Stealing And Looting Is Wrong 99% Of The Time

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Can't we agree on this simple principle....


In my moral universe the only time stealing can be defensible is when you have exhausted every alternative to feed yourself and/or your family and stealing is the only alternative left...


If I saw somebody stealing from a supermarket I wouldn't report it because I would assume the person was desperate but if I was in a position of authority my outlook would be different....

[KyndCulture]

1. I remember during several hurricanes...

the groceries stores claim a complete loss and give it all away anyway...

so I agree with your statement and this will pan out to be true probably, with no power for 2 weeks the stock will all be lost anyway.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Didn't Rumsfeld...

...describe the looting of Baghdad as progress? Or something along those lines? I know someone here has that little nugget stored away.

[Richardo]

4. "Things get messy in a democracy" is the way I remember it.

Thank you, Rumsferatu, you minimizing, flip son of a bitch.

[Behind the Aegis]

I found it!

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said. "They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here."

Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. "Stuff happens," Rumsfeld said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/

BTW..."Rumsferatu" is hysterical! :rofl:

[Imagevision]

148. Gas stations experiencing drive-offs reporting 110 % increase?!!

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Well, damn, they should've GROWN their own food before Katrina hit!

You've never been poor, have you? :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Was Down To Having A Negative Checking Account

and giving my friends postdated checks to get by...

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Did you actually go hungry during a natural disaster?

?

If not, then I think those who looted a FUCKING FOOD STORE should get a pass, given the difficult circumstances brought about by the hurricane.

[Daphne08]

11. Being poor doesn't have anything to do with stealing!

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[faithfulcitizen]

30. uh, she was *defending* stealing under some circumstances

:eyes:

[Cooley Hurd]

34. It wasn't clear by the OP...

:eyes:like I said... wtfe! :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. The OP Made It Very Clear....

Plase reread it...

[Cooley Hurd]

48. I read it TWICE... it WASN'T clear...

:eyes:

I'm SHOCKED by the freeper responses in this (and other) threads.

Try starving sometime, before making such asinine comments (not you, DSB, but many of the other comments. Although I still encourage you to re-read the OP).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Hmmmm..

"In my moral universe the only time stealing can be defensible is when you have exhausted every alternative to feed yourself and/or your family and stealing is the only alternative left..."

[mondo joe]

57. What's unclear about "when you have exhausted every alternative

...to feed yourself and/or your family and stealing is the only alternative left..."

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Cooley Hurd]

Oh, so they should go out to their "hurricane gardens" and harvest...

Could YOU give me some survival tips, because I DON'T have a Hurricane Garden. Thanks so much... :eyes:

[mondo joe]

66. That wouldn't be an "alternative", would it now?

The OP gave a real distinction which you choose to brush aside in favor of a silly strawman.

If a "garden" were not an alternative, it wouldn't be an alternative. Right?

[Cooley Hurd]

70. No, I've been crystal-clear about it...

...if you're hungry, you can steal food.

YOU'RE the one chucking up strawmen, not me! :eyes:

[mondo joe]

72. Your "hurrican garden" is the strawman here.

The OP was clear that it's okay if you have exhausted every other alternative. If a "garden" is not possible then it's not an alternativem is it?

And if you're hungry but have an alternative to theft, then theft is not okay.

[Cooley Hurd]

81. Oh, so you're saying they could've stocked CONSUMER edibles...

...before the storm? They have ALL sorts of money to do so - to run out at a minute's notice and stock up for possibly WEEKS of being without food. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

86. I'm saying if all alternatives are exhausted, theft in order to eat is

okay. But you've alerady said that's not clear enough for you, so I don't expect it to work this time either.

[Cooley Hurd]

88. What alternatives? Going to the Superdome?

What if you can't wade thru 10 ft of water? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

89. Again, if the alternatives are exhausted theft to survive is okay.

What about that do you not get?

