4 ms·

> Let the market handle this. Not sure I want that. When the state refuses to protect private property, the market solution tends to look more like Vito Corleo

> Let the market handle this. Not sure I want that. When the state refuses to protect private property, the market solution tends to look more like Vito Corleone. That's especially true when it appears certain organized crime groups are perpetrating coordinated thefts like the one at Nordstrom. The big corporations can't afford to to have mafia payments on the books, but they can afford to pack up and leave or encase everything in cages. The local mom 'n' pop store will be willing to pay a bit for protection.

notthemessiah 5y ago
The market is also what provides demand for cheap goods at a time when prices are increasing, and corporate profits are skyrocketing. Retail theft is the correction.
night862 5y ago
Kind of, though: In the past stores had Loss Prevention departments which were tasked with this stuff. It's never been the case that nobody shop lifted, its just now that the economic race has led retailers to externalize and cut costs. It's very, very annoying to have some mall cop following you around, so now its a camera, later it will be many more and much better cameras with a lower paid employee with much less engagement with their occupation. I reject that it is an impossible task for national retailers. I suspect walmart has a workable model: They move stocking into the shopping hours and use all of their employees as a micro-scale surveillance network. Why should society foot the bill for for police and such to watch private property like this and essentialy persecute the population because the national retailers don't want to invest in the cost of doing business? Inside of a store, it's completely reasonable and totally possible to just have an employee around. Policing organized crime is the job of the FBI, if my knowledge of this stuff is a little bit correct. All of this surveillance garbage we've been ignoring for decades was supposed to solve these problems, but it is clearly not capable of doing so.
nine_k 5y ago
I think that the OP is ironic, and suggests that the market will force everyone reasonable to leave, exposing California as a failed state. While that would indeed he instructive, it also would be quite destructive. I hope California can return to protecting the liberties that were already well-understood 200 years ago without going to such extremes.

notthemessiah 5y ago

The market is also what provides demand for cheap goods at a time when prices are increasing, and corporate profits are skyrocketing. Retail theft is the correction.

night862 5y ago

Kind of, though: In the past stores had Loss Prevention departments which were tasked with this stuff. It's never been the case that nobody shop lifted, its just now that the economic race has led retailers to externalize and cut costs. It's very, very annoying to have some mall cop following you around, so now its a camera, later it will be many more and much better cameras with a lower paid employee with much less engagement with their occupation. I reject that it is an impossible task for national retailers. I suspect walmart has a workable model: They move stocking into the shopping hours and use all of their employees as a micro-scale surveillance network. Why should society foot the bill for for police and such to watch private property like this and essentialy persecute the population because the national retailers don't want to invest in the cost of doing business? Inside of a store, it's completely reasonable and totally possible to just have an employee around. Policing organized crime is the job of the FBI, if my knowledge of this stuff is a little bit correct. All of this surveillance garbage we've been ignoring for decades was supposed to solve these problems, but it is clearly not capable of doing so.

nine_k 5y ago

I think that the OP is ironic, and suggests that the market will force everyone reasonable to leave, exposing California as a failed state. While that would indeed he instructive, it also would be quite destructive. I hope California can return to protecting the liberties that were already well-understood 200 years ago without going to such extremes.