Spanish Mayor Leading Robin Hood Raids On Local Supermarkets To Give Food To The Poor

Over here in the United States, our town’s mayors are making news for locking up baby formula and issuing written smackdowns on controversial fast food chains. But with the serious economic crisis in Europe, one Spanish mayor is starring in headlines for going rogue and stealing from supermarkets to give food to the poor. We’ve heard this story before, somewhere…

Yes, they’re calling him Robin Hood, of course. He’s been pulling off robberies at supermarkets and handing out groceries to the needy families that have been hit hard by the economic crisis. Seven other people (the Merry Men?) were arrested for helping out in two such raids, which had supporters cheering as participants walked out of stores with carts filled with food. The mayor remained outside.

The mayor of the town of about 2,600 says he’s just doing what right — and he might as well use his political immunity as a member of regional parliament for something good. He’s even up for renouncing said immunity and going to the hoosegow himself.

“There are people who don’t have enough to eat. In the 21st century, this is an absolute disgrace,” he told Reuters in an interview held in a train station this week. Next he’s going on a three-week march to bring attention to those hardest hit by the economic crisis and rally other mayors to the cause.

His critics in the government aren’t pleased with how he’s disregarding the law, however.

“You can’t be Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham,” said a spokesman for the ruling People’s Party in the national Parliament. “This man is just searching for publicity at the cost of everyone else.”

“Robin hood” Spanish mayor becomes hero for robbing supermarkets [Reuters]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Stickdude says:

    Good for him. Rather than messing around with tax laws and such to get those evil shopowners to pay their fair share, he just takes the direct approach.

  2. TuxthePenguin says:

    Is he putting his money where his mouth is? What’s his annual income, from all sources?

    While I like the idea, I think its going to end up poorly. If I owed one of those supermarkets… why bothering to operate when the leader of that town is freely stealing from you? What happens if they decide to start shutting down?

    • sagodjur1 says:

      The best reaction to someone forcing you to do something you should have done already is embrace it and expand it. It’s good PR and just being a damn good human being.

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        The best reaction to someone forcing you to do something you should have done already is embrace it and expand it.

        And who decides whether you should have done it already? The person forcing you to do it? Yeah.

      • JollySith says:

        So if I decide that there are not enough children in the world and organize a gang to go around raping and impregnating your female relatives that is all good with you and they should just relax and enjoy it?

        How do you reach the assumption that shop owners should drive themselves out of business by giving away all of their stock?

        • sagodjur1 says:

          Rape victims would really like to discuss why you think theft and rape are equivalent enough to be used in an analogy like that.

          We can (hopefully) all agree as moral human beings that people starving without reason when there is food available to feed them is a bad thing that should be remedied if possible (and it was possible in this scenario).

          We’ll never all agree as moral human beings that anyone needs to be raped for any purpose, “good intentioned” or otherwise.

          • wade says:

            Time to give up one of your kidneys, you greedy bastard.

            • sagodjur1 says:

              I’ll give up one of my kidney’s when you can provide me with proof that I’m not using them and will never possibly need them in the future.

              • wade says:

                Nope, we can all agree as moral human beings that people suffering without reason when there are kidneys available for them is a bad thing that should be remedied if possible (and is possible in this scenario).

                Troll harder, numbnuts.

                • sagodjur1 says:

                  Troll harder? Um, I’m not trolling. I’m having a rational discussion about the benefits of redistributing perishable goods to people who need it and you’re advocating for unnecessary and dangerous surgery and calling me names.

                  Who’s the troll here?

                  • wade says:


                    Maybe to you, it seems unnecessary, but someone suffering through renal failure might disagree, especially since you’re carrying a spare. Of course, with you just being an ignorant troll, I really had no expectation other than you missing your hypocrisy.

                    Who’s the troll here?

                    You. DUH. Geez, how imperceptive are you???

                    • sagodjur1 says:

                      I don’t think you understand what trollinbg means. I’m not being rude. I’m not saying something with the specific intention of upsetting people. I’m, again, having a discussion about being a human being. I honestly believe what I’m saying. I’m not trying be absurd or contradictory without reason.

                      Meanwhile, you’re misrepresenting my arguments with strawmen, attacking me for disagreeing with you, and calling me names.

                      Again, who’s the troll here?

              • Bsamm09 says:

                So this shop owner was never going to need the money he spent to buy the food in the first place? He also will never be short of money in the future which the profits from the sale of the food that was stolen could have been used for?

