3 ms·
If you can afford to buy food, but decide to shoplift instead as a moral stance, you are hurting the poor. The stores will raise prices to cover the loss and th
by PraetorianGourd 4y ago
If you can afford to buy food, but decide to shoplift instead as a moral stance, you are hurting the poor. The stores will raise prices to cover the loss and the poor can’t gamble on a $2,000 fine.
You can argue that stores ought not raise the prices, you can argue that the law ought to not consider shoplifting a crime, but neither of those conditions are the case, so your moral stance ends up being a material cost to the very people you claim to be fighting for.
- CompuHacker 4y agoIt'd be cool if you could partially pay for something without the consent of the store, but without having to stand in front of a person and say "I'm stealing this; would you help me with the math?"
- toast0 4y ago> "Galen Weston and his family are thieves who have profiteered for decades, and if you think it's wrong to steal food (product insured for loss) in order to survive... you're a clown," wrote one Twitter user of the trend this week. And they're bringing out the old 'insured' line, as if insurance premiums don't come out of the price everyone else is paying. And, furthermore, I don't really think stores are insured for or would file claims for 'regular' shoplifting; it doesn't make sense to buy insurance for events that are occuring continuously and causing relatively small losses; insure for looting/riots, yes, that's a large loss and low probability (hopefully).