Cyber Robin Hood

Discussion in 'Planning' started by Anonymous, Jun 3, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    I had an idea.... and to tell the truth, since I'm not as computer literate as others, I'm not sure how feasible my idea is - but perhaps those of you who are more skilled with computers than I am will be able to rework the idea into something realistic.

    My idea stems from the Robin Hood notion of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Fortunately unlike the Medieval figure of Robin Hood who needed to use swords and bows; a modern day Robin Hood only needs a computer and some awesome hacker skills.

    So let me put it out there in the form of a question: Is it possible for someone to hack into banking systems and move around the numbers so that the money from the richest people gets redistributed to the poorer people? And if it is possible, on how large of a scale could it be done?

    Imagine the scenario of the world waking up one morning only to have all the rolls of the haves and have-nots reversed.... Or maybe so that all the money is equally spread out - so that there are no longer haves and have-nots. Even if it was to last for only a day or two until the banks can fix the problem, it may have some interesting and lasting effects. I for one would laugh like hell if it caused even one rich person the embarrassing discomfort and frustration of writing a bad check.
  2. Anonymous Member

  3. Anonymous Member

    omg that sounds illegal.
  4. broomstick Global Moderator

    WWP is not the place to organize or discuss illegal activity.
    • Like Like x 4
  5. anonsoldier Member

    Here's some things for you to consider, since you clearly haven't considered the secondary or third order effects of your little "scenario".
    Define "rich". Define "poor". If I make $40,000 a year working hard but have $2M in investment accounts because of an inheritance, am I rich? If I make $450k a year from my little trust fund but my bank account is pretty much in the $1-2k area because I always spends it right away, am I poor?

    What if I don't have a bank account and keep my money under the proverbial mattress? How do you factor that in?

    What about foreign accounts? Do you redistribute the wealth in America just within America and the wealth in Japan just within Japan? Or do you balance out all the countries? Again, what about the countries where there is a large, poor population that doesn't have access to banking?

    Do you exclude lottery winners? Are they really the same as rich King John?

    Why don't you do yourself a favor and go study the Monty Python sketch "Dennis Moore"? Particularly for the line "Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought."

    And lets not forget that Robin Hood was a Sir and a Lord. He was wealthy too but didn't do anything for the poor until it was his own stuff that got seized.

    Oh yes, and the mandatory your idea is so incredibly illegal it is laughable to even point out how ridiculous it is. I just wanted to try and drive some common sense and critical thinking skills into your skull.
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Anonymous Member

    It's not illegal if everyone consents to it.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  7. anonsoldier Member

    You can't have my money. Bam. It's illegal.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Anonymous Member

  9. Anonymous Member

    Interesting script idea for a movie. Beyond that? Moonbat.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Anonymous Member

    To those who are worried about the illegalities of such a procedure, I think it should be pointed out that every true activist - like Gandhi or MLK - actually went out of their way to break the law - provided the law broken reinforced the system of oppression. True, s/he didn't define who would be counted as rich and who would be counted as poor. Though, in such a scenario I think the richest 1% - or the 400 richest families in the world who possess 98% of the wealth - is a proper definition of rich.... maybe the richest 2%.... they are definitely oppressors... the middle class and poor I think count as the oppressed in this situation.... the poor for obvious reasons and the middle class because they're being pushed - slowly but surely - below the poverty line anyway. Should it only be in the United States or the world? Good question. The world would be nice... America would be nice, but both are pretty big.... perhaps choose something smaller like the New York Stock Exchange or something like that. If it's effective work towards something bigger.
  11. broomstick Global Moderator

    WWP is for legal protests only. If you want to organize anything illegal feel free to start your own website.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. rickybobby Member

    This has been tried. It is called "communism" and it's real result is that everyone becomes de-incentivized, production of goods/services decreases dramatically, and eventually everyone becomes poor except the corrupt who start profiting off of black markets that they create. This has happened over and over throughout history.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. anonsoldier Member

    Difference between Ghandi and MLK, and what you're suggesting is that Ghandi and MLK only broke immoral laws. MLK didn't tell people to go into whites only restaurants and steal their food, he told people to try and be customers in a whites only restaurant. Ghandi didn't tell people to take stuff from the British, he told people to peaceably assemble and not participate in British owned stuff. You are proposing out and out theft. Is it theft from rich people who could live the rest of their entire lives and suffer no impact if half their wealth vanished? Yes but it's still theft. The unjust law isn't "do not steal", the unjust laws are a poor minimum wage, policies which provide tax benefits to massive corporations, regulations that hurt small businesses and have no impact on corporations, etc.

    So stop trying to justify this, especially by trying to refer to MLK or Ghandi when you clearly don't have the proper understanding of their legacy.
  14. Anon Mob Member

    Well said. Another problem is that if you rob the rich they then twist the story to say everyone is underthreat. For instance 9/11 was a clear attack on the power structure of America, but now it is the symbol of an attack on the American populos.

    Anyway take the ilegal stuff somewhere else, I don't want to be part of this
  15. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    Gandhi said that the worst form of violence was poverty. Rich people create poor people. Rich people have an interest in keeping poor people poor so that they have people to serve them. Any law that supports the system of haves and have-nots is immoral.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Don't worry about the way people in power will spin it... simply concentrate on the goal at hand.
  19. Anonymous Member

    oh - if you're referring to the communism they had in the Soviet Union, then you're talking about a system that was communist in name only. Before you get bogged down in the false labels; first worry about ending the system of haves and have-nots.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Never trust an idealist with a "plan".
  21. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  22. Anonymous Member

    Robin Hood is fiction. Flounce off now.
    • Like Like x 4
  23. anonsoldier Member

    The only solution to the problem of haves and have-nots is to make sure there is nothing to have and no one around to risk having it.