              • JollySith says:

                So none of those shopkeepers needed that food or could have used the revenue from them in the future. if you aren’t a troll then you are frighteningly ignorant of how the world actually works.

                • sagodjur1 says:

                  I’m not ignorant of the world works. I’m of the opinion that how the world works is not the way it should work. I’m also of the opinion that the meaning of the term “troll” has apparently been watered down to “someone who disagrees with me.”

                  • JollySith says:

                    The reason people are calling you a troll is not that we disagree with you. Although I do. It is because your arguments make so little sense and are so far away from anything logical that we have difficulty believing that they are truly the beliefs of a sentient being. The other logical conclusion is that you do not really believe that a gang of people coming into a store walking in and taking things that the store owner has worked to provide, endangering the livelihood of the store owner and everyone he employs is a just and good thing and that you are stating these preposterous notions in order to start an argument. AKA a Troll.

                    • sagodjur1 says:

                      I honestly believe that a gang of people (though the term gang seems prejudiced and intentionally paints them as bad people) coming into a store and taking things that the owner has worked to provide, (possibly, but only possibly – are they taking everything? are they taking everything every week?) endangering the livelihood of the store owner and everyone he employs is a just and good thing in the context that the country and community they live in are in an economic crisis that finds many out of work and unable to purchase live-saving food. The article doesn’t go into enough detail as to how the raids are affecting the businesses, so I can’t say if I agree with every detail of the tactic, but I can honestly say that I think it is morally just to force those with a surplus to help feed hungry people who cannot provide for themselves when the people who have the means to do so simply refuse to help out their neighbors willingly.

                      Imagine you’re on a lifeboat stranded in the ocean with nine other people. You’re all thirsty and going to die in three days without water and you’re not likely to be rescued for a week. One passenger has enough water to keep everyone alive until you are rescued. He could even be paid back for the value of the water once you’re all rescued. But he’s selfish and keeps the water to himself. Would you honestly let yourself and eight other passengers die because you want to respect the property rights of a selfish, inhumane person?

                      If you think property rights are more important than human life, I don’t want to be stranded on a lifeboat with you.

                    • wade says:

                      Please, for the good of the land, let’s stop feeding the troll. Let him take his (her) butthurt and bag of excuses to Spain and live in his (her) utopian thugocracy.

              • Stickdude says:

                The grocers will give up some of their food when you can provide them with proof that they’re not using it and will never possibly need it in the future.

          • Akuma Matata says:

            but theft is not an appropriate means of “doing the right thing”

            • sagodjur1 says:

              It depends on the situation. Doing the right thing is never a clear cut choice. What if you have a moral obligation to make sure your child eats but the only means of feeding them available to you is theft? Does doing the right thing mean letting your child starve because you refused to do the wrong thing and steal? I’d argue that you have a higher moral obligation to your child and their basic human need for food than a shopkeeper has for a small amount of food that might go bad before it’s sold. It’d be ideal of course to have a social institution in place, regardless of whether its government-run or privately run, that makes sure this situation doesn’t arise because adequate food should be available to all those in need of it regardless of their ability to pay for it. But unfortunately, you can’t count on those who have a lot to do the right thing and give to those in need. And this is a reference to the 1%, rather than small town Spanish shopkeepers, though in this scenario, the shopkeepers might relatively be the 1% to the people who are starving.

      • Cerne says:

        Wow you’re stupid.

      • Difdi says:

        So if someone mugs you, you won’t call the police or engage in self-defense, because the mugger thinks he’s right to do what he does?

    • JollySith says:

      You like the idea of theft? What else do you like? Rape? Assault? Murder? Arson?

      • Stickdude says:

        It’s not theft. It’s redistribution of wealth. There’s a difference.

        • JollySith says:

          No when you take property away from it’s rightful owners it is theft. You can call it pretty names if you want but that doesn’t change what it is.

          • Stickdude says:

            Enter text…

          • Stickdude says:

            It’s not theft when it’s the government is the one doing the taking. Since the mayor is part of the government, it’s not theft.

            And if you disagree, you must want Spain to become the next Somalia (to paraphrase an argument I’ve heard many times here on Consumerist every time someone disagrees with ever-expanding taxes)

            • JollySith says:

              It is not theft when the government takes by taxes because there are laws in place to allow that. In a civilized modern society (Like Spain) those laws are enacted by elected officials representing the will of the populace. This thief who happens to have a government position is not working within the law he is blatantly breaking the law and exploiting a loophole to avoid arrest.

