The kids also pretty easily abandon their values (which they’re named after). Maxie is sorry, and seems surprised that his actions hurt his friends, rather than defending his choice by saying that the teddies help the other neighborhood more than this one. Ivan gives up his indignation and desire for retribution very quickly as well.
More importantly, nobody is acknowledging that all property is theft, and that the parents have made sacrifices and moral compromises to get the initial teddies, rather than feeding starving people or doing other more useful things that match the goals implied by their children’s names. Supporting the horrific conditions in the teddy mines renders the whole parable suspect.
I notice that the question of Maxie stealing from her friends is simply dropped.
I find this notion of zero consequences baffling. It wasn’t even evaluated.
The kids also pretty easily abandon their values (which they’re named after). Maxie is sorry, and seems surprised that his actions hurt his friends, rather than defending his choice by saying that the teddies help the other neighborhood more than this one. Ivan gives up his indignation and desire for retribution very quickly as well.
More importantly, nobody is acknowledging that all property is theft, and that the parents have made sacrifices and moral compromises to get the initial teddies, rather than feeding starving people or doing other more useful things that match the goals implied by their children’s names. Supporting the horrific conditions in the teddy mines renders the whole parable suspect.