[Cooley Hurd]

91. Actually, you made my point for me...

Thank you ever so kindly. :crazy:

[mondo joe]

93. If I made your point for you it would have been a cogent one at least.

But glad you're satisfied.

[Cooley Hurd]

96. snarf!

My point was, and is, that if people feel desperate enough to steal food, then we, as Democrats, should NOT call for them to be shot (of course, YOU, nor the OP, never called for that).

[mondo joe]

101. You continue to assume that stealing food is necessarily an act

of desperation. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

I don't believe in assuming a legitimate cause when we simply don't know.

And both I and the OP have repeatedly stated that when alternatives are exhausted theft to survive is fine. But you don't seem to like that response.

[Cooley Hurd]

104. No, actually, that was my point from the beginning...

A legitimate cause of stealing food would be HUNGER (or fear of HUNGER).

Waiting for your response, because you can't stop digging that hole. :D

[mondo joe]

107. Hunger alone is not legitimate if there are alternatives.

Your arguments are that if it is after a disaster or one is hungry theft is okay.

I'd asy one has to have exhausted other alternatives before it's okay.

You don't care for that.

Understood.

[Cooley Hurd]

109. Are you in NOLA? Can you get your microwave popcorn from the 7-11?

Do you KNOW HOW THOSE POOR PEOPLE in NOLA feel? :shrug:

[northzax]

118. microwave popcorn is a neccesity?

and there's no power, who's gonna nuke it?

[Cooley Hurd]

121. Ya missed my joke.

Not my fault... ;) And, yes, even microwave popcorn would provide sustenance in a time of need, such as the aftermath of a hurricane.

[northzax]

127. I thought it was all a joke

seriously, no one can actually argue this position of yours, can they?

[mondo joe]

129. Circumstances are individual., and in some cases theft

might be necessary to survive, and in other cases there may be alternatives.

I don't know why you have such a problem with that.

[Cooley Hurd]

131. I have a problem with one thing only...

...GREED. If one is sooooo greedy that they wouldn't share food in a time of need, then... :thumbsdown:

[faithfulcitizen]

124. perhaps hurd is hungry? someone get him a sandwich...

maybe he'll cooley-out! :freak:

[Cooley Hurd]

128. Bwahaha!

Okay, admittedly, I'm a bit hungry, but you stop that! :D

[nini]

40. I've been poor and you are over reacting

NO ONE is saying a sense of survival doesn't come into play with the looting and I'm sure the majority of the people there are scared and desperate.

HOWEVER, there is an element of taking advantage of the situation that could be going on and that's what is being considered.

Relax.. no one is saying people don't have right to do whatever they need to survive. I think everyone understands that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. That's What I Said..

You would have to be a horse's ass to deny food to a starving person but that's not what I'm talking about...

[nini]

52. When people here looting they think of looting after riots..

such as after the Rodney King verdict.. Getting TVs, radios etc.. THAT is definitely wrong. That's what pisses me off.


Food in a natural disaster is another story. However, I still maintain there are probably people taking advantage of the situation.

we agree

[northzax]

111. sure, but then

it's worth noting that the hurricane hit what, ten hours ago? unless you were starving before then, you can't possible be starving now. Sure, you might be 'hungry' but almost everyone can go twelve hours without food (some have medical conditions that make this less possible, but most people really can)

If, tommorow evening, say, the government, Red Cross and other organisations have not established a method to provide food to people in need in New Orleans ($50 says they will, the Red Cross is VERY good at this and FEMA ain't bad either) and your property has been destroyed, so you have literally nothing to eat, then you can start to make a reasonable arguement for availing yourself of only what you need to survive from stocks that will be wasted anyway.

But looting today? in this situation? knowing that within 12-24 hours relief will be on site? morally and legally wrong from any perspective no matter how 'poor' someone is.

[nini]

123. I thought of that too...

I guess until I'm in that position I do not know what I would do.

Yes, I believe it's wrong to do this if help is on the way. I agree.

I'm sure there are opportunists in there. I'm sure there are scared to death others.

It's not cut and dry in my mind. Only those who are doing this know for sure.

[northzax]

125. but the point of ethics

is that you may not know what you would do, but you can say what you should do, how you hope you would act. some are clear cut, others require more thought.

[nini]

132. I wouldn't loot unless my life or those of my loved ones depended on it

If lives were at risk I feel it is morally correct to preserve their lives even if I have to steal to do it.

On edit.. I apply this to others also as to whether or not stealing is justified.

[donheld]

113. It's real difficult for some to GROW there own food

Apartment dwellers have no land. City dwellers most of the time don't have enough yard. It's not always an option.

[Cleita]

6. You know when you disenfranchise a group of people

and they are made to feel like outsiders, they tend to revise their ethics into a them and us mentality. If I was one of those poor people who was left behind because I couldn't afford to get out, I might start thinking if I'm that disposable, I'm entitled to get what I can out of this. I'm not saying it's right, but next time something like this happens, if the haves don't want their goods stolen they really should help out those who can't help themselves by making sure that they are evacuated with everyone else.

My two cents.

[Mairead]

25. You pegged it, I think.

If the wealthy don't care about Alice's life, why should Alice care about their property?

Some of us have been socialised to have really effed-up ethics: love things, use people.

[Cleita]

36. Also, looting seems to go hand in hand with chaos when

you have a poor and disenfranchised underclass that's been freed from the restraints of society because of the chaos. Earthquakes, floods, wars and anything that temporarily suspends the rule of law encourages this.

[Mairead]

60. Yes, a social-order upheaval that acts as a sort of licence, not unlike

the mediaeval winter-solstice celebrations in which the social standings were turned upside down for a night, with the nobility releasing class tensions by serving and obeying the commoners.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Under Your Scenario

what's to stop Alice's brother from getting out his glock and putting a cap behind some hapless guy's ear because he wants his car....

[Mairead]

62. What's to stop that anyway? (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. Carry Your Own Glock...

Then we can have the law of the jungle...

[Mairead]

95. I think we've just come full-circle: what makes you think we DON'T

have 'the law of the jungle' right now? That was the point of Cleita's post: when people are treated as things, they soon realise that they're operating under the law of the jungle and respond accordingly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

147. If We Did Have The Law Of The Jungle

the people we supposedly care about would fare the worse....

[Cleita]

73. Anything can happen.

I think if our government had made an effort to evacuate those people, who were left behind like so much human garbage, you wouldn't see very much of this going on. Maybe those who chose to stay behind would be helping each other instead.

[littleraf]

115. Contrary to Popular Belief New Orleans Is a Poor City

New Orleans is a poor town. The only thing they have really is tourism (which has never been much) and 2 annual festivals (Mardi Gras and the Super Bowl, which I think it's safe to say won't be coming back EVER now that New York's getting a new enormous billon-dollar stadium and the Superdom's roof is gone. They're poor down there and always have been. Poverty should be considered a natural disaster since it forces people to stay where they are during catastrophe's and forces aid workers to remain there as well.

[Cleita]

7. Dupe

[Ian David]

37. Good point. There's a difference...

between looting because you were left behind, and staying behind to go looting.

Those people were abandoned and left twisting in the wind.

They didn't get any help before the storm.

They didn't get any help during the storm.

Why should they believe they would get any help after the storm?

[Daphne08]

9. Stealing is wrong.

I don't understand some of the comments I've seen regarding looting.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Daphne08]

16. Don't you DARE question my politics!

You should question your own ethics!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

23. Being a dem does not = automatically okaying theft and assuming

everyone is a victim.

It may be that some looters are seriously in need of food and have no better option.

It may be some people are exploiting a bad situation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Thank You...

I am willing to entertain the notion that stealing like killing is justifiable in certain clearly defined circumstances...

[Cooley Hurd]

29. Perhaps, but we're talking about the looting of a supermarket...

Food and power and water will be scarce for WEEKS. I could NEVER fault anyone for stealing food after a natural disaster. What Democrat could???????:shrug:

[mondo joe]

35. And the stolen ATM machine will be delicious, I'm sure.

I could fault someone for stealing anything if they are just exploiting a bad situation.

If they are stealing because they truly need it, they'll find no condemnation from me.

But I'm also not ready to make assumptions that every person stealing is doing just one of those things.

[Cooley Hurd]

41. yawn...

Sure, some scumbucket steals an ATM, and the paople stealing FOOD should be lumped in with them.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

44. I'm not the one assuming everyone is okay or not okay.

As I said previously some may be stealing from necessity. Some may be exploiting.

Can we not recognize both?

Is that too nuanced for your tastes?

[Cooley Hurd]

50. When Best Buy gets looted, I will fall firmly into you camp...

...but we're talking about FOOD, not HDTV's!

[mondo joe]

54. No, we're talking food, beer ATMs and more.

As much as you'd like to pretend that everyone looting is justified by need and victimhood, the fact is at least some people are simply exploiting a tragedy.

We don't know how many fall into the need camp vs the exploiter camp, but I'd say you're awfully quick to jump to conclusions about them all as well as your fellow posters.

[Cooley Hurd]

59. And, as I've said repeatedly, those stealing for the sake of stealing...

...should be exempt from any sort of compassion.

But, we're STILL talking about freaking FOOD!!!!

*bangs head against table, trying to figure out WHICH board I'm posting on!!!*

[mondo joe]

63. No, we're not. Some are looting food. Some are looting other things.

And we don't even know who that is looting food is doing it out of need and who is exploiting the situation.

If you weren't so fired up to decide - based on almost no knowledge - you might be able to see that there's ample opportunity for both real need and real crime.

[Cooley Hurd]

65. ...and I've not spoken of ANYTHING other than the food looting.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

69. But you don't know what's being looted or why.

And you don't even know if the food is being looted out of necessity or exploitation.

Just because food is a necessity doesn't mean every instance if stealing it is.

[Cooley Hurd]

74. I've been consistent in what I would consider acceptable....

...in terms of looting. YOU'RE the one trying to pick a fucking fight about things OTHER than food. :thumbsdown:

[mondo joe]

80. I don't know when you've stated that, and given the number of deleted

posts I can't really go back to clarify what you've said.

[Cooley Hurd]

87. Boohoo...

Weak comeback, at best. :D

[mondo joe]

92. Your posts have thus far been a broad defense of looters, based

on an apparent assumption that every one is a noble victim fighting the circumstances with no other choice but to steal.

There hasn't been much more nuance than that.

[Cooley Hurd]

98. Hmmm... did I EVER say that those looting non-life-sustaining items...

...should be excused? No... no I did not.

This is about FOOD.:eyes:

[mondo joe]

99. You didn't address them as a separate issue. You instead chose to

just defend the looters on the assumption that they were doing something necessary without any consideration that they might not be.

[Cooley Hurd]

100. Actually, I did... SEVERAL TIMES...

...and NONE of those posts were deleted, my friend. :hi:

[mondo joe]

103. And you continue to assume that theft of food is always born of

genuine need, rather than exploitation.

[Cooley Hurd]

106. Oh, so ALL the food stores will be open tomorrow?

I had no idea I was talking to the LA FEMA director here.

I'm soooo sorry. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

108. That's not relevant. Some theft is born of genuine need, some is

exploitive - even where food is concerned. You are unwilling to recognize the latter.

Understood.

[Cooley Hurd]

120. Where did I say that looting was acceptable for any other reason than...

...food?:shrug:

*crickets* because you know damn well I never said such a thing.

*digdig* :D

[mondo joe]

You didn't adderss other circumstances - just defended looting

if it's after a disaster or if people are hungry.

You similarly failed to address that even in cases in which food is stolen it may not be necessary but may be exploitive.

