Theft is theft. Prison doesn't level any playing field. It's the Criminal Higher Learning Center.
You are completely avoiding or ignoring the greater issue here. I'm not saying theft is right or that it isn't a crime, but rather that the mechanisms to steal were created by the very people who complain about it most... the wealthy. What I am saying is that we need to remove more of the reasons/causes if we are to reduce the incidence of theft... and to make society a more equitable place would be one right step in that direction.
Okay, stealing is wrong, but is an already wealthy entrepreneur any better when he/she marks up his/her goods by 800% to maximise profit per unit? We have one such retailer here in Oz, and because his sales have fallen, largely due to online prices being more competitive, he wants government to tax online purchases at a higher rate to force consumers back to his stores. F**k him, I'll never step foot in one of his stores, ever, not with his billions and whining, self-serving arrogance, and I'm not the only one according to opinion polls.
Some of his markups are/have been 900%. according to our consumer watchdog So tell me, how is that any less stealing than stealing a loaf of bread? In both instances, somebody's expendable income is reduced... in both cases somebody is ripped off. The one difference is that one is legal and the other is not... while one suffers a small dent in a huge personal fortune, the other gets to feed his family another day. To me, neither crime is acceptable, but my sympathies would err on the side of the person who, through no fault of their own, is forced by socio-economic inequity to steal to feed his/her family.
For mine, the wealthy retailer/entrepreneur deserves no sympathy because he most likely begged, borrowed and stole to get where he is, and hopefully on Judgement Day his Hell is twice as hot and fiery as the bloke who stole simply to feed his family... cos really, which is the greater crime at the end of the day?
Do tell about the chances a 60 year old has of getting on Dialysis in England if he can't pay for it himself.
And this is different from the impoverished family man in the US who has no health cover and no disposable income how? I have spoken to a number of people from the US who came to Australia specifically to receive health care because it is equally as good as and far more equitable than what they had at home. You can decry the public system all you want, and laud the excesses of the private sector all you want, the fact is, I would rather an imperfect public system that co-exists with a private one... and in the event the public system cannot accommodate my particular need, I can resource the private sector to provide treatment...
Yes, that's right, under the universal health care scheme here, I could access private health resources and be reimbursed 75% of my initial outlay... my/our government's way of ensuring I/we [at the lower end of the socio-economic scale] do have access to adequate health services. Is it perfect? Hell no, and I don't always have the spare cash to pay for private services up front, but various providers 'bulk bill' [send medicare the bill] and my treatment is not with-held on grounds of inability to pay.
Am I always happy with the outcome? Nope, I'm a grumpy old bastard who's in a lot of pain most of the time, and while that's not the doctor's fault, it helps to blame him/her and let off a bit of steam with a good whine.
In a humane, compassionate and caring society, the primary focus of any hospital and/or doctor should be the provision of health care... before the cost involved becomes a consideration. Sadly, for far too many [and that's worldwide], the primary concern is finance and even basic care is denied because the propensity to pay is not there. That is my greatest argument against the broad privatisation of hospitals... because a profit is there to be made and that is the primary goal. True, public health has administrative waste and etc, but waste if far more acceptable to me than the provision of care being denied because "he/she is poor" and profit will take a hit. In other words, the body corporate and shareholders can't afford compassion.,, or simply don't have it because the dollar signs are too distracting
Anyway, I have seen how it works here... and you have seen how it doesn't work there, so how about we agree to disagree. Our system.. your system... a bit like comparing apples to oranges, don't yer think?