There are 5 choices, 5 votes for LostPriest's debate

Robin Hood Theory

Robin Hood Theory

I propose a theory on life in the United States and all other capitalist venues. The rich grow richer and the poor get poorer, and so it will continue until feudalism once again recurs and a revolution consumes the globe, all misuses of power and oppression can be traced back to the wealthier 5% of the planet. I call it the Robin Theory and it has three parts that should be followed to better society and eventually, the world.

1. The top 1% in wealth amongst people control 74% of the total wealth in the world. So in order to return this percentage to something more reasonable I propose that we all steal and rip off large corporations and those wealthy people that exist as often as we can in whatever fashion each person can manage.

2. The wealthy stifle freedom, they are the people who invent political correctness, they flood Congress and all other important decision making committees. If we reduce the amount of wealth they have, thus reducing the amount of time they have to sit and dwell upon pointless topics we create a world where people are truly free and Congress does not legislate morality. This is most apparent when a man looks to the public smoking bans, and the laws restricting free speech to choice words.

3. While attempting to steal from and manipulate the capitalist system remember there are people who have greater need for what you are stealing. So I say if you say steal clothes then donate a good part of them to Goodwill, if you steal food donate it to a homeless shelter or to a homeless person, this is called philanthropy, its lack in the wealthy is what prompted my theorys origination. So show some love and give what you steal to those who need it, even if its yourself.

Thank you and good night
  • It is my theory and I kind of like it
    I definitely agree that this should be done being as how I came up with the idea. I do think that opposing viewpoints better illustrate flaws allowing for the thier remedy thus I invite all to state as harsh an opinion as they can. I promise I won't cry.
    Voted for by LostPriest.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • problems
    in 1.: you steal and rip off - they produce counter measures. 1. raise the prices so that us honest people have to pay through our teeth for simple things. 2. they start arming their drivers, - people start dying. 3. by trying to rip some big people off, you start dealing with the government - worst case senario - martial law. guys with rifles walking the streets - shoot first as questions later, and curfews.

    2. boycotting the government will only let the president use his little ablility to remain in office indefinately until matters are resolved.
    side notes on 2. Smoking Ban in public places. what? the government isnt allowed to care about a non-smokers health? that smokers can endanger those around them just cause they decide to smoke? limit of public speech with choice words... so people should be allowed to go around calling people f-word (horrid gay slang) and the n-word? is it wrong for the government to want to protect its minorities??

    3. sure, sounds good, but one flaw. police will start staking out such places and busting the merchendise before it gets to these needy people.

    in theory, it sounds like a good idea, but in Robin Hood's time, people didnt have guns, or technology in which the police can use against him and his merry men.
    Voted for by Kazrith.
    View 5 comments
  • :

  • Your theory is flawed
    Your theory of social progression is interesting. Compared to Marx it seems to operate in reverse. However ill-feeling towards capitalism is at an all time low.

    Please show me the source about 1% controlling 74% of wealth because, plainly I don't believe you...

    The Economist Adam smith pointed out that the very idea of taking from the rich to give to the poor would be flawed andd unworkable due to the administration required consuming much of the funds and the viscous repression that would ensue.

    Actually the wealthy as a proportion are far more philanthropic than less affluent people. This increases the higher you go up.

    In reality you argue little more than basic socialism, which is likely to have little support, due to the fact that you have not incorporated the political processes necessary to use such an economic policy. Without the support of the Government you would likely be put in jail.
    Voted for by petethemeat.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • flaws....
    Capitalism has its flaw, just as its extreme Communism had its. These economic systems will be eventually corrected by men
    Voted for by Jackymania.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Good answer Kazrith
    The only worthwhile debate here, is the first part of side note. I think you covered the rest quite nicely Kaz.

    "side notes on 2. Smoking Ban in public places. what? the government isnt allowed to care about a non-smokers health? that smokers can endanger those around them just cause they decide to smoke? limit of public speech with choice words... so people should be allowed to go around calling people f-word (horrid gay slang) and the n-word? is it wrong for the government to want to protect its minorities??"

    I would rather see them solve the bigger issues first. Let's see them ban fossil fuels for public use? I believe this would do more for our health and the weather, enviroment, etc. Which in turn doubley helps the farmers who can grow grains for fuel sources and have better world to do it in. Long Term, this is the best answer.
    Short term, we can ban public smoking, but that still doesn't resolve the cows world-wide, that fart more methane into the air than any other mammals.

    Why ban smoking in clubs and lounges?? THis is absurdity in black and white. Folks can go out and get trashed to an unhealthy level, all the while they shouldn't smoke because the drunk guy next to them may die of cancer before his liver gives out?
    There should be a claus in these bans. Have heard that some organizations are exempt; lodges(Moose, Elks, Veterans FW, etc.)
    I'll agree, smoking in Malls, cinemas, restaraunts and such, can be different, becuase of age and consent.

    I still believe the owners of these establishments, should have a say and could purchase a permit of exemption, which in turn re-imburses the local government to enforce the ban where smoking is not legal or permitted.
    Voted for by frndofyaweh.
    View 2 comments
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →