[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you incorporated enough in your response the premise put forth by Sklansky, in that the prospective thief is in a "miserable condition". In other words, acquiring something is already a necessity

[/ QUOTE ]

"Miserable conditions", granted, define a bad state of affairs but not necessarily the lack of things needed to sustain life. If aquiring something is a "necessity" then the question is not one of morals or legality. It is one of survival. If the question is one of survival then "stealing" has little meaning unless the thing stolen robs another of a survival need. In the latter case it would become a morality issue once again. Sklansky doesn't always ask questions that allow us of lesser intelligence to grasp what he is asking. Others always seem to have to interpret them for him. I wonder why that is? Help me! please.

leaponthis