7 Comments
User's avatar
chad's avatar

"They just need to eat," soon becomes, "they just need your sneakers because they have no shoes," then, "they just need a roof over their heads," then, "they just need a country".....

Slippery slope? Sure. Fallacy? Hardly.

Expand full comment
Peter Venetoklis's avatar

It's Marx's way, and it's always a one-way street.

Expand full comment
chad's avatar

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

Rand's picture of it with the Twentieth Century Motor Company in "Atlas Shrugged" was incredibly and disturbingly accurate.

Expand full comment
Peter Venetoklis's avatar

The gag with today's Marxists is that they are *never* on the giving side. It's always about "what can I extract from others, either for myself directly or for my causes so that I can take credit?"

Expand full comment
Ray Chandler's avatar

Just because "they need to eat" doesn't even mean it's morally incumbent upon the rest of us to feed them via welfare much less tolerate their theft of our money and property.

Expand full comment
Jeff Mockensturm's avatar

Even before Jesus' time we've been told "there will always be the poor among you". See Deuteronomy 15:7-11 and centuries later, John 12:8. But I don't believe these verses sanctioned smash and grab of bespoke handbags - I'll have to check that. Rather it was a command to alms - offerings, freely given - by the giver. It's not the taker's "right" to assume the alms and expect forgiveness because of need. And as you aptly point out - how are we to know the motivation in the first place?

Expand full comment
Daniel Anderson's avatar

Peter, you used the term “de mode”. Did you mean to use “depeche mode”?😲

Expand full comment