3 ms·

Agreed, I'm all for basic income, and social safety nets. But stealing them, isn't the right answer either. The burden should be on the state to provide those

Agreed, I'm all for basic income, and social safety nets. But stealing them, isn't the right answer either. The burden should be on the state to provide those necessities, not the local business owners.

emodendroket 10y ago
So do you think, then, that the homeless should forego food until the state steps in out a principled concern for the free market?
- notsotrue 10y ago
  What I think is that the burden should be shouldered by the state, and not small business owners. What this ruling does, is place the burden of caring for the 'hungry' on grocers, which is an unfair burden. Unless the courts decision came with a way to compensate the grocer, this ruling is idiotically naieve.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Usually, compensation is the subject of civil lawsuits, not criminal process (though some systems allow restitution to also be addressed as part of a criminal action, but even there civil action is also available.)
    - notsotrue 10y ago
      So the grocer is going to sue 1000 insolvent hungry people? For what exactly?
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    OK, but how do you think the actors in this story should behave, given that that is not the case? Should the homeless man starve to death? Or perhaps the judge should sentence him to years in prison for stealing less than ten dollars' worth of food?
sp332 10y ago
In many jurisdictions people are allowed to kill other people if it's done in self-defense. If the alternative is dying, lots of things become legal.
- notsotrue 10y ago
  In many jurisdiction around the world, people get stoned for having sex. Just because some jurisdictions allow something, doesn't stop it from being murder.
xyzzy4 10y ago
So when you are poor and starving to death, you shouldn't steal because you believe in some sort of governmental idealism?
- notsotrue 10y ago
  So when I'm freezing to death, it's not okay to steal money for shelter?
antisthenes 10y ago
There is absolutely no way that a central system (even at the state or county level, if you're in the US) can surpass in allocative efficiency what an individual can do for themselves. While I agree with you in principle, placing the burden on an entity far removed from the local context will always leave people underserved or forgotten entirely, in which case their instinct to survive will hurt the local business owners regardless of whether they would have helped voluntarily or not. Unless it really is a true basic income.
- notsotrue 10y ago
  So you place the burden on the grocer, and absolve the state and the thief? I agree, basic income is the answer. But this judgement isn't logical or sound.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Judging the act not to be subject to criminal sanction is very far from judging it to be "the right answer", or even legally permitted in systems which have both criminal and civil remedies.
- notsotrue 10y ago
  So who pays the grocer? It's both unlawful, and unethical to place the burden of feeding hungry people on the shoulders of the grocer as a cost of selling food.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > It's both unlawful, and unethical to place the burden of feeding hungry people on the shoulders of the grocer as a cost of selling food. If its the effect of the law and legal system, it is not unlawful for the burden to be placed there, even if the individual takings are unlawful. Whether its unethical or not is debatable; its basically equivalent to the government taxing sales of food and using it to fund feeding the indigent (since the grocers costs of doing business are recouped in the prices charged to customers), which (while rarely explicitly done with food) is actually a not-uncommon model for providing goods or services deemed essential (that is, taxing sales to those who can afford it, and using the proceeds to subsidize those who can't.)
    - notsotrue 10y ago
      Yea, no. Grocers in low income areas shoulder the burden, while grocers in high income areas don't. The poor, subsidies the poor. Brilliant.

emodendroket 10y ago

So do you think, then, that the homeless should forego food until the state steps in out a principled concern for the free market?

notsotrue 10y ago
What I think is that the burden should be shouldered by the state, and not small business owners. What this ruling does, is place the burden of caring for the 'hungry' on grocers, which is an unfair burden. Unless the courts decision came with a way to compensate the grocer, this ruling is idiotically naieve.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Usually, compensation is the subject of civil lawsuits, not criminal process (though some systems allow restitution to also be addressed as part of a criminal action, but even there civil action is also available.)
  - notsotrue 10y ago
    So the grocer is going to sue 1000 insolvent hungry people? For what exactly?
- emodendroket 10y ago
  OK, but how do you think the actors in this story should behave, given that that is not the case? Should the homeless man starve to death? Or perhaps the judge should sentence him to years in prison for stealing less than ten dollars' worth of food?

sp332 10y ago

In many jurisdictions people are allowed to kill other people if it's done in self-defense. If the alternative is dying, lots of things become legal.

notsotrue 10y ago
In many jurisdiction around the world, people get stoned for having sex. Just because some jurisdictions allow something, doesn't stop it from being murder.

xyzzy4 10y ago

So when you are poor and starving to death, you shouldn't steal because you believe in some sort of governmental idealism?

notsotrue 10y ago
So when I'm freezing to death, it's not okay to steal money for shelter?

antisthenes 10y ago

There is absolutely no way that a central system (even at the state or county level, if you're in the US) can surpass in allocative efficiency what an individual can do for themselves. While I agree with you in principle, placing the burden on an entity far removed from the local context will always leave people underserved or forgotten entirely, in which case their instinct to survive will hurt the local business owners regardless of whether they would have helped voluntarily or not. Unless it really is a true basic income.

notsotrue 10y ago
So you place the burden on the grocer, and absolve the state and the thief? I agree, basic income is the answer. But this judgement isn't logical or sound.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Judging the act not to be subject to criminal sanction is very far from judging it to be "the right answer", or even legally permitted in systems which have both criminal and civil remedies.

notsotrue 10y ago
So who pays the grocer? It's both unlawful, and unethical to place the burden of feeding hungry people on the shoulders of the grocer as a cost of selling food.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It's both unlawful, and unethical to place the burden of feeding hungry people on the shoulders of the grocer as a cost of selling food. If its the effect of the law and legal system, it is not unlawful for the burden to be placed there, even if the individual takings are unlawful. Whether its unethical or not is debatable; its basically equivalent to the government taxing sales of food and using it to fund feeding the indigent (since the grocers costs of doing business are recouped in the prices charged to customers), which (while rarely explicitly done with food) is actually a not-uncommon model for providing goods or services deemed essential (that is, taxing sales to those who can afford it, and using the proceeds to subsidize those who can't.)
  - notsotrue 10y ago
    Yea, no. Grocers in low income areas shoulder the burden, while grocers in high income areas don't. The poor, subsidies the poor. Brilliant.