[Cooley Hurd]

133. And, are YOU in any position to say when people are hungry or not...

...enough to steal food?:shrug:

*digdig* :D this is fun. :D

[mondo joe]

139. No, and neither are you. That's why I've said that some may be

stealing out of genuine need and some out of exploitation.

I've probably typed that asbout 8 times now, or more.

The difference is you're assuming if people are stealing food it's because they need it. I'm just not assuming.

[Cooley Hurd]

140. Well, they've just experienced a natural disaster...

...that's enough (and SHOULD BE enough) for any compassionate person.

I get it... why don't you?:shrug:

[mondo joe]

141. A natural disaster doesn't mean everyone who is stealing is doing so

out of necessity, even if it is for food.

You seem to have a hard time with that.

[Cooley Hurd]

142. Wow, could I BE more clear to you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4497833&mesg_id=4499220

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4497833&mesg_id=4499057

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4497833&mesg_id=4498747

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4497833&mesg_id=4498597

Mondo, I've been CRYSTAL-CLEAR - it's YOU THAT wants to shoot first, and ask questions later. :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. No-You Unfairly Slammed Me

"In my moral universe the only time stealing can be defensible is when you have exhausted every alternative to feed yourself and/or your family and stealing is the only alternative left..."


It would be so much easier to say you didn't read my post clearly and move on...


I even said I wouldn't stop a food thief in any situation because I would think they had to be desperate to steal food in the first place...



Thar's why I give money to pan handlers... Even if they can work they must have some awful demons to make them stand on the side of the road in all kinds of weather with a "I Will Work For Food" sign...

[petronius]

79. Even if we're only talking about food looting

it's still a question of people taking far more then they need, before anyone has time to to really get hungry, at a time when emergency response organizations haven't had a chance to respond.

It is possible that there are a few people who have a desperate and immediate need and have no choice to take what they need, but even those folks have a moral obligation to come back and pay for what they took as soon as the proprietors return...

[Mairead]

19. Letting people go hungry or be endangered is wrong, too

in any sort of civilised society. Cleita, I think, has it pegged: if nobody cares about your life, why should you care about someone else's property?

[gollygee]

32. It's because people are stealing *food*

I don't know if enough time has gone by for people to be hungry enough to have to resort to this, but I can see a situation where someone would need desperately to get food but no one would be working in the store at that time (say because of a hurricane) and so someone would steal some food out of desperation.

If people were stealing some non-essential item then this debate wouldn't be happening.

[OrlandoGator]

143. If my family is hungry and I've got no options, I'm going to steal food.

I find no moral dilemma in that whatsoever.

[Bridget Burke]

10. What if your home was being looted?

That happens after disasters, as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Wouldn't Want To Be Violated...

I'm distinguishing between my home and a 7-11...

As you can see I closed the window on stealing and left open a small, small crack...


I believe there is a right and wrong thing to do in every situation; just not a universal right and wrong...


Killing is wrong but I would kill to defend my life, your life, or my country under the right set of circumstances....

Etcetera...

[PsychoDad]

76. I dunno...

If I wasn't there and there was food there, they would be welcome to it. I might have even left the door unlocked and left a sign on the door saying that there was food in the fridge and cabinets - Help yourselves.

If I were there, I'd share what I had with my neighbors who were in need.

[meganmonkey]

14. In my moral universe letting food go to waste while people are hungry

is at least as immoral as stealing it when it is probably going to rot anyway. This isn't as simple as people stealing from a a grocery store.

[TahitiNut]

17. I guess there're no moral dilemmas in Pleasantville, huh?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/

[gollygee]

18. Here's what I think

It's wrong to steal because people who own the stores can't afford to subsidize free food to everyone.

HOWEVER if the hurricane has put people in a situation where they need food and are unable to get it in some other way, then I would understand.

It seems unlikely that's what's going on in this case as it hasn't been long enough for anyone to be all that hungry yet, but I don't think it's fair when people say STEALING IS WRONG and don't take into consideration the whole situation. Yes, stealing is wrong, but so is allowing your children to go hungry.

[Fleshdancer]

20. I would steal food if my daughter was hungry

but if it was just for me, I probably wouldn't resort to stealing food until several days have passed. :shrug:

[slor]

21. Sure...it is wrong...

but guess what I am going to do if my wife and/or child are going hungry in the middle of a catastrophic event.

[ultraist]

24. What if it was life saving medication for your sick child?

And you couldn't afford it? Would it be wrong to allow your child to suffer and die or should a parent get the medicine by whatever means available to them?

What is "wrong," is to allow human beings go without food, water and basic medication.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Not You But As Smart As Some DUers Are They Have Comprehension Problems

As you can see by my original post stealing in that situation would be justified.

[ultraist]

49. Just checking your consistency. ;)

No offense.

[mondo joe]

38. Didn't the OP cover that? If there are no better alternatives why

would it not be OK?

[northzax]

114. not if by taking it

they deprive someone else, just as needy, of it, no.

[katsy]

26. A couple of good links just to muck up the conversation.

:evilgrin:

http://www.mexico-child-link.org/street-children-definition-statistics.htm


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020405_cassel.html


I was actually trying to find some stats for petty crimes (as opposed to violent crimes) committed during gop presidencies as opposed to Democrat Presidents.

[oasis]

27. During an evacuation, Winn Dixie checkstand workers are hard to come by.

Should people wait for the store to be rebuilt in order to provide for their families.

[mondo joe]

31. Right. Because no one knew a storm was coming so they didn't have

a chance to buy food earlier.

And that stolen ATM will be delicious cooked on an open fire.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. This Is A Slippey Slope

I'm trying to think of that movie where those guys stole the ATM and almost killed themselves moving it...

[petronius]

67. Barbershop?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. That Was It...Thank You...

The thing I remember most from Barberhop was the banter and Cedric The Entertainer..

[oasis]

53. The same people that took food are not likely the ones who stole the ATM.

Put away your broad brush.

[mondo joe]

56. we don't know who is doing what, so we?

Are half the looters in need and half exploiting? Is it a 90/10 split?

We don't know.

But that doesn't stop some of us from assuming. The broad brush, oasis, is your own.

[oasis]

78. The facts we do know are these (1) People need to eat to live (2) Winn

Dixie and its contents were likely to be detroyed.

You may be clever eonough to figure out where your next meal is coming from when a disaster hits. Others must rely on their own survival instincts.

[mondo joe]

83. But you don't know that that's why Winn Dixie is being looted.

And we know people are taking non food essentials.

You're still making very broad assumptions.

[oasis]

97. My focus is on people in need during an emergency. Protecting property

takes a back seat in my book.

[mondo joe]

102. You don't know why people are stealing.

Some may be genuine need.

Some is not.

But I guess it's easy to just whip out that broad brush instead of deal with that.

[oasis]

145. My concern is for the needs of hungry people. Period. I'll leave it up

to folks like you to sort out and judge who is needy.

[faithfulcitizen]

58. is your brush not broad also? Don't you assume all poor people

are model citizens? How can you make the claim they are not likely the ones?

[oasis]

84. Ever try to carry a loaf of bread and an ATM machine at the same time?

:eyes:

[faithfulcitizen]

105. well, i'm not a theif, but i bet i could stuff a few cds down my pants

:silly:

[Ian David]

45. I suppose they COULD leave a note behind with their credit card number

Dear Windixie,

Please bill my card for the following items...

I think I remember that being done somewhere a couple years ago.

[Mairead]

47. Good point, and it almost calls something to mind for me

I believe there's been at least one instance--I can't recall details, wretched middle-aged memory, maybe someone else can--where a owner(s?) of a store left the premises unlocked and an 'honor system' box for people to take what they needed and leave the money...and when things sorted out afterwards, they found they had lost relatively little: 80% or thereabouts of the people taking things responded to the store-owner's expression of trust by paying for what they took!