        • Cerne says:

          Actually no this is straight up theft.

      • sagodjur1 says:

        I like the idea of “theft” when it involves helping people who need help. That’s basic humanity 101. Our world is far too fixated on the concept of “my property” that people hoard things they don’t need that others could use. Do you hate the idea of giving to Goodwill? This is basically the same, except with food, and the one donating isn’t doing so willingly (but should be).

        • Stickdude says:

          Thank you. Karl Marx would be so proud.

        • TheMansfieldMauler says:

          Our world is far too fixated on the concept of “my property” that people hoard things they don’t need that others could use.

          I’m sure you have some money you don’t need that I could use. When can I expect it?

          • sagodjur1 says:

            I don’t know you. Are you starving? You seem to have internet access and leisure time to spend it commenting on blogs, which sets you in a tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs well above the people this mayor is trying to help.

            I give away things I don’t need all the time. What about you?

            • TheMansfieldMauler says:

              It’s irrelevant. You’re the one with the money, so you don’t get to make that decision. I’m the one without it, so I get to make that decision.

              See how that works? It’s straight from your own philosophy.

              • sagodjur1 says:

                Money is different than a perishable good. Money doesn’t go bad if you don’t spend it or give it away (though it’s not doing the economy any good either). It’s a universal exchange medium for goods and services. Money, strictly speaking from a basic human needs perspective, is not essential to life. Food is. Try again.

                • TheMansfieldMauler says:

                  Attempting to educate me on what money is does nothing to further your pitiful argument. What you wrote was certainly not a rebuttal to anything I said.

                  But if you insist, feel free to substitute the word “money” in my posts with any other essential item you deem appropriate.

                  • sagodjur1 says:

                    Your argument was that you could take my money because you had none and I had some. But this mayor isn’t keeping the food that he’s taking. He’s giving it to people who need it. The ones who need food aren’t the ones that are stealing it. Your argument doesn’t work in this scenario because it isn’t equivalent to what is going on.

                    I’m not arguing for Marxism and a full redistribution of all wealth and property. I’m arguing for voluntary charity, and falling short of that, forced charity to make up for the fact that you can’t morally allow people to starve to death because you want to respect the property rights of selfish people. How is this scenario different than using taxes to fund social programs for the poor anyway? It’s just going about it in a less bureaucratic way.

                • Akuma Matata says:

                  money is an exchange medium that represents a lot of things — food, cars, housing, etc… If money itself is not essential to life, the things it can represent is. Therefore the analogy TMM represented is valid.

        • JollySith says:

          Giving is not the same as being robbed. And basic humanity 101 would not be so short sighted and stupid. What happens when these shops shut down and no one can get food whether they can afford it or not.

          • sagodjur1 says:

            Plenty of businesses give away some products and don’t go out of business. They’d have to be bad at business if giving away a bit of product put them out of business, in which case the market would kill off the business anyway.

            • Akuma Matata says:

              Give away is different than being robbed. ‘Choice’ being the difference, of course.

              • sagodjur1 says:

                So it’s okay to let people starve to death as long as you’re respecting the choices of property owners?

                Theft isn’t “right,” but it’s less wrong than letting people die needlessly. Be a human being and make the responsible choice of the lesser of two wrongs. And maybe if you find yourself destitute and starving, someone will steal food for you when others refuse to give up their excesses…

                • Difdi says:

                  It’s too bad Spain isn’t a civilized country. If this were to happen in the U.S. there would be needful death, the mayor’s.

                • Akuma Matata says:

                  You don’t have a right to the property of another, and you’re not morally justified to force people to do what you think is right, no matter how noble your cause may or may not be.

            • JollySith says:

              A bit of product is not even near the same as multiple people (the Merry men) walking out with carts full of food.

            • Martha Gail says:

              Still, perhaps the mayor should have worked out some sort of deal with the businesses to get donations. It’s stealing. If he can do it, well then why can’t everyone else just take what they want?

        • Bsamm09 says:

          You are a fucking idiot.

        • Cerne says:

          So if I came to your home and took all your stuff to give to the less fortunate you’d be cool with that? Or are you too fixated on the concept of “my property”?

          • sagodjur1 says:

            When did I say the businesses should give away all of their stuff? You’re arguing with a strawman. I’m not saying we should go full on Marxist here. I’m saying there’s an unnecessary and inhumane imbalance that can be rectified with a little human charity.

            If you took all my stuff and give it to the poor, I couldn’t clothe myself in order to go to work to make more money to give more stuff I don’t need away. That would be counterproductive. It’s better that people give things they don’t need away willingly to those that need it, but if the situation is dire, you shouldn’t let people starve because others are selfish and stingy.

            • Akuma Matata says:

              Theft isn’t charity. Either it’s moral to steal or it isn’t.

              • sagodjur1 says:

                Morality is never black or white. Feeding starving people with stolen food is less morally wrong than letting people die without aid when there is enough food to feed them that happens to belong to someone else.

                • Difdi says:

                  Morality is ALWAYS black and white. Anyone who tells you differently is either lying to you to excuse their own immoral acts, or has been lied to for that reason and believed it.

                  “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby.”
                  — Terry Pratchett by way of Granny Weatherwax.

            • aaronx says:

              So the store owner didn’t need those goods to sell to make money to “clothe himself in order to go to work to make more money”?

              Where are you getting that these shop owners are “selfish and stingy”?

              Your arguments are really falling flat here. It’s OK to admit that stealing from someone, even with good intentions, is probably the wrong thing to do.

              • sagodjur1 says:

                The article didn’t provide enough detail to determine that these raids are putting the store owners out of business. If they were, I would disagree with that.

                My “selfish and stingy” comment wasn’t directed at the store owners specifically. There are stingy and selfish people throughout society who refuse to help others in need even when helping won’t hurt them much or at all.

                It’s unfortunate for the store owners that in this scenario they had food when others needed food and couldn’t pay for it, but it could just as easily have been someone with a large amount of water when others were dehydrated. I’d certainly support a law that demands that the stores be compensated for their losses via a public fund if/when the economic crisis is over.

            • NeverLetMeDown2 says:

              You say it’s immoral for people to be starving. I don’t disagree. Why, then, is it more appropriate for the food they need to be taken from these stores, rather than, say, for the Spanish politician to hold you up, take some money from you (not so much you couldn’t eat, but a good chunk), and then use that to buy the food.

              You say that the people should be fed. Fine. Why are the grocers (rather than auto dealers, or teachers, or whomever) solely responsible for that? On the line of reasoning you’re using, it would be fine to just shut down the public transport system and have people who need to get to work just force taxis to drive them at gunpoint.

              • sagodjur1 says:

                I’ll quote myself above because you missed it: “It’s unfortunate for the store owners that in this scenario they had food when others needed food and couldn’t pay for it, but it could just as easily have been someone with a large amount of water when others were dehydrated. I’d certainly support a law that demands that the stores be compensated for their losses via a public fund if/when the economic crisis is over.”

                But as far as your analogy is concerned, you’ve got it backwards. The mayor isn’t shutting down public transportation. There is no analog to public transportation in this scenario, which is why it’s necessary to have the taxi drivers drive them. Though convenient transportation isn’t as dire a human need as food, so the scale is wrong. The story doesn’t mention it, but it seems like there isn’t a public food bank system in place to make up for the fact that people are in need of food.

                The necessity of the application of force to ensure the moral good increases the further down Maslow’s hierarchy of needs you go. There will never be a scenario where I consider it morally right to force an art supply store to give away free paint and paint brushes so that a not-literally-starving artist can paint all day without having to sell his work or skills to obtain a living for himself.

                But yeah, if you had more than enough food and someone else was starving and you refused to help, I’d hold you up to take the excess food, although I’d apologize and explain the situation, and attempt, if I could, to compensate you at a later date when possible. But I’d also ask how you could stand there with a surplus of food and not decide to help the hungry people on your own.

                We should value human life over property rights in extreme situations (not in all situations, for anyone who wants to continue to pretend I’m proposing a complete Marxist takeover of all wealth and property).

                • NeverLetMeDown2 says:

                  If this were a momentary, life or death issue, then perhaps (i.e. steal an epipen if the ambulance won’t get there in time).

                  This isn’t a “heat of the moment” issue, however. If someone is starving, it would be just as feasible for the mayor to rob an art supply store, take their cash, and buy the food, so that the immediate impact wasn’t on the supermarket owner. The fact that the supermarket owner happens to sell food doesn’t make him any more responsible for the starving people, since it’s clearly NOT the case that there is no way to feed them other than to rob the store owner.

                  All your discussion about the need to apply force simply doesn’t hold up, unless you believe that the mayor would be justified in applying force to any entity, at his discretion, which could provide the resources to obtain the food, in which case the mayor would be 100% as justified in robbing your house, selling your personal items, and using that cash to provide the food.

        • aaronx says:

          I know it’s cute to imagine these shop owners as Rockefeller types, witting in their leather chairs surrounded by bags of cash. But, generally (and I know as much about these shop owners as you do) supermarkets make very little profit.

          Is it justified to take away these shop owners ability to feed their family in the name of feeding somebody else’s family? Do you “like” that idea as well?

        • Dagny Taggart says:

          So, then. I suppose if someone stole your car because he needed to get somewhere and didn’t have a ride, you would be fine with that.

    • axolotl says:

      This might be the longest trolling thread on the internet

  3. Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

    And when the stores go out of business due to excessive losses, there will be plenty more people he can help feed.

  4. benminer says:

    How come this baboso hasn’t been arrested yet? Surely Spain has some sort of national police that doesn’t give a crap that he’s the mayor.

    • Auron says:

      FTA: The mayor of the town of about 2,600 says he’s just doing what right — and he might as well use his political immunity as a member of regional parliament for something good.

    • Marlin says:

      “he might as well use his political immunity as a member of regional parliament for something good”

      They can arrest all they want, but it will not hold up. Those in the Gov will not change as it opens to door to come after them.

    • Stickdude says:

      Why would he be arrested? This is merely redistribution of wealth without 8 layers of government bureaucracy getting in the way. He should be elected President of Spain.

      • Difdi says:

        Also known as felony theft.

        I bet you could easily find someone, somewhere in the world, who could honestly look at your lifestyle and see it as fabulously wealthy. Would that justify them to redistribute your wealth?

  5. Marlin says:

    Problem is they will not get rid of the law as it opens the door to come after them as well.

    Same reason Dem’s and Rep’s will seem like they hate each other but protect the laws that protect the other side as if its easier to go after a Dem that same rule can be used against Rep’s in the future.

  6. Budala says:

    In future news.

    ‘2,600 people town going hungry as supermarkets have closed due to mayor stealing groceries’

    People have to drive to neighboring towns to buy groceries. This increased their transportation cost and people now have even less money for groceries. Food prices in neighboring towns have increased due to security personel being hired to stop the mayor from the neighboring town from stealing. Property values fall in that town. People are moving out. Tax revenues sink as there are no stores left to collect sales tax. Some police officers have been laid off. Crime increases. All thanks to the mayor who stole from the supermarket.

    I hope that he gets prosecuted for all his crimes once a new mayor is in office.

  7. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    “There are people who don’t have enough to eat. In the 21st century, this is an absolute disgrace.”

    Yeah, you’re making sure your citizens have Funions. Kids in Africa are lucky to get poisonous bugs.

  8. aaronx says:

    This is actually the reverse of Robin Hood. He stole from the corrupt government to give the money back to the people.

    So in this scenario, Robin Hood would be the guy that steals back the stolen food and returns it to the supermarkets.

    Touching story and all, but the Robin Hood comparison is quite a bit off the mark.

  9. dolemite says:

    “You can’t be Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham”. Has anyone introduced them to the concept of our federal government?

  10. Cerne says:

    I can’t believe that people support this.

    This isn’t charity, acting like Robin Hood or justifiable wealth redistribution. This is a politican abusing his power to act like a feudal lord.

    Forcing supermarkets to give their products away means they close down, people lose their jobs and the community loses a source of food.

    If this was done on a broader scale than producing and selling food in Spain would no longer make sense.

    • Bsamm09 says:

      The store owner should run for mayor. In the weeks leading up to the election start giving away food and other items in exchange for votes.

      Once elected, visit the newly ex-mayor’s house and steal everything of value to hopefully recoup the cost of the thefts and campaign give-a-ways. Take all the items that only have sentimental value (photos and other cherished memories) and burn them.

      Kick ex-mayor in the nuts and call it a day.

  11. Akuma Matata says:

    If the people who are supposed to uphold the law are violating the law, then laws themselves become meaningless. The ends do not justify the means and this mayor should be arrested and thrown in jail for theft.

    • wade says:

      If the people who are supposed to uphold the law are violating the law, then laws themselves become meaningless.

      THIS. I’ve always wondered how some people seem to miss this concept when it’s “their guy” breaking the rules for a purpose they support. Don’t they realize that it could just as easily be “the other guy” breaking the rules???

