In an interview with someone or other, Eldridge Cleaver compared his feelings towards panhandlers and petty thieves. I think teh conversation went roughly lihke this:
CLEAVER: I have more respect for a man who holds up a store than for a man who asks me for money. Because the thief is acting like a man, standiong up to talke what society owes him, whereas the panhandler is just being servile...
INTERVIEWER: Even if you owned the store, would you still say teh same thing?
CLEAVER: That's a stupid question because i would never own a business. But yes, he would still ahve the right to take what he needed...
What does everyone think about this viewpoint? Me, I completelky disagree. First of all, theft is wrong in a general senae; if we are to conclude that it's wrong for capitalists to steal the fruits of their workers' labor, tehn it must also be wrong for people to rob stores (except stealing for food or otehr necessities). Secondly, I have more respect for panhanlers because of teh implicit statement taht they're making. they are saying, 'My claim on your money is going to be imposed by moral force, not by violence. I deserve your money because I am, human and it isn't right that you should have money and I don't. If you don't give me money, you will be punished only by your own guilty conscience." In thsi way, they are implicitly claiming that society's proceeds should be distributed on the basis of need and not on teh basis of force or power- they are pointing the way to a better society, while teh thief merely continues the same old cycle of selfishness and violence.
So in conclusion, i think on this topic Eldridge Cleaver was full of B.S. His viewpoint is nevertheless thought provoking through. What do you all think.
(Note: Eldridge Cleaver was the former Minister of Information of the Black Panther Party.)