    Murder and theft laws support the system of haves and have-nots. I made a chair from wood. You don't have a chair. You're not allowed to take my chair or kill me to have it. System supported. If you want a chair you have to get your own. Ghandi wasn't talking about complete economic upheaval, he was talking about a society wherein the people who lived in India weren't allowed the power to decide how they lived in India. He didn't encourage Indians to just start stealing clothes and food from the British, he encouraged them to make their own clothes and grow their own food and stop being a part of the system. You aren't suggesting poor people start urban farms or forming collectives to support each other, you're saying "lets just take from the rich". Again, you're a stupid ignorant fuck.
    • Like Like x 4
  24. Anon Mob Member

    Well said soldier *Salutes*
  25. Anonymous Member

    Look at the internet tough guy who can call names from somewhere else....

    First off, laws against murder don't support the system of haves and have-nots, it's a law of defending the right to life - not to mention just common sense - it's probably a good idea if human beings don't kill each other. laws against theft..... well, I don't have a problem with theft. To paraphrase Abbey Hoffman to steal from a brother or sister is a crime, to not steal from multi-national corporations is an even bigger crime.

    I'm all for urban farming.... but that's not good activist theatre unless you did it in a public place, like on the National Mall in Washington DC.... otherwise not dramatic enough.... doesn't grab the attention of the media and draw attention to the issue.
  26. anonsoldier Member

    If they can find me I'll say it to their face.

    Yeah, paraphrasing. Because when a quote doesn't quite fit your agenda, just change it. Actual quote, by Abbie Hoffman, "To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral."
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    You're kidding right? The actual quote fits perfectly with what I'm saying. Explain to me how the ideal of my paraphrase isn't the same as the quote. The idea is the same.

    And no you wouldn't say it to my face. Because the computer gives you safety anonymity. The reason you resorted to calling names is the same reason why you'd never say it to my face. You're a coward.
  28. I already saw the movie Sneakers.

    It seems like a good idea on paper but where are we gonna find the blind dude?
  29. Anonymous Member

    I never saw the movie Sneakers - so I don't understand the reference.
  30. anonsoldier Member

    Come to Nashville, we'll have lunch, a beer or two at Flying Saucer, then I'll call you an idiot to your face and drop you back off at the airport.

    As to why the changes are relevant, it's because corporations aren't the only "institution" that contributes to economic inequality. Racism, sexism, any discrimination really, contributes towards economic inequality. The current educational model is an institution that directly contributes to economic disparity by rewarding the wealthy with access to the best education and thus generally access to the best jobs as well as access to a peer group that is also highly successful. After all, it's sometimes not what you know but who you know. The very idea of private clubs or exclusive social spots contributes to economic inequality. So while yes, he was in some regards advocating out right theft, that doesn't mean he's advocating ONLY theft. It could also be alternately interpreted that doing something which keeps your fellow brother/sister impoverished is immoral, and it is equally as immoral to not fight the institutions which keep them impoverished.

    Finally, just because he's a well known activist doesn't make his words gospel. The original discussion was about MLK and Ghandi, so you can bring up some B-list revolutionary and say "but he says stealing from banks is cool" but that doesn't make you less wrong or stupid about it.
  31. Anonymous Member

    At least you didn't use "your".
  32. Anonymous Member

    Yeah. racism and sexism and discrimination all contributes to economic inequality.... but multi-national corporations are still a part of the problem. Are you saying that we should ignore the class warfare that the corporations have declared on the middle and poorer classes?

    No the original discussion was about being a cyber Robin Hood. You have the nerve to call me an idiot and you can't even follow the topic at hand?

    Don't belittle Abbey Hoffman. I knew Abbey Hoffman. Abbey Hoffman was a friend if mine. And Abbey Hoffman had more guts and did more as an activist than you ever will.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Then you are old enough and smart enough to stop acting like a n00b filled with outrage because we don't want to go to Camp Commie.
  34. Anonymous Member

    Wherever there is injustice I'm always filled with outrage - and any decent human being would be. You don't have to be a communist to believe in economic justice - to believe in a system that has a more equitable distribution of wealth. All you've really said is that Anonymous is a bogus activist group - a group that doesn't have the balls to really shake things up and really doesn't believe in or stand for anything.
  35. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  36. anonsoldier Member

    I'm saying there are better, more ethical ways to accomplish that than just stealing shit. Which, as was earlier pointed out, is going to get everyone turned against you because you can easily be branded a criminal. You want to fight the corporations? Hey, power to you. But guess who will ultimately win in that struggle given the methodology you propose. Hint: NOT YOU.

    The offer of the beer and name-calling is still on the table, btw. But you're getting a domestic microbrew, no imports.
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Anonymous Member

  38. Anonymous Member

    Oh yeah, there was nothing illegal about Anonymous' denial-of-service attacks on Visa, Mastercard, Paypal. You guys are so full of shit.
  39. Anonymous Member

    You seem to think we act in concert...lurk more.
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Anonymous Member

    This not domed yet? Why?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins