Between highschool and starting uni, I did a small stint as a cashier.
I called the cops on two people, one was stealing beer, the other some keychain. Both cheap items, but not necessities.
I saw multiple people steal baby formula and diapers and there wasn't a bone in my body that even thought of calling the cops on them.
The first are stealing to steal.
The later are stealing to survive.
Imho the law should make a clear distinction between the two too.
Problem is that you open one item to be allowed to be stolen, you then set the precedent of anything being allowed to be stolen. That’s what welfare and social programs are for.
The distinction in the law should be different penalties, not allow one of them.
That's why crimes do not have a set penalty but a range for the judge to... well judge taking things like that into account.
I would imagine that other workers in his store wouldn't be so human and would balance out this precedent
what you did there is called the "slippery slope fallacy"
The slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. The strength of a slippery slope argument relies on the ability to show that the initial action will actually lead to the predicted outcome. The fallacy comes in when connections are drawn between unrelated concepts - an easy example of this is the argument that legalizing abortion will lead to the legalization of murder. In this case, I think it's pretty likely that making a certain item legal to steal will pave the way for more items to be legal to steal in the future. After all, who decides which items should fall under that law? I'm sure there will be plenty of people with very strong, differing opinions on the topic.
Yeah just because stores sell food doesn't mean they should feed people for free. There are a lot of costs involved in getting food onto the shelves such as planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, packaging, and distribution, and the costs of running the store. This especially applies to small mom and pop stores.
Same sort of thing with non-food items, track any particular item and they don't just appear on the store shelves, it takes a lot of people and effort and materials to get them there.
Hence why stores should deliver unsold goods to food/supply banks instead of tossing it.
The cost was already made, the item gets written of for not being sold, still does some good in the end.
Agreed. Though judges have some leeway here, there's nothing official that would give them an incentive to treat the cases differently other than their moral compass.
As Aladin put it "Got to eat to live, got to steal to eat"
Otherwise we’d get along!
And that will be in my head all day…
I remember standing in line at a liquor store, watching a (likely) homeless woman carefully pocket some food item. I said nothing. I talked about it the next day at work. A coworker suggested I'd just passed an "ethics test."
That was many years ago, before I'd established my current worldview. Today, I'd be silently rooting for them. "Get some food!"
I wouldn't call that necessarily passing an ethics test. You could've wanted to say something, but were too lazy.
Not doing something wrong is different from doing something right.
Does your liquor store sell food??? All the ones here sell only liquor.
If they're stealing it from people, I think I'd do something. But corporations aren't people.
Depends where you are. In the US they actually are:
I'll believe it when they execute one
Or just jail a CEO
Why not whole board?
They’re ‘people’, but they’re not people.
Distract any nearby clerks, duh
you earned it.
I've finally made it 🦾
Same thing I do when I see someone punch a Nazi.
Barely hold back from loudly rooting them on?
Stop what you're doing and also punch a Nazi?
I just can't be bothered to get involved. Be it baby formula or beer
Lemmy can be so naive about this topic.
It’s an interesting trend i have seen online since the onset of the post-pandemic inflation.
At its core it’s an ethics problem of Kant vs Utilitarianism. On the one hand Kantians are big into the golden rule. They would point out that we shouldn’t accept stealing in society, because we as individuals don’t want to be stolen from. If you can steal from a store why not steal from your friend’s parents or the local community centre? In fact why don’t we just all go steal the things we want whenever we want? Utilitarians on the other hand would argue that someone stealing food (if they really need it) creates more good than some investors losing a small amount of profit does harm. Utilitarians think we should live in a world that minimizes harm and maximizes good. If you’re familiar with the trolley car problem they would pull the switch to kill the 1 guy instead of the 5 on the track. They argue there is no objective system of ethics but rather every moral problem depends on the situation and the circumstances of the perpetrator and victim.
In my experience people on both sides of the political spectrum fall into utilitarian and Kantian camps. But I think people who fall on the left of the political spectrum and who also have utilitarian beliefs have a much more amplified opinion on this because they not only see stealing as a lesser of two evils but they view the whole capitalist system as an exploitation of the working class, and that the gains were ill gotten in the first place and theft is almost a natural revolutionary action to take back what is rightfully there’s.
The additional complication though is that this is also an economic problem in an economic system. Sure maybe if it was a one-off thing where somebody desperate stole something from a store one time then no systemic problem would occur, but because this is happening in larger volumes it becomes a multi-period prisoners dilemma. As opposed to the single period prisoners dilemma where defecting is the optimal choice, in the multi-period version participants develop rational expectations. Recently grocery stores such as target have been closing in inner cities because shoplifting has become endemic and they no longer believe they can make a profit there. This is terrible for inner city residents that do not commit theft because it raises the cost for them to transit and find groceries. So the system of “stealing when you need” isn’t tenable in this economic system.
Whether you believe that means we need to change the economic system or alternatively you believe we need to impose harsher penalties for crime, what’s clear is that in the end we will need a legislative solution, and so we probably should’ve just gone and done that in the first place.
Something something USA NEEDS MORE PARTIES something
They don't necessarily need more parties,which would require a very difficult constitutional amendment, but states should regulate political parties more strongly.
The latter is more in line with the constitution and should be more easy.
States could make a reasonable case that the Republican and Democratic parties have grown too powerful and that national party interests have too much influence over their state politics.
That would allow them to put in place policies to ensure the parties are governed more by local interests.
It seems that Alaska already has this in place and even though the state is solidly Republican, their representatives quite frequently work with Democrats to further their own Alaskan interests.
Oh a Dean Winchester with a thick beard.