Destroying produce rather than giving it away: rationale?

[Lumpy]

There's an incident in The Grapes of Wrath where fruit growers, faced with a harvest they can't sell, burn the excess rather than give it away to the hungry poor. The book portrays this as sheer heartless greedy capitalism: saying in effect (not a direct quote) 'I'll be damned if I give my fruit away for nothing'. Is it that simple, or did the fruit growers have a rational reason to do this? It would hardly be the case that they'd be driving down the already low wholesale prices by letting people who couldn't afford the fruit at all have the excess. Nowadays giving away excess food is considered good public relations.

[Mosier]

Are people entitled to what you own by virtue of being poor?

Nowadays is no different. Nothing is free. The rationale for burning the food is "fuck you, it's mine and I'll do what I want with it" and doesn't necessarily have to go any deeper than that.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Are people entitled to what you own by virtue of being poor?

Nowadays is no different. Nothing is free. The rationale for burning the food is "fuck you, it's mine and I'll do what I want with it" and doesn't necessarily have to go any deeper than that.

And then why shouldn't the poor simply rob you or someone else to get what they want ? After all, if ethics and compassion don't matter, and all you're supposed to do is look out for number one, why not ?

Or is this supposed to be a one way version of sociopathy ? The better off should have no problem with letting the less fortunate starve, and the poor should just respect their property rights, because they are more important than human life ?

[ParentalAdvisory]

So don't work for it, just take it.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

So don't work for it, just take it.

If ethics or compassion doesn't matter, why not ?

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Are people entitled to what you own by virtue of being poor?

Nowadays is no different. Nothing is free. The rationale for burning the food is "fuck you, it's mine and I'll do what I want with it" and doesn't necessarily have to go any deeper than that.

Nowadays IS different. From the Great Depression. People were destitute and starving and desperate just for food to feed their families. There are times, when times are so bad that even rich have to break down and feign compassion. Simply because it's the right thing to do.


EDIT: Jesus Christ! I can't believe the callousness of today's generation!

[Leaper]

Is there any evidence that this actually happened, with this rationale, outside of a novel?

Anyway, while I suppose the farmers could've just stood on a corner in a poor town and given the stuff away, I imagine that back in the era the novel was set in, distribution methods weren't very good by today's standards. Could it have reached the people who needed it by the time the stuff became inedible? After all, if they couldn't sell it, it must've been harvested for quite a while, and thus probably on its way to perishing, anyway.

[bdgr]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Are people entitled to what you own by virtue of being poor?

NO, by virtue of being human beings in need. Nothing more is needed.

[mks57]

Burning the crop would return nutrients to the soil. Giving it away would not.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

I'll tell you a reason why this may happen. When Heinz (in the UK at least) produce a faulty product (i.e. a dented tin, a tin labels won't stick to etc.) they throw it away in a skip, which is required by their insurance company, as they can reclaim a small amount of money back from them for each faulty item.

The problem isn't with Heinz, it's with their insurance.

[Sitnam]

The poor aren't entitled to anything just because they're poor. Giving away food to the poor is good, but not giving away food is not bad.

[Odesio]

I can't say whether it was done or not, but I have a hard time seeing how someone would burn something like apples, oranges, or strawberries nevermind why. A granary can be lit up like a roman candle without problem but fruits generally have a whole lot of moisture in them. Try burning a big pile of apples and come back here to let us know how it went. I'm sure it could be done, but the energy and effort required to do so would be tremendous, especially during an era when money was scarce.

As to why the farmers burned the fruit I think there's basically one reason. The Californians hated and resented the Okies for invading their state. It might sound odd, but Okies, a term that applied to any migrant worker, were viewed in a way that isn't far off from how many people view illegal Mexican workers today. California even passed a law making it a misdemeanor to help bring a poor person into the state. I think one guy got convicted for helping a poor relative come to the state and it eventually went to the Supreme Court where the law was overturned.

Where was I? Oh yes. Some of this hostility can be easily understood. California was certainly suffering from the depression and all of the sudden the labor pool has gone way up. What happens next? Your wages go down because the labor supply is artificially high. That's going to piss a lot of people off right there. Burning the fruit was basically their way of saying, "fuck you, now get the hell out of California."

