Nevermind the fact that in poorer areas, the likelihood of "justifiable theft" under this doctrine, one would have to imagine, is greater. Consumption in the a

Nevermind the fact that in poorer areas, the likelihood of "justifiable theft" under this doctrine, one would have to imagine, is greater. Consumption in the absence of real production is not sustainable. At some point the reduction in margins means the shop worker/repairman/etc that would be paid for his work no longer can be supported/afforded, adding to the poor. At some point shop owners, current and would be, would choose not to do business in then-marginal districts of town: the underserved and marginally poor would be more likely to be further underserved and see the balance tip towards poverty. All things being equal, there is nothing wrong with compassion. But there are other, better ways. This ruling is neither compassionate, moral, nor ultimately effective. When one considers the unseen consequences of this sort of thinking, along with the abandonment of a legitimate purpose of government, in this myopic ruling, one can only marvel at the direction of Italian society.