Fun eh. Nothing like a good rationalization. OK, like on this one for instance...
Well it's my analogy, so yeah in a similar sense to the bank holding this gold it can't actually get at, the country of Caverovia has a law saying any treasure within it's borders belongs to it.
M'well... except that that analogy breaks because, in the case of the bank, all the stuff actually
belongs to someone else, and the identity of that owner is
known, and the fact that those owners
have something stored in that bank is
also known. See, that was the rationale that (f'r instance) the James boys used: big, huge, impersonal corporate bank, got all this money by foreclosings, unscrupulous dealings, etc, it's poetic justice if we take some of it away and give it to little poor guys (us...). But the reality is (and they knew it) that the vast majority of that money belonged to the bank's depositors, including little average guys who may have had their life savings in that account.
As far as the government having a "legal" claim against any lost treasure, well... that happens to be the case in some states, I believe. Notice that "theft" is a legal term as well as an ethical/moral one. If you take something that - by law - belongs to another, you stole it. It's as simple as that. Now, one can argue about whether such a "everything's mine because I say it is" law is right or not (I say
not, even if it's here in the US, and the Supreme Court agreed in a lawsuit involving the Spanish galleon
Atocha a few years ago,) but the fact remains that if you violate the law, legally, you're a criminal.
In this case though we know the way the evil dictator thing works. If he gets a hold of it we know the actual people of Caverovia will never see it. We know the treasure will go to the evil dictator, to enslave, rape, murder, and buy arms to terrorize his neighbors.
We know the drill from all the evil dictator movies we've seen. And when the hero is trying to sneak the gold out of the country we go, "Yay. Go hero. Get the gold."
Sure we do. I know
I do.
But the hero is still a thief, legally, morally, and ethically. Nothing changes that just because the theft might be in everybody's best interests (well, except for whoever lost their swag...)
Now with Buffy we go, "Oh bad Buffy. She's a thief. It's out of character." I suggest one reason for that is we're just not familiar with the Nazi gold thing. We can't pigeon hole it as the kind of theft we can give a moral thumbs up to. In fact I've read a lot of posts on this subject, and I can't help noticing most people don't even notice it was Nazi Gold, nor do they seem concerned as to exactly what that might mean.
Or, y'know, the fact that it's Nazi Gold is irrelevant to whether or not
stealing it makes someone a
thief. (Notice how those two words seem to kinda go together?) And, by the way, I didn't say it was out of character. Given the right set of circumstances, I think Buffy would totally Do That. I mean, she may not really be the Do-That Girl, but I believe that, for the most part, Buffy is capable of doing whatever she feels she
has to do. So, no, it's not OOC; and frankly, that phrase has been used so much by Season 8's whining detractors that it's lost any claim to being an argument that can actually be taken seriously.
It isn't because there's a black and white moral determination on all theft. We've all seen movies where we cheer for the thief, and want him to get the loot. Some of them are more moral than Buffy. Ever seen Blood Diamond? The fisherman who steals the diamond gets it at the end, and we all go "Hurrah", cause he's a really good guy.
But he's still a thief. By definition.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
Watteau (whatever that is) ... the "tate," (whatever THAT is)
Painting (Watteau's the artist) ... museum.