Marc

PS: I really hope I remember this correctly and they burners were in California.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

If ethics or compassion doesn't matter, why not ?

There is the issue of breaking laws, and breaking ehtics at play here.

You're suggesting breaking the law to get even. Where as the destroyer of goods has a right to do with what he pleases. I don't agree with it and it makes said person an ass of course, but it doesn't make it justified to steal or damage said persons property because of it.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by mks57

Burning the crop would return nutrients to the soil. Giving it away would not.

Sure it would. Eventually.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

The poor aren't entitled to anything just because they're poor. Giving away food to the poor is good, but not giving away food is not bad.

No, not giving the food away is definately bad. I see little difference between that and trying to shoot the hungry people, except it's less honest. It's an attempt to hurt or kill them without getting your hands personally bloody.

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

There is the issue of breaking laws, and breaking ehtics at play here.

You're suggesting breaking the law to get even.

No, I'm suggeting that the people who say that the growers had a perfect right to burn that food are trying to have it both ways. If there's nothing wrong in not deliberately starving people, then there's nothing wrong in those those starving people storming your farm, killing you, and stealing everything, food and all. If compassion doesn't matter, if ethics doesn't matter, then the laws don't matter either; why would they ? If we owe others no compassion, then we live in a dog eat dog society, then everyone is the enemy of everyone else. And if we are in the war of all against all, then the law is without ethical force. If ethics and compassion don't matter, then society is a dead issue and you might as well grab what you can.

People who push this idea that the better off have a right to screw the less fortunate always want such rights to go only one way. It doesn't work like that. If the strong have the right to screw the weak, then the weak have the right to gang up on the strong and rip them apart. In a dog eat dog society, everyone gets eaten, which why you don't want this "I've got mine and screw everyone else !" attitude; sooner or later, someone else will apply that same attitude to you.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

It would hardly be the case that they'd be driving down the already low wholesale prices by letting people who couldn't afford the fruit at all have the excess.

Without diving into ethics, it's a fairly straightforward economic decision.

Let's say I have a hundred apples. I try to sell them at $1 each. Let's say I manage to sell fifty of them. That's $50 in my pocket and 50 apples left over. I can do one of two things with the leftovers, throw them away or feed the poor.

Fast forward to the next week and I have 100 more apples to sell. If I threw away those apples last week, I can probably sell 50 more apples this week. OTOH, if I gave all my spare apples away, then poor, but not destitue folk might easily turn around and refuse to pay $1 for their apple.

In this case, either I sell fewer apples, or drop the price. Since the really poor folks have no money at all to spend on apples, I lose money either way.

Nowadays giving away excess food is considered good public relations.

Nowadays isn't the same as the Great Depression. If a mega agri-business donates 1% of excess food to good causes, then the goodwill generated by that action could well have a higher $ value than the actual cost of the food.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No, not giving the food away is definately bad. I see little difference between that and trying to shoot the hungry people, except it's less honest. It's an attempt to hurt or kill them without getting your hands personally bloody.

No, I'm suggeting that the people who say that the growers had a perfect right to burn that food are trying to have it both ways. If there's nothing wrong in not deliberately starving people, then there's nothing wrong in those those starving people storming your farm, killing you, and stealing everything, food and all. If compassion doesn't matter, if ethics doesn't matter, then the laws don't matter either; why would they ? If we owe others no compassion, then we live in a dog eat dog society, then everyone is the enemy of everyone else. And if we are in the war of all against all, then the law is without ethical force. If ethics and compassion don't matter, then society is a dead issue and you might as well grab what you can.

People who push this idea that the better off have a right to screw the less fortunate always want such rights to go only one way. It doesn't work like that. If the strong have the right to screw the weak, then the weak have the right to gang up on the strong and rip them apart. In a dog eat dog society, everyone gets eaten, which why you don't want this "I've got mine and screw everyone else !" attitude; sooner or later, someone else will apply that same attitude to you.

There are poor and starving people right now. You agree that it's okay for them to storm your home and take what's needed for them to survive?

[Shalmanese]

There can be a very sound economic reason for doing exactly this. Say you produce 100 apples every day and you sell them for $1 a pop. On Monday, you sell 90 apples for $1 and reluctantly sell the other 10 for 50c. On Tuesday, you sell 90 for $1 and 10 for 50c. On Wednesday, you sell 80 apples for $1 and 20 for 50c. On Thursday, you sell 50 for $1 and 50 for 50c and you notice that the people who were buying $1 apples on Monday are hanging around till the end of the day and snatching them up for 50c. On Friday, you sell 30 for $1 and burn the rest in front of everyone. On Saturday, you're back to selling 90 for $1 and burn the other 10. On Sunday, you rest.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

The poor aren't entitled to anything just because they're poor. Giving away food to the poor is good, but not giving away food is not bad.

Yes it is. It's bad humanitarian form. You don't have to help the poor, but you will be considered a selfish jerk if you don't.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

There are poor and starving people right now. You agree that it's okay for them to storm your home and take what's needed for them to survive?

If I had a big pile of what they needed to survive and I torched it out of sheer spite, why not ? I'd deserve it.

[Wallenstein]

Originally Posted by Dominic Mulligan

I'll tell you a reason why this may happen. When Heinz (in the UK at least) produce a faulty product (i.e. a dented tin, a tin labels won't stick to etc.) they throw it away in a skip, which is required by their insurance company, as they can reclaim a small amount of money back from them for each faulty item.

The problem isn't with Heinz, it's with their insurance.

There's also an issue of liability.

By giving food away you operate outside the various Consumer Protection laws that apply when you purchase goods and services (in this case, food). If an individual contracts food poisoning from food that was given away there may* be issues around liability that create major legal headaches.


*IANAL so can't state for certain

[Malthus]

There are more practical concerns. If you grow fruit for a living, just how do you "give it away to the poor" in any meaningful way? Fruit is bulky and doesn't keep for long.

I imagine that most fruit sellers sell their fruit to a middleman of some sort, who then distributes it to retail outlets. They would not have much contact with 'the poor', other than those in their immediate vicinity - and I also assume that there is a limit to how much fruit these poor could eat.

Either the poor would have to come to your farm to collect the fruit (seems unlikely), or you would have to transport the fruit to where the poor are and distribute it yourself, all before it rots - which wouldn't be "free" but actually an expense to you.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

If we owe others no compassion, then we live in a dog eat dog society [...] In a dog eat dog society, everyone gets eaten

...and none of us is better than dogs. Maybe not as good; dogs don't know class or prejudice.

Any growers burning their crops in the 30s were doing it because they'd been taught to hate poor stupid Okies, and taught that mass charity in such tough times might bring on Communism and destroy the country.

"If dog continues to eat dog, there will be only one dog left, and he will be sick to his stomach." - E.B. White, 1933

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

Yes it is. It's bad humanitarian form. You don't have to help the poor, but you will be considered a selfish jerk if you don't.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No, not giving the food away is definately bad. I see little difference between that and trying to shoot the hungry people, except it's less honest. It's an attempt to hurt or kill them without getting your hands personally bloody.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you two on this. By simple virtue of the fact that someone is wealthy does not mean they owe the poor. Humanitarianism is great, but it is a mistake to call not giving your assets away for free inhumanitarianism (damn, wish a shorter word came to mind). How would you feel if you now must do pro bono work in your field every week for anyone who is poor? If you don't already, by your definition, you're already being a selfish jerk.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Shalmanese

There can be a very sound economic reason for doing exactly this. Say you produce 100 apples every day and you sell them for $1 a pop. On Monday, you sell 90 apples for $1 and reluctantly sell the other 10 for 50c. On Tuesday, you sell 90 for $1 and 10 for 50c. On Wednesday, you sell 80 apples for $1 and 20 for 50c. On Thursday, you sell 50 for $1 and 50 for 50c and you notice that the people who were buying $1 apples on Monday are hanging around till the end of the day and snatching them up for 50c. On Friday, you sell 30 for $1 and burn the rest in front of everyone. On Saturday, you're back to selling 90 for $1 and burn the other 10. On Sunday, you rest.

