Rorschach is not a hypocrite, people. He would never steal money from criminals and there is absolutely nothing in the book to suggest that he would.
EmPiiRe x wrote:
If we take everything Rorschach says as what Rorschach truly believes, then we are to infer that he must agree with Veidt's utilitarianism, because he agreed with Harry Truman's.
I don't see that as a contradiction; perhaps it's the war and racism. Truman killed many Japanese people during a war. Rorschach would have seen them as the enemy, the bad guys, and seen Truman as the good guy. Truman was right to drop the bombs because they saved lives, like he wrote in the letter, and this line of thinking justifies Veidt, but the value of a guilty person's life and an innocent person's life are two very different things to Rorschach. The people of New York were unquestionably innocent, but the Japanese were on the wrong side of the war. To Rorschach, that's a crime in itself.
I guess this point hasn't been made because we're all thinking of Japanese lives as equal to American lives, but there's no indication that Rorschach would. I mean, when he's walking by the prostitutes and he lists the love they offer by ethnicity ("Swedish love," etc) he mourns the lack of "American love" offered. It's not much, but there's an hint of racism there.
Dan snaps to him "You live off people while insulting them" but that's about it so we don't know if Dan somehow set up a fund for Rorschach. (He doesn't seem like the banking guy.)
I think the "living off people" comment has more to do with Rorschach finding stuff in trashcans and using/selling it. Dan is generous with him, but I don't think it could go as far as a trust fund or any direct handout like that. Rorschach is OK with eating other people's food, but even then he does so in the most low-cost way possible (e.g, eating a raw egg, eating cold beans out of the can). I think he takes as little from people as he "needs" to.
To Dan, a can of beans or some cereal and coffee is practically worthless and the same goes for Veidt's stationery. I think because they're both much wealthier than Rorschach, he sees their possessions with little financial worth as equal to garbage. I mean, people throw useful things away all the time. He's so used to seeing edible food and whatnot discarded by people with more money than him that the distinction between "it's mine but it wouldn't matter if I did throw it out" and "I bought it but I don't care about it so now I'm throwing it out" is meaningless.
As for stealing from Moloch, well, I think he ate that egg more to freak the guy out than anything else anyway. It was more destruction of property than theft.
Also, as far as his financial situation goes, the landlady! Yes she complains about the rent, but she hasn't kicked him out, has she? I think she sees herself as his mother as much as he does. I mean, she complains about his hygiene like so many mothers of teenage boys do. Anyway, I think she lets him live there practically for free (like a mother would). She obviously doesn't make much money as a landlady or she wouldn't be a hooker, hm?
I think the 401k theory is the most bogus of all. From the book, emphasis mine: "1956. Aged 16. Left children's home. Became unskilled manual worker
, garment industry." There's no way in hell he got any kind of pension from a job like that. Probably he spent that money conservatively, but it couldn't possibly be his primary source of money thirty years later.