are always opportunities for men who seek it, as in the same way freedom is always waiting to be taken, and those who choose to steal, kill, or do any immoral act to live, unless they are in a total state of savagery, they don't do it for "necessity", but for ease.
And thieves wear shoes, so it's never justified.
But as I said, in the rest, we agree. Good post. Regards!
It's not inconceivable at all. There's a plethora of maxims of law that deal with it: Criminal Intent.
Desperate people do desperate things. I don't think a jury of 12 will judge a desperate person the same as an unencumbered one. The same for Retards, Idiots and Ignorant alike. Intent defines the crime. If the person steals food because they're hungry its understandable and not considered unjustifiable, at all. The same for someone who has no opportunities but to be a criminal, no support structures, they aren't condemned as "inconceivable" because it's clearly a matter of products of the environment. There are several maxims of law that deal with necessity.
Necessity overrules the law.
Necessity makes that lawful which otherwise is not lawful.
Things which are tolerated on account of necessity ought not to be drawn into precedents.
https://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html
A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved of all.
All law has either been derived from the consent of the people, established by necessity, confirmed by custom, or of Divine Providence.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with what you say, in fact, that's why I specify:
When people enter a state of real need in which, almost, they stop being self-conscious.
But that is something that in the developed countries has little, very very little, existence. The poor in the United States or Europe are not even remotely comparable to poor people in Africa, Asia or Latin America. This is what I meant when I said that they had shoes, although I should have said "new shoes".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why do you think that's something developed countries have very very little of? Where do you gather the data because I imagine people do all kinds of things out of desperation and because it's necessary that otherwise would be inexcusable despite their social status or any distinctions of unreal, fake or faux vs real necessity, and while it's less likely that people die from hunger in a developed country, people in Africa don't really worry of dying from exposure in their own home because their gas or electric was shut off. People in Africa don't need good shoes or they lose their toes to frostbite.
You seem to think savagery is a a distinction that can be made by you as an outside observer but IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FUCK YOU SAY, pardon my french, Because it was never up for anyone to make that distinction of anyone else and it actually mean anything more than "cool story bro, you know I was there too and he was savaging with new shoes" aka opinion.
Needs, like needing good shoes or a warm place during the winter aren't up for debate or ever matters of opinion but a matter of surviving or life vs morbidity or death. Mild savagey or complete savagery doesn't matter, even being self conscious or not doesn't mean anything, all that matters is if it was necessary, or better, if they thought it necessary or otherwise considered it so.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do you think that people in poor countries don't have needs as well, don't also live in hostile environments, and even though they may not have winter in Africa, they may have other problems such as water shortages?
The difference is that people from developed countries got used to living on the state, subsidies, or the charity of others. They became dependents. How is it possible that someone, come into adulthood, does not have a shelter to protect themselves in winter if it is a cyclical event?
In poor countries this does not happen. That returning to the objective of the publication, is because they don't have such concepts as unemployment.
Of course it is up to us, to the "outside observers", to make such a distinction, and although you tried to contradict me, you gave me the reason to give, also, your opinion.
Only in a state of unconsciousness in which man can't discern between the good and the evil of his actions, is he justified, because he was incapable of doing anything else, but at the moment in which any person believes that he can subjectively decide when his "needs" are more important than those of others, then the whole society begins to collapse.
By the way you forget that those who steal for "needs" end up leaving other people unable to meet their needs. And I would bet every time that those who need more are the second and not the first.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There are many reasons why adults in a relatively developed country cannot have adequate shelters other than them "being dependent" as you theorize. Also, if you think that my comment said people in poor countries don't also have needs we can discuss that, but it really isn't about your theories or explanations or what you interpreted from my comment but about the fact that needs aren't up for debate and do justify acting in what otherwise would be considered wrong or immoral ways, regardless if one knows it's wrong or right at the time.
In poor countries just as in developed countries, people still have the same needs and those needs will be met one way or another.