[oasis]

61. Good story, but it sounds like a small town mom and pop store. I doubt

you could leave an "honor" cigar box unguarded in the big city.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. That's Because One Person Could Ruin The Whole System...

If there's cash he could walk away with all the good folks cash or if there's credit card numbers he could walk away with them...

[mondo joe]

77. But since some us seem to know that every person looting the

grocery is a good soul doing so only because they're starving then we would never have to worry about someone taking the cash or credit card numbers.

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. I Have Empathy For The Poor...

But this romanticizing of the poor stikes me as stunted sociological analysis...

It's the flip side of the naive Freeper belief that anybody can become "successful" in America...

Only in this vision if you are unsuccessful in America it has to be without the exclusion the system's fault....

And almost anything you do can be justified...

[Mairead]

119. Stunted sociological analysis?

I'd urge you to do more studying, then. Being poor doesn't automatically convey ethical superiority, but you should look at the mores in poor environments.

It's a given in fundraising circles that poor people are more willing to contribute to charity. (Discovering that truth is why Arianna Huffington is now no longer a GOPer. See her site for details).

Hospitality is a standard cultural characteristic of all poor societies, but not of rich ones.

Uri Avnery remarked on it (you can find the article on his site still) in warning the US about what would happen in Iraq: when he and a photographer followed the IDF into the Lebanon years ago, they could hardly go a klick a day because of the Arab villagers along the road--most of them poor farmers--trying to force food and tea on them despite their being non-Muslims.

And anyone travelling through poor areas, whether in Appalachia, Scotland, the Semitic Region, or Viet Nam, could take for granted being given for the asking a meal and a place to sleep at night. This has been remarked on by many collectors of folk arts and other people travelling through such regions.

The famous 300-y.o. grudge of the MacDonalds against the Campbells is due not to the fact that the Campbells slaughtered so many of the MacDonalds at Glen Coe, but that they did it after being given food, shelter, and dry clothing. (The Campbell force failed to wipe out the MacDonalds as ordered in large part because too many of the Campbells, themselves poor Highlanders, were so appalled by their orders to violate the rules of hospitality that they secretly warned their victims and allowed them to slip away)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. My Analysis Is Fine...

I didn't say all the poor were saints or demons...They have the same foibles and glowing traits as any anybody else...

I'd like to add that there are alot of folks regardless of their economic class who would violate the law if they thought they could get away with it...

I once saw a study where a shockingly high number of men said they would rape a woman if they were guaranteed to get away with it...

[Mairead]

138. Your analysis is "fine" only within a certain set of assumptions

which you cannot support, and I don't share.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Which Assumptions

That there are people with no ethical moorings who would commit the most egregious acts if they thought they wouldn't get caught...I think there is ample evidence that those people exist... They are called sociopaths...


That the "poor" or lumpenproletariat are comprised of saints as well as sinners....

That strikes me as common sense; not the product of an ideological disposition....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. Which Assumptions

That there are people with no ethical moorings who would commit the most egregious acts if they thought they wouldn't get caught...I think there is ample evidence that those people exist... They are called sociopaths...


That the "poor" or lumpenproletariat are comprised of saints as well as sinners....

That strikes me as common sense; not the product of an ideological disposition....

[oasis]

137. Good post. (nt)

[ryan_cats]

42. What the hell did I miss?

What the hell did I miss? Working nights kind of leaves you news deprived but my company lets DU through !!!!
I saw the weather charts last night since it affects out networks but didn't hear anything about looting and then business got busy so I couldn't surf.
Thanks for keeping us night bound cubicle dwellers informed, at least when we're not swamped.

[babyk]

64. I'm amoral

nothing is wrong and nothing is right.

[PsychoDad]

68. But when you are hungry you need food.

Looting TV's and jewelry, no.
Taking food to survive on that is going to spoil anyway, more than fine.

That's my viewpoint anyway.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. That's What I Said...

"In my moral universe the only time stealing can be defensible is when you have exhausted every alternative to feed yourself and/or your family and stealing is the only alternative left..."