      • sagodjur1 says:

        In the US, it is the other guy breaking the rules. And we’re not prosecuting them. We’re re-electing them.

        It’s nice for a change to see a public official do the right thing (feed the hungry) using perhaps a less than preferable (but apparently necessary) method than to see public officials (such as in the US) stand up only for the “needs” of corporations and the wealthy.

        If you have to choose between the two wrongs, I’d choose feeding the poor over further enriching the wealthy.

        • Difdi says:

          Obama and Bush both committed the same abuses of the law over and over.

          If anything, Obama has actually gone further than Bush, Bush actually kinda-sorta followed the law, Obama simply ignores it.

          But the same people who were SCREAMING for Bush to be impeached for things like violating due process by locking people up indefinitely without trial are mostly okay with Obama flat out executing people without trial.

  12. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    Mayor is still stealing, no matter what his end motives are. It’s not right.

  13. dush says:

    “This man is just searching for publicity at the cost of everyone else.”

    So he’s sticking his neck out to actively help the poor and hungry for political gain?

  14. sagodjur1 says:

    This mayor is restoring my faith in humanity and a lot of the absolutist comments against his actions are negating it.

    • JollySith says:

      People who truly believe that what one man works for another man is entitled to are the reason I have no faith in man to begin with. Absolutes exist. Stealing is never OK. There are times it is less bad than an alternative. But even if I were the one stealing to feed my family because I had no other option when I got caught i would still be punished and i would still deserve it. i would have made the moral decision that feeding my family was a higher priority than my own freedom or welfare. That is not what this wealthy mayor did however. He kept all his money (and if we can assume the people he gave it to are all truly needy then we can also assume that a Spanish politician is corrupt and has at least some wealth), and instead stole from the blue collar workers and store owners who he took an oath of office to protect.

      • JollySith says:

        By the way you do understand that what caused these financial troubles in Europe is the exact same entitlement attitude. Workers demanded pensions, benefits, months of vacation every year etc and had their officials enact them into laws and policies that they did not have the tax base to support. Therefore they have had to resort to austerity measures to pay the debts. which means there is no more money for entitlement programs.

      • sagodjur1 says:

        “People who truly believe that what one man works for another man is entitled to are the reason I have no faith in man to begin with.”

        So you’re against capitalist exploitation of workers then? I’m glad to hear it, comrade.

        Absolutes don’t exist except in a philosophy discussion. The real world and its problems are nuanced and complicated.

        Stealing is okay if it’s the best, least immoral act available to you. Everything is shades of gray and you have to make the best decision that you can make with the information that is available to you. Every decision you make affects someone else negatively in some way to some degree. You just have to try to make the decision that affects the least number of people negatively to the least possible degree. Also, and very importantly, legality is not the same as morality. What is right is not always legal and what is wrong is not always illegal, and vice versa.

        I didn’t see anything in the article that mentioned how wealthy the mayor was. It didn’t say either way whether or not he was rich or whether or not he was giving his own money or property away. You seemed to have jumped to that conclusion unless you read a different article than I did. Do you have a citation for his wealth?

        • NeverLetMeDown2 says:

          Well, unless he’s starving himself, there is zero justification for him to impose the costs of his acquisition of food for the poor on people who happen to own supermarkets, rather than undertaking those costs himself.

  15. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    After watching “The Milagro Beanfield War” I understood this was considered a ‘good’ thing in that culture.

  16. bawkbawk says:

    Are there no food banks in Spain?
    I have issues with sagodjur1’s argument that forced charity is justifying theft. The grocery store owners SHOULD give extra food charitably to local food banks or food distribution centers. But they do have costs associated with business and who’s to say that they aren’t already in the red and about to file bankruptcy themselves? What if they were all to go under and be hungry themselves? However, to TAKE their livelihood away from them is not going to make them want to give charitably in the future and perhaps build community bonds through giving and sharing. This mayor should be ashamed of using his public position to take advantage. To feed hungry citizens of your city is a noble cause- but he’s going about it the wrong way.

  17. Difdi says:

    This is why I’m glad I don’t live in an uncivilized country like Spain, where you can’t trust your neighbors and they can’t trust you, and the government doesn’t trust anyone at all so they pass laws making it impossible to engage in self-defense.

    Political immunity is inferior to a piece of paper with a restraining order printed on it when it comes to stopping bullets.

  18. dcatz says:

    I was raised to believe that stealing was wrong.

    I guess I’m not a liberal…