Cautious optimism as Kensington heroin camps prepare for eviction

>It kind of is - especially as most peoples *definition* of success is to get a large amount of money. Granted there will always be exceptional fools who manage to wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory, but even the laziest braindead moron can have someone conservatively manage their estate while they live out their life in comfort. This is a post about homelessness, hence that's a fairly natural definition of failure - doubt you'll find many children born into great wealth who have managed to become homeless? This doesn't change my point. Not a guarantee. Being a homeless junkie up in Kensington is a pretty good definition of failure assuming their DNA does not get passed on. >Firstly it is unjust because it's debatable whether the parents have really earned or deserve that money - if they have ridiculous amounts, I would argue they don't deserve it. This assumes an *awful* lot. Your position presumes guilt with no foundation. Unless you can prove that something is stolen from others there's not much you can morally do about someone's wealth. I do not blanket assume those with easier situations than myself are criminals. There is a difference between having something that is unearned and theft. In fact, I would argue that a gift is earned because someone felt the receiving party deserving. >Justice and ownership are quite separate concepts. I beg to differ. Theft is violation of ownership. Violence is violation of ownership of one's body. Almost any crime you can think of that has a victim is a violation of the victims property rights in one form or another. Restoration of that ownership is justice. >Secondly, I'd love to see you try to argue that those children have earned the money, that they deserve it, and deserve to live charmed lives without ever having to work a single day while those around them struggle - they are the ultimate beneficiaries. Refer to my point above. They deserve it because it was *given* to them. Is that fair? For the two parties concerned, yes. I am not concerned because it was never my money in the first place. If they choose not to work or grow, that will be their own fault or the fault of their parents for instilling poor values. However, without assuming theft of the original money we cannot assume injustice. >I am nobody expressing an opinion, I dictate nothing. Is it just for the rich and their undeserving children to perpetuate their own unfair advantage? If the state could ever purge itself of their influence, it might be something that could work for the betterment of society as a whole. The rich already pay an unequal amount of protection money to the state. However, I don't deem it anyone's responsibility to be beholden to the state. I would prefer to work without the state and hide my money so it cannot be stolen from me.