It ranks up there with carrots.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh, that poor "deprived" and "abused" Walmart corporation!
- Thread starter Jonathan Bailey
- Start date
That is the point. Does the disparity have a limit? Where can we start enforcing laws and why? What is the rule on this? You all seem to know it. Please provide that rule. I will look it over and if it has merit, I may even join you in supporting it. Is it case law? Is it legislation? Is it just emotional and the more pathetic a story, the stronger the cessation of the rule of law? What is the legal mechanism there?
The thing is, I just didn't want to get drawn into that kind of discussion of comparing different countries, since it's no longer a question of philosophy but more into geopolitics, history, and physical geography.
If you say that people in Location A have a better standard of living than the people in Location B, then it would require an extensive analysis looking at numerous variant factors to try to determine the reason(s) for such a disparity.
If one learns that the people in Location A are mostly Baptists, while the people in Location B are Methodists, then it might be faulty to conclude "Aha! That's it! Baptist countries must be better than Methodist countries." No need to check further. That must be the reason.
This is the line of reasoning which I would reject. I understand perfectly the point you're trying to make, but I do not agree with the logic and rationale used to reach the conclusions you have.
However, since it seems to be important to you, I guess we can look at some different countries. As I've mentioned in the past, I have visited the Soviet Union and spent some time there while it was still consider the "Evil Empire." I didn't think it was quite so horrible as many in the West had made it out to be. Maybe not quite so luxurious or consumer-driven as the West, but it was certainly livable and relatively decent. I will also say that I seriously considered the possibility of relocating there.
The reasons I didn't were more personal in nature, and I'd have to go into a long digression with my life story to explain it.
As for other countries, I'm not really too sure. I haven't visited them or studied them as extensively, but I've heard that Cuba really isn't so bad these days. Vietnam seems to be getting better, and even North Korea seems to be trying to reach out to the West - even if in a somewhat awkward and erratic way.
But these are all countries which never really had it that good to begin with.
Among those of us with small businesses...you know...1, 2, 3 or so employees...
it's widely recognized that one must take care to avoid any appearance of
having enviable wealth, lest envy lead to resentment leading to badmouthing
& even theft. There is no lower limit, below which such trouble cannot arise.
It's a joke, but have you ever played the game of "who is poorer"?
There's a germ of reality in it.
Bob: "I grew up living in a shack, & had to walk to school uphill both ways thru snow & blistering heat."
Sam: "You had a shack, & went to school? You were rich! I lived in a hole in the ground."
Bill: "You had a hole and ground?
And so on.
That is the basis of my questions. Where on that spectrum do some consider is the line between ignoring the law and respecting the law? What are the criteria for ignoring it in those instances where it can be ignored? Why does finding justification for ignoring those laws on one part of the spectrum not apply to the entire spectrum?
I would consider these pretty basic questions that need to be asked and those supporting it should have at least thought of some reasonable answers that go beyond politics and ideological differences.
Cooky
Veteran Member
It's placing logic and the conscience *before* what is written.
...Something all fair minded people should do.
We have enuf countries over lengthy history to consider things statistically.
So comparing real world examples sheds light on what tends to happen.
If capitalism offers many positive results, & alternatives offer none, this is meaningful.
Cooky
Veteran Member
I've witnessed situations in my life where people followed the "rules" and ignored their conscience, and the results were chaotic.
...The conscience should *always* come before the law. The law is there to support the conscience, not the other way around. It (written law) is merely a tool, not a master.
This is a kind of enlightenment.
I have seen that sketch and even played it a little while drinking beer with buddies.
As a teenager, I was resentful of my parents and what I considered was living poor. When I got older, I discovered what being poor really was and that I had grown up in relative affluence in many ways. It turns out my father was an example of growing up poor. My ex-wife was an example of growing up poor. Even then, they grew up poor in the US and both had access to means to escape it.
It is a funny world. I am too socialistic for conservatives and libertarians and not socialistic enough for liberals and socialists.
Welcome to the world of being a political outsider.
Regarding the others.....all thinking alike is a bad sign IMO.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Yes, I'm skeptical of anyone who goes 100% toward the "party line"... You KNOW they're willing to ignore their conscience, and that's scary!
...It's what being a radical is all about.
The conscience can be applied at sentencing.
I had a sister that once worked for a grocery store. She saw a guy come in with a pack of cigarettes wrapped in the sleeve of his t-shirt and setting on top of his shoulder. When he left the store, the cigarettes had been replaced with a can of sardines. She never reported it. She said that if he was that hungry, she was not going to get him into trouble even though it was stealing. I may have done just as she did in the same situation. But if it was that important of an issue of conscience, I could also reimburse the cost of the sardines and then ask the man if there was anyway that I could help him. If the object of the story really was a truly broke and hungry man, then finding a way to help him and help himself would be the real social victory. He did have the money to buy cigarettes apparently, so he had some basis to build on and a little help may be all he needed.
About four years ago, I was driving in St. Louis and there was a woman on the corner of a major road, panhandling. I ended up being right next to her at the light. I thought about what I could do and I removed a 20 from my wallet and handed it out to her just as the light changed. As I started to drive away, I heard her start to say "Thank y..." and then "Oh my gosh". I suppose my 20 was a big surprise for her and I hope it helped her, though I have no way to know whether it bought food or drugs. I have a little bit of a bleeding heart, but I also live in a country of laws. If I really wanted to help people in the condition of the man or the woman in my stories, I could advocate breaking those laws on some arbitrary set of reasons or I could find ways to change them in the context we live in. I choose the latter. I volunteer my time. I promote that and causes that I think have some value in helping. I even support politicians that claim they will help.
Part of my questions are based on the difference in those two approaches that are being promoted on this thread. Which is really helping and which are based on a sound and reasonable basis and not just political and emotional rhetoric.
I have had to look at it like that. Seeing value and foolishness on different sides of the line.
I love cake. Cake is a good thing. Having a slice infrequently is a pleasure that I treasure. Eating six cakes a day, no matter how much of a good thing a cake is, will kill you.
All I can see arising out of the arbitrary regulation of laws based on emotion and novelty is anarchy. There would be no real reason to have laws in the first place.
I am pretty sure that ignoring the law for emotional and political reason hurts people and communities too. Businesses are a part of communities and in some cases the basis on which those communities grew and developed. Letting business and wealth run wild may not be good, but letting mob rule run wild isn't very good either.
I would say there was a chain of victims that includes the law and the will of the people expressed through those laws.
If Walmart goes out of business, I wonder how that would effect people and communities?
There is a vast disparity between how each of us views this story. I wonder what laws we can subvert to our own ends? I suppose, I will be the only one that needs worry, since I do not consider subverting any of them for emotional and political reasons.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again ultimately it is not Walmart that is the victim of these thefts. They will just raise their prices. The victims are the poor people that do not steal that end up paying for the thefts of others.
That cannot be good for people or communities.
Cooky
Veteran Member
See, this is where conscience comes in... WHEN, people start mob ruling, then increased application of the laws should be exercised.
PureX
Veteran Member
If you had bothered to watch either of those very legitimate documentaries I posted, you would know that Walmart is infamous for setting a whole new standard for greed-driven social irresponsibility. Irresponsibility that cost millions of people their livelihoods. But of course you couldn't be bothered to actually find out WHY I don't see Walmart as any sort of "victim" in any sort of commercial exchange, even one based on outright theft. So you're trapped by your own willful ignorance, and trying to blame it on me.
Good luck with that.
The High Cost of Low Prices
Is Walmart Good For America