3 ms·
The world doesn’t owe you compensation for every bad thing that happens to you.
by SamReidHughes 7y ago
The world doesn’t owe you compensation for every bad thing that happens to you.
- thatguy0900 7y agoWhat a heartless outlook. It's one thing for something bad to happen, it's another for the government to randomly blow up your house and peace out. I honestly have a very hard time believing you would have this attitude about your own things if you ever get thrown under a bus.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoWhy would heart have anything to do with it? The basis of my statement is morality, not empathy.
- HarryHirsch 7y agoIn his novel Heliopolis, Ernst Jünger devotes a chapter to the relationship between justice and grace. It's not completely unexpected that the title of that chapter is called "In the War Academy". PDFs are easily found online.
- int_19h 7y agoEmpathy is a big part of morality.
- nothrabannosir 7y agoThis is an ironic response to a situation which is literally about bringing justice. If that’s your point of view, why pursue the shoplifter in the first place? Could’ve just used that line against Walmart and saved everyone a lot of hassle.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoPursuing shoplifters isn't about getting compensation -- that's secondary. It's about justice. Letting people steal stuff is unjust.
- nothrabannosir 7y agoLetting the government destroy your home and not pay you is unjust. The lack of compensation is primarily what makes it unjust.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoI agree that it's unjust. The problem is, the suspect who didn't surrender is the one who owes is at fault and who owes the compensation. The police, or let's say, the government, or maybe just the populace in general, do have a duty to catch criminals and not just let them rampage about the neighborhood. Doing something about the guy after cornering him in a house is not an elective procedure. Now maybe there's an argument to be made that the officers risking their lives to arrest the guy should have risked their lives differently, in consideration of the homeowner's finances. I haven't ever tracked down a suspect, gotten shot at, or planned a home invasion against a prepared defender, so I'm not equipped to have that argument. You might consider an analogous situation. What if a toddler crawls into somebody's unlocked car during a heat wave, gets locked inside, and the police break into the car to rescue the toddler? Who's responsible for paying for the damage to the car? It's neither the police nor the car owner. The toddler's parents are responsible. It's the same as the situation where a gunman holes up in a house. The only basis for requiring the police to pay for breaking the window is some sort of fuck-the-police mentality, which people are applying to the situation where they tracked down an armed suspect.
- code_duck 7y agoThe idea is that if police have consequences for their choices, they will choose behaviors that inflict less collateral damage. The choice that police had in this case, for instance, were to blow up the house in a military-style raid, or to sit back and wait for the guy to run out of water or food or tire of being under siege. They chose the more destructive option. It would be helpful if they were incentives for them to choose a less destructive option.
- pix64 7y agoIt's about emotion.
- leetcrew 7y agoif it's the government's fault, I would say it does (or should) owe you compensation.
- code_duck 7y agoNobody is asking 'the world'. Generally individuals or organizations who perpetrate a bad thing on you generally have liability.
- mythrwy 7y agoThe world may not, but the people responsible certainly do.