3 ms·
But if the food is locked away, it's presumably still a crime to damage property and/or bypass a lock to obtain the food. So this interpretation of the law crea
by Dotnaught 10y ago
But if the food is locked away, it's presumably still a crime to damage property and/or bypass a lock to obtain the food. So this interpretation of the law creates an incentive for grocers to keep food out of reach.
And thirst being even more basic than hunger, is it excusable to steal beer when desperately dehydrated or just bottled water?
If food is deemed an inalienable right, then a tax to feed the hungry seems like a better way to avoid legal inconsistency.
- talmand 10y agoYour beer versus water question works for food as well. Will there be difference of opinion by the law if the starving man steals bread versus steak? The tax, or charity for that matter, to feed the poor is something that works quite well in many areas of the world, even in the evil capitalistic systems.