Right.

Much as my gut agrees with Der Tris about the apparent one-way-ethics of such situations, I suspect that this post more clearly explains the truth. The situation is as it is because people look out for their own self interest at all levels of society. People who have money to spare are still looking for a deal, and people on the borderline of economic ability are even more likely to do so. So they look for a bargain which (unwittingly, of course) harms the producer. The producer is looking out for himself because if he doesn't, the people will look out for themselves. And the end result of overgenerous altruism may be no more apples, if the apple grower can't afford to hire pickers next month because he couldn't sell enough apples at a high enough price this month.

This is the kind of hypothetical that gets me mocked by my hippie collegues and branded a Conservative. It's not that I don't wish everyone would band together and help the guy pick his apples for free so he could give all of them away, but the realistic part of me goes "and how is he supposed to pay his mortgage again? I don't think the bank takes apples...."

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

By simple virtue of the fact that someone is wealthy does not mean they owe the poor.

Yes, it does. Because they can help with little or no harm to themselves, and because they have lopsidedly benefited from society and should give some back, and because as fellow human beings they owe help to those in need. If they were standing by a lake with a man drowning in it and they have a rope, they'd have the duty to throw one end of the rope and haul the guy out. Same principle.

Originally Posted by Sitnam

How would you feel if you now must do pro bono work in your field every week for anyone who is poor?

I do. It's called 'paying taxes'. A certain percentage of my money and yours goes to help the poor ( and I'd rather more went there, instead of corporate welfare and bombing brown people ). And unlike most Americans ( as far as I can tell ), I think that's a good idea.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Humanitarianism is great, but it is a mistake to call not giving your assets away for free inhumanitarianism (damn, wish a shorter word came to mind). How would you feel if you now must do pro bono work in your field every week for anyone who is poor?

And another problem with your statement is that it doesn't fit. The work was already done, and what they destroyed weren't assets, but liabilities. It's more like me, say, carrying out a box of books I've tired of and want to get rid of, and instead of donating or selling them I pile them in front of a public library that's short of books and torch them.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

So don't work for it, just take it.

Why should I respect the rules if the rules will let me starve in the midst of plenty?

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Yes, it does. Because they can help with little or no harm to themselves, and because they have lopsidedly benefited from society and should give some back, and because as fellow human beings they owe help to those in need. If they were standing by a lake with a man drowning in it and they have a rope, they'd have the duty to throw one end of the rope and haul the guy out. Same principle.

If the man is standing alone on shore than yes. But he's not. He's standing on shore with the rest of America, yet this one farmer is morally bound to help and the others are not?

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I do. It's called 'paying taxes'. A certain percentage of my money and yours goes to help the poor ( and I'd rather more went there, instead of corporate welfare and bombing brown people ). And unlike most Americans ( as far as I can tell ), I think that's a good idea.

I believe corporations and farmers pay taxes as well. I mean you, personally, aren't put out in any way to help the poor...nor should you be.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And another problem with your statement is that it doesn't fit. The work was already done, and what they destroyed weren't assets, but liabilities. It's more like me, say, carrying out a box of books I've tired of and want to get rid of, and instead of donating or selling them I pile them in front of a public library that's short of books and torch them.

There's no fluctuating price commodity in books. Growing fruit isn't free, and so giving it to the poor isn't free. If there are no market forces at play here at all then food would never go bad in America ever....which, clearly, it does. Then and now and often.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

There are poor and starving people right now. You agree that it's okay for them to storm your home and take what's needed for them to survive?

I don't agree that it's okay, but that might be exactly what they'll do. A starving mob is quite capable of acting as though it can get bread by burning down the bakery.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by Malthus

There are more practical concerns. If you grow fruit for a living, just how do you "give it away to the poor" in any meaningful way? Fruit is bulky and doesn't keep for long.

I imagine that most fruit sellers sell their fruit to a middleman of some sort, who then distributes it to retail outlets. They would not have much contact with 'the poor', other than those in their immediate vicinity - and I also assume that there is a limit to how much fruit these poor could eat.

Either the poor would have to come to your farm to collect the fruit (seems unlikely), or you would have to transport the fruit to where the poor are and distribute it yourself, all before it rots - which wouldn't be "free" but actually an expense to you.

The problem is that this wasn't private owners destroying unsold crops. This was the government buying up unsold crops and destroying them in a futile attempt to keep prices up.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

The problem is that this wasn't private owners destroying unsold crops. This was the government buying up unsold crops and destroying them in a futile attempt to keep prices up.

I was just going by what was said in the OP.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you two on this. By simple virtue of the fact that someone is wealthy does not mean they owe the poor. Humanitarianism is great, but it is a mistake to call not giving your assets away for free inhumanitarianism (damn, wish a shorter word came to mind). How would you feel if you now must do pro bono work in your field every week for anyone who is poor? If you don't already, by your definition, you're already being a selfish jerk.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I used to work for the law dept of a major retailer. They had a program whereby their employees could hook up with those in need to perform pro bono work.

The point I'm making is that it's good to help people in need. In my opinion, knowing there is a problem, having a solution to the problem (particularly an easy solution), and doing nothing to help, is a bad and selfish choice. If the food is going to be thrown away, and isn't a donation that is costing you money, why wouldn't you do it? Why wouldn't you try to help the poor?

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Yes, it does. Because they can help with little or no harm to themselves, and because they have lopsidedly benefited from society and should give some back, and because as fellow human beings they owe help to those in need. If they were standing by a lake with a man drowning in it and they have a rope, they'd have the duty to throw one end of the rope and haul the guy out. Same principle.

I agree, except that the big assumption in your sentence is "they can help with little or no harm to themselves". As Tapioca Dextrin and Shalmanese have pointed out, they cannot do this with no harm to themselves. Sure, that one day they could do it, but the vary act of doing it will harm them in the near future, because people will take advantage of that.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

If the food is going to be thrown away, and isn't a donation that is costing you money, why wouldn't you do it? Why wouldn't you try to help the poor?

Because it does cost you money. It cost you the money to pick it and get it to market, and the action of giving it away will cost you sales later, as people decide to wait you out and take for free what they could have given money for.

That's not to say everyone who can afford to shouldn't give - they should. Those lawyers doing pro bono work are great - but they can't afford to do more than a certain number of hours pro bono every week, right? Having a finite system of charitable giving lets you give, but also puts a limit on it. I might be able to give away 30 apples a week without harming my profits, but if I give away EVERYTHING I don't sell, and people pick up on that, then I soon won't sell anything.

If your lawyers offered unlimited pro bono work, they wouldn't be able to meet their own bills, and then wouldn't be able to do work for anyone, paying or not.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Because it does cost you money. It cost you the money to pick it and get it to market, and the action of giving it away will cost you sales later, as people decide to wait you out and take for free what they could have given money for.

According to the Greater Chicago Food Depository's site (you need to register for free), they pick up the food and distribute it to the needy:

Food Rescue

Perishable, prepared foods from grocers, restaurants and caterers are picked up in the morning by our Food Rescue drivers, who are certified in food handling and safety. The items are immediately delivered to a soup kitchen or shelter that can incorporate the donation into its food distribution program. In fiscal year 2005, Food Rescue saved more than 4.2 million pounds of food from going to waste. That's the equivalent of more than 3.1 million meals to Cook County's hungry!

In 2006, food shows donated more than 206,000 pounds of high-quality meats, produce and frozen foods to the Food Depository. The Food Depository has been a longtime partner in the food show effort with GES Exposition Services and Teamsters Local 714. Volunteers are essential to the success of food show food rescue. Individuals interested in volunteering their time are encouraged to contact Volunteer Services.

It's not a matter of people standing around waiting for you to give away food. You would have the truck show up each morning and they'd take it to another organization that feeds the poor.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

According to the Greater Chicago Food Depository's site (you need to register for free), they pick up the food and distribute it to the needy:

I don't think they were around in The Grapes of Wrath.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Humanitarianism is great, but

..."that's the last I'll say about it."

it is a mistake to call not giving your assets away for free inhumanitarianism (damn, wish a shorter word came to mind). How would you feel if you now must do pro bono work in your field every week for anyone who is poor? If you don't already, by your definition, you're already being a selfish jerk.

Notice how the more hardass commentators on the thread tend to interpret oughts as musts, and instantly refuse to comply. If we indeed did have to rely on private charity in such situations, I hope to hell these people wouldn't be in charge of it.

Every now and then I suspect some ivory-tower libertarians interpret the right to be a selfish jerk (which is inalienable) as an obligation. If not to society, then just to prove some high - or low? - ideal.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

I don't think they were around in The Grapes of Wrath.

No, prolly not.

I think I'm going to add them to my list o' charities, though. From the looks of the website, they're an effective tool in fighting hunger.

[athelas]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

If I had a big pile of what they needed to survive and I torched it out of sheer spite, why not ? I'd deserve it.

But according to your logic the lawfulness of an action is meaningless, your refusing to give it out is essentially the same as torching it. Therefore, you'd better get ready for a mob to some in and steal all your stuff.

Yes, it does. Because they can help with little or no harm to themselves, and because they have lopsidedly benefited from society and should give some back, and because as fellow human beings they owe help to those in need. If they were standing by a lake with a man drowning in it and they have a rope, they'd have the duty to throw one end of the rope and haul the guy out. Same principle.

So in other words, what successful people have is all from oppressing others, not from their own exertions? Everyone who succeeds does so only by breaking the backs of the poor? Nonsense. If I make my way up in the world, pay my taxes and my dues, I am not at all obligated to those who have failed to do the same, particularly when (as today, less so during the Depression) opportunities to do so are widely available.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

If I had a big pile of what they needed to survive and I torched it out of sheer spite, why not ? I'd deserve it.

Maybe you would deserve it maybe you wouldn't. We live in a society of laws, and just because someone does something you find objectionable doesn't mean we've entered a world where laws no longer apply. You have a right to your personal property, some guy out in front of your house doesn't. The government has the authority to tax you, but some average Joe has no rights whatsoever to your property, and has no right to steal your property just because he wants it or needs it himself.

People burning crops in the Great Depression by and large was not done out of spite; they were in fact done because of the leftist Roosevelt administration. Roosevelt wanted to control the price of produce, because there was a problem with overproduction. Overproduction had driven the price of agricultural produce down to an all time low, so low that many farmers could no longer sell their products above cost, if you're losing money on every sale you make it does not take a business expert to realize you are in a bad situation.

Roosevelt's answer to the problems in the agriculture industry was to subsidize farming and pay farmers to put self-imposed caps on how much they would grow. The government would pay them for acreage that was left unused, and the government also paid farmers to destroy livestock and crops to keep agricultural prices up. It may have kept some farms solvent, but it was also incredibly inefficient economics that caused untold amounts of harm.

By and large the people who were getting screwed over by the Great Depression were the very farmers who you think should have been murdered simply because they weren't willing to drive themselves out of business by giving away food. A few of the huge commercial farmers might have come out ahead, but only because of leftist economic programs that subsidized them extensively. The small farmers received none of the benefits of the AAA programs.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by athelas

So in other words, what successful people have is all from oppressing others, not from their own exertions? Everyone who succeeds does so only by breaking the backs of the poor? Nonsense. If I make my way up in the world, pay my taxes and my dues, I am not at all obligated to those who have failed to do the same, particularly when (as today, less so during the Depression) opportunities to do so are widely available.

The great failure of Marx is his inability to realize that the capitalist system actually creates wealth for the workers as well, and raises their standard of living. The capitalists may control the means of production, but by maximizing efficiency the free market system generally creates greater value for every one, not just the capitalists.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by athelas

So in other words, what successful people have is all from oppressing others, not from their own exertions? Everyone who succeeds does so only by breaking the backs of the poor? Nonsense. If I make my way up in the world, pay my taxes and my dues, I am not at all obligated to those who have failed to do the same, particularly when (as today, less so during the Depression) opportunities to do so are widely available.

I didn't read anything even remotely like that in his post. American society has always tried to take care of its disadvantaged members. Americans donated over $295 billion (with a 'b') last year. This is not a new concept. We do it because we can (and should). You don't know what circumstances plunge people into poverty or hunger. For those who think the hungry are just lazy people, here are some stats (again, from the Greater Chicago Food Depository):

Thirty-nine percent of the households who receive food from the Food Depository include at least one employed adult

About 33 percent of the people the Food Depository serves are children under 18

10 percent of study respondents were 65 and older

25 percent of households served have at least one family member in poor health

22 percent of clients surveyed live in the suburbs

10 percent own the place where they live

9 percent of clients are homeless

Not everyone who takes advantage of a food pantry will need to use it all the time. Most people use it to get over a rough spot in their life. I was that person on a couple of occasions, and I was employed both times.

[Mosier]

Just a quick summary of Der Trihs major argument here, which I will present in single convenient sentence.

"If someone does not give away their wealth, they are a damned bastard who deserves to be stolen from and killed."

Personally, I'm opposed to this statement. I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion, but this one in particular seems goofier than most.

[athelas]

The idea that successful people have "benefited unfairly" from society and that they are obligated to "give back" certainly does mean that the rich owe the poor something, beyond their obligations to other human beings.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by athelas

But according to your logic the lawfulness of an action is meaningless, your refusing to give it out is essentially the same as torching it. Therefore, you'd better get ready for a mob to some in and steal all your stuff.

That's just it. It's not about what you think you can torch carelessly. You have things right now that you think you need, but I bet a lot of are essentially wants in the eyes of those less fortunate then YOU.

If you have 3 cans of soup for the week. To you, these are things you need. To the man with nothing (using your logic), it is justified to forcefully take two of them from you for him and his family. He has more mouths to feed after all. Where does it end o' wise one?

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

That's just it. It's not about what you think you can torch carelessly. You have things right now that you think you need, but I bet a lot of are essentially wants in the eyes of those less fortunate then YOU.

If you have 3 cans of soup for the week. To you, these are things you need. To the man with nothing (using your logic), it is justified to forcefully take two of them from you for him and his family. He has more mouths to feed after all. Where does it end o' wise one?

Yeah, in Pearl Buck's novel The Good Earth I seem to remember a part where the protagonist is discovered to have a very small amount of food (IIRC it's a small number of beans or a small bit of rice) with which to feed his family. However, his neighbors have absolutely nothing, so they steal some of his food.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Just a quick summary of Der Trihs major argument here, which I will present in single convenient sentence.

"If someone does not give away their wealth, they are a damned bastard who deserves to be stolen from and killed."

Personally, I'm opposed to this statement. I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion, but this one in particular seems goofier than most.

Not to speak for Der Trihs, but it's Robin Hood Syndrome. You would steal if that was your only means of obtaining food. Were you to be in that situation, would you steal from someone who could afford the loss or would you take the last bag of rice from your neighbor who's trying to feed three kids?

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Yeah, in Pearl Buck's novel The Good Earth I seem to remember a part where the protagonist is discovered to have a very small amount of food (IIRC it's a small number of beans or a small bit of rice) with which to feed his family. However, his neighbors have absolutely nothing, so they steal some of his food.

They stole ALL of his food, forcing him to slaughter his horse, if I remember correctly.

[vivalostwages]

Not that it's food at all, but Sears/KMart has a policy that bugs me. One of my neighbors works for them and wanted to get my mom a gazebo at a low cost. But the company's policy is to destroy all unsold gazebos and probably many other items rather than let employees purchase them, even when they couldn't sell the darn things in the store and they could have made a bit of money by selling to said employees.

It's such a waste.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by vivalostwages

Not that it's food at all, but Sears/KMart has a policy that bugs me. One of my neighbors works for them and wanted to get my mom a gazebo at a low cost. But the company's policy is to destroy all unsold gazebos and probably many other items rather than let employees purchase them, even when they couldn't sell the darn things in the store and they could have made a bit of money by selling to said employees.

It's such a waste.

Wow. I worked as a contractor for like 4 years at Sears (but left just before the K-mart takeover). I was not aware of that policy, but it's the height of stupidity.