What is your opinion if a group of people steals a supermarket to give food to poors?

depends

what would one think if their employees threw tea overboard in protest

really depends on the circumstances, during Katrina like event where people are starving, i would say it was ok... obviously were talking food and survival goods here, not big screen TV's


.

 

I will wait for the reason why they couldn't just raise the money and buy the goods like any reputable charity would have done. They could have bought a ton of food from the supermarkets biggest competitor which would have been a big wake up call for the supposed target. Most people aren't going to go out and steal food because someone else did however more people would be likely to spend their money at a competitors market instead. They just wasted a golden opportunity to make a big political point and instead alienated probably half the population. You might even end up with a backlash like here in the US with Chick Fil A.

 

I don't disagree, but would you say all these huge corporate hierarchial CEO-run entities such as Walmart or British Petroleum would exist without significant statist force?

 

You don't know they wouldn't exist. For all you know, the government is making it harder for them to do business.

 

A grocery store is not "hoarding food", they are selling it, as is their god (*)(*)(*)(*) right. Leftists need to wake up and realize that business people aren't satanic overlords but beneficial members of society and good members of the community.

 

So you envision a grocery store owner as being a sort of feudal lord ruling over vast tracts of land under the auspices of a kingly protectorate? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

 

errr..it'd be kinda hard for big wigs to lay claim to "their" mass means of production, land etc. without statist force. Private police that did not have to answer to The Public would result in mob rule. Now, our current police are horrid, but because they *don't* have to really reveal everything they do to the public. If police don't have to reveal everything they do to the public, then there's gonna be corruptness going on IMO.

Back to my other point. It requires sizable force of some kind for these big wigs to lay claim to "their" mass means of production, and this force is statist in nature. If it weren't statist, then the private police would not uphold society because they wouldn't, again, have to answer to The People.

Really, there's no way anyone can be in control of as much things as big wig CEOs are in control of, without a huge amount of force. Moral of the story

 

I'm not approving or condoning this action......this is a result of the economic chaos that Spain and the rest of European nations are facing ...it HAS HAPPENED in the past.

The U.S.A is going towards this path if they don't fix they economic and foreign policy(foreign aid. expanding troops overseas, building bases..ect)

 

They certainly could exist and might be even bigger and better in the absence of a nosy central government mucking things up all the time. That's not to say that big corporations cannot or do not benefit from big government but often times many successful corporations are big because they run a fine business, not because the government is propping them up.

 

No, more like the CEO's and other very economically powerful folks not being "feudalistic", but overly powerful. Same with The State.

As far as what I "envision", I envision a society dominated by small businesses for the most part, with sturdy anti-fraud laws that they must respond to, and little police/law corruption due to 1. not giving Law too much (often arbitrary) power, and 2. making it so they have to reveal everything they do to The People.

 

Their claims to property are protected by statist force..

 

How would you feel if that was YOUR supermarket?

Not so down with it huh.

 

It's just a freaking grocery store. They pay taxes for occupying the land they are on. What kind of privileges do you envision them receiving from the central government?

 

Quantify "small" and explain why a business should not get bigger than that.

Ever heard of an economy of scale? How would that be possible without "big" businesses?

 

That doesn't mean their property claims are necessarily illegitimate.

 

I'm talking about big time CEOs in general. Not small grocery store owners. But I think Big Farm is receiving a lot of privilege from the federal government. Humans would instead rely more on wheat products over corn if it weren't for heavy corn subsidies, in terms of carbohydrate intake, as an example result.

Also, I don't think that we should have The State legally "defend" (aggress using statist force and weapons) large amounts of say, land, and then tax said land. That's ridiculous and makes no sense. More like, not have The Corrupt State "defend" said land "ownership" in the first place, and also not forcibly tax it, at least not as much as currently.

 

It's not about that they "shouldn't" get bigger, but that The Free People would not generally allow it to happen because not enough Free People would care to defend the claims of property that these big wigs have, without The State, that is. With The State, yes there are people willing to defend these property claims, because there's money involved. There wouldn't be as much money involved without The State because of a couple reasons IMO.

Not advocating completely privatizing Law or the police, but I am advocating that we downsize it significantly or at least admit that without The State these bigger corporations wouldn't exist, thus also admitting that CEOs imposing whatever retarded rules on employees they want is not "liberty", among other things.

There is not necessarily any advantage to one person owning the jobs and financial security of a million people, over all of those individuals working independently and not responding to one individual. (Referring to CEOs for instance).

 

Depends, I assure you that Mercadona, the supermarket stolen, is not beneficial to society, the farmers are forced to sell their products in minimium prices that they almost cannot survive. The workers have really bad working conditions and there are many conflicts opened with the worker unions for that reason.

And moreover, the SAT is a worker union that knows really well the problem because many of them are day laborers, it is, workers in farms. This is the reality, and normally big corporations only benefit to themselves not to society. The harm that supermarkets are doing are worse than the benefits given to society.

 

Ah, moral relativism. The gateway to justifying absolutely anything you want.

How much someone has doesn't make stealing any less of a crime. If such an organization cares about the poor they should donate from their own wages, but they captivate the idea of the socialist left. In essence, something MUST be done - but at the rich guy's expense, not mine

 

They are real socialist. And no, they didn't steal, they expropiate to the one that has too much to give to the ones that they nothing have. Like Emma Goldman said: Ask work, if they don't give it, ask bread, if they don't give you neither bread neither work, take the bread.

 

Your economic ignorance won't change the sictionary to suit your needs.

 

Economic ignorance? Sorry I don't ignore how economy works. Because I know how it works I am anti-system

 

"Because the farmers are forced to sell their goods at mknimum prices and almost can't survive."

If their product was worth anything more than their sale price, they would have sold it elsewhere. No o.e waz FORCED to make a trade with the market, and the influence of the market on farmers lowers the price of food for consumers. Simply making the rich guy pay more than is reasonable - won't achieve any true growth. How about the looters getting jobs and becomkng productive members of society? Now THAT would be a contribution and increase the general welfare.

 

Again?! More concrete thinking?! It is theft. I don't think that is being debated. But it is more than just "theft." It is also a symbolic protest. You really need to brush up on these complex human interactions before those medical school interviews we've heard so much about. They are way tougher than this.

 

The looters are workers They work. That is what you don't understand.