Quote from: grondilu on September 19, 2012, 02:18:04 AM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 19, 2012, 01:49:12 AM

Of course I don't...stealing is not ethically acceptable to me, but I do know that after exhausting all attempts of bartering, he will either steal it, murder him or starve to death. I can't think of any other alternatives myself, can you or anyone else?

There is no magic.

If someone has really no economic value whatsoever, which by itself is quite a harsh hypothesis but that was your hypothesis, then indeed I see no way for him to earn his life other than owning some capital or relying on charity.

What seems harsh today becomes less harsh in the future - robots and AI basically feed off stars directly; something humans can never do. If 90% of people are not the owners of said robots (the best capital possible), how will they get what the robots produce? Sure some portion would be able to convince the owners to barter, but ultimately the owners will be satisfied at a particular point, and people will be unemployed longer than it takes for them to starve - this is a far cry from having no economic value whatsoever. We cannot hibernate when energy becomes scarce, like robots can.

The only reason this isn't happening *today* is because of government interference (or stealing, as you put it). Charity doesn't stop death, and you have to decide if you're ok with that. It seems that most people are not.

Quote from: grondilu on September 19, 2012, 02:18:04 AM

Quote

Do you think it's more morally outrageous for a person to starve to death or starve to steal? I'm going to assume we both think starving to murder is the absolute worst one.

To me it's beyond moral. I'd totally understand if someone tries to steal because he's desperate or something. But I also totally understand the person who will defend his property.

It may be, but you can still answer the specific question can't you? Or is it too personal to answer?

Which is worse, to you - a person starving to death before stealing, or stealing before starving to death?

As a side note, I agree that people have a right to defend their property, and the more powerful on the day will win. This scenario where there is one absolute winner and one absolute loser can and has been replaced by a compromise to reduce risk (perhaps ironically, created by the one with the food).