[patdem]

110. Gas stations raising prices in a flooded devistated area...THAT IS

LOOTING, my friend! Grocery stores RAISINIG prices before a hurricane hits...THAT IS LOOTING, my friend. Home product stores GOUGING the public...THAT IS LOOTING, my friend. To steal FOOD to feed your family IS NOT LOOTING...the food is ruined anyway.

I agree..breaking into a CLOSED food store ONLY to take ENOUGH food for YOUR family is NOT LOOTING...everything else IS!

[northzax]

117. and the governor has appointed a special task force

starting last saturday to monitor prices of essential items. Louisiana State Law has a definition of price gouging in a state of emergency, and the task force has the job of jailing, not fining, jailing for six months, anyone convicted of gouging. Gas prices did not rise in NOLA over the weekend, nor did basic food prices, in general. As of last night, there had been, I believe, 16 complaints of gouging they were investigating. So the government is doing its responsibility here, at least.

[patdem]

122. WOW..I am VERY impressed with Louisiana regarding gouging of

its citizens during times of national emergencies...there is no such law in Virgina..and we have been gouged time and time again! Very impressive! and GOOD for LA!

[northzax]

126. indeed, it's worth watching and celebrating

if they do it right, that is.

[petite marmotte]

112. During a Disaster

the normal rules of behavior and ethics don't apply too well. I don't know if the looting that has been seen today is about survival as much as it's about risk versus reward. If you want to brave very dangerous weather you might get to steal a bunch of free stuff and not get in trouble. It may also because some see others doing it and then a crowd mentality comes into play.

What is interesting to me is when things like this happen, people begin to fine-tune what constitutes wrong. Or wronger. Stealing is okay if you are starving. Stealing is okay from a food store, but not a sporting goods store. Stealing from any store is more okay than stealing from a person's home. Nobody should care about who is stealing what at all when people are drowning and dying.

There's all this stratifying of okayness.

Years ago, in the hours after the Loma Prieta quake in the SF Bay Area, I remember the collective disgust and outrage when it was reported that looters were crawling into cars under the collapsed freeway and taking purses and wallets from dead motorists who had been trapped in there. Now, I gotta' say, I thought that was low.

In a catastrophe, I guess it all becomes relative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. Good Post

What is interesting to me is when things like this happen, people begin to fine-tune what constitutes wrong. Or wronger. Stealing is okay if you are starving. Stealing is okay from a food store, but not a sporting goods store. Stealing from any store is more okay than stealing from a person's home. Nobody should care about who is stealing what at all when people are drowning and dyin


Stealing is okay if you are starving . No problem...


Stealing is okay from a food store, but not a sporting goods store.
Right...

Stealing from any store is more okay than stealing from a person's home.... Agree with some caveats....

[Lilith Velkor]

116. self delete

nevermind, bad joke

[ScreamingMeemie]

134. Civility is an extremely thin veneer. Desperate people commit

desperate acts.

[stepnw1f]

135. Bush's War Profiteering Comes to Mind

Corporations steal behind the fog of war.

[Dastard Stepchild]

144. Doesn't everyone just consider themselves the exception to the rule?

I mean, if yer stealing or looting, you have probably identified for yourself a very valid reason for doing it. I think that is why the feeling or being "wrong" or unethical" doesn't always enter into the equation - since I've got a good reason, it must not be wrong. And I'm not sure if we could ever get everyone to completely agree about the "right" and "wrong" reasons for stealing.

The question I have always asked myself is thus:
If a person truly and deeply believes an action to be right, who is given the authority to judge it as a wrong?

Of course, one hopes that people will conduct themselves in a manner that most takes into consideration the needs and expectations of other people. But, sometimes we're just a big 'ol gaggle of disappointing, hairless monkeys.

Morality sure ain't easy. :)

[Deja Q]

149. Depends on the morality of those you're stealing from.

That aside, I'd rather do myself in rather than steal what I need to survive.