If someone kidnapped your loved one, told you that you have to rob and steal and sell drugs or you'll never see them again, what jury do you think will convict that person of those things, maybe a jury of the victims themselves or their loved ones will come to unanimous guilty verdict, but even then there's a good chance someone will say that they'd do the same thing and it doesn't make it just to punish what had to be done.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If I, guiding myself through extortion, agreed to do wrong to others for "my needs," then I would become the same as the extortionist, and continue the cycle of aggression. Putting others also, who have nothing to do, in similar situations.
Is that justified? As a thief stole me years ago, I am "enabled" to rob other people?
Don't think I'm talking about judges and courts, if I were talking about the state, then again we should admit that most people in the world are free, because they have freedom guaranteed by law, or that everyone is democratic, simply because based on the law, only a handful of countries declare themselves non-democratic.
Of course we are all human, and we make mistakes, and we would probably do immoral action because of extortion, I will not even discuss that. But the case you are raising is truly exceptional, and it does not really represent the issue we are dealing with, because it would be misleading to classify an act out of extortion in the same way as an act out of necessity.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's a matter of life and death. Necessity, doing what you have to do to ensure your survival or your loved ones. You're under duress, you're under threat, you are not EVER going to become the same as the extortionist.
This doesn't follow at all. You claimed that only if you're unconscious when you're acting immoral does that excuse it, following and building from your previous claim that only complete absolute, total savagery excuses what is otherwise immoral, wrong or downright evil. I rebutted your claims, pointed out that law recognizes readily that necessity overrules law or in other words is an exception to the rule or justifies it, things which you claimed were unconscionable, inconceivable, and I then pointed out that if they consider it necessary then does it matter, that you have no right as to decree otherwise, that it's only your opinion, that you weren't there and to make that understood you were afforded an example of why such an exception can occur and it wasn't the only hypothetical offered besides the threat from others but also the threat from the elements and the need to have good shoes, and now, you're asserting that by following the orders of the ones who are threatening the life of your loved one you're becoming the same as the kidnappers and after the rhetorical question of following such orders you think that necessity is the same as doing something out of spite amounting to stranger revenge or better some weird victim entitlement to victimize strangers as they had been victimized. Necessity, that's what we are talking about. It's not really up for debate, it's not a matter of opinion, or right and wrong. There are no OPTIONS, you have no choice, and if you think you have a choice over your toes freezing or over doing whatever it takes to ensure the safety and wellbeing of your loved ones or think that 12 people are going to debate the level of savagery or the necessity of keeping your toes or your loved ones safe then please explain exactly why that is so and how, right after you break down how you think that following orders of kidnappers is the same as kidnapping.
You can speak of crimes but not of law? You know that law defines what crimes are. Whats more, I brought in maxims of law and spoke of jurors, not of state or freedom guaranteed by law or the democratic vs non democratic countries, and what rules maxims of law is Dignity, The Chiefest; Necessity; Natural Law, Grantor Of Dominion Law. Unless you have a problem with the underlying premises then we don't need to talk about anything else but what necessity is and what it isn't.
Theres no distinction between an act out of necessity and an act because of coercion or extortion. The same for remarking that they have shoes vs they have good shoes, it's clearly a mater of necessity to GET some good fucking shoes sometimes. Is that "extraordinary"? Will the person who robbed or beat up someone in order to keep his toes from falling off not KNOW that it's wrong to do that but why would that MATTER because it's way more imperative that he saves his toes, the same for someone stealing to keep a roof over their head and not die of exposure much the same as you would in a cardboard box. Theres no need for someone to know, or not to know if something they are about to do is wrong if they otherwise weren't in that situation, all that matters is if they think it is necessary, not if you think it is and what you think is only going to be opinion, a value judgment but you think that it matters even though the only distinction you can make is between two terrible things: lose your toes or hurt someone. I would consider you incredibly savage if you would rather lose your toes, much much much much more than I would consider someone who murdered someone else for their shoes!
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"But they wear shoes". Aka "let the eat shoes".
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My answer is in a new thread.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit