4 ms·

> I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as

by Timon3 3y ago

> I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it becomes exceedingly easy for anyone to rationalize taking something from others because "they deserve it" in some way. But what is the alternative? Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. You can beg and try to get enough together to buy something, but it's not really a good alternative either, especially since it's not guaranteed. So at what point would someone be in their right to steal food to survive? Is it never okay, meaning they'll have to starve in the worst case? Naturally these problems should be solved long before anyone comes to the place of having to steal - but that's not the world we live in. And I'm strictly talking about absolute necessities, nothing beyond that. But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. Can we please be real about what we're talking about? This isn't early 19th century Paris from Les Miserables. On the contrary, SF has some of the best public services for the destitute of any place in the country. There are tons of places around the city where one can get free food. > But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets? My main concern is not about "a bit of money in the store owners pockets". It's abou signaling that the rules simply do not apply, that laws can be picked and chosen based on how you feel about the perpetrator. Again, I said the punishment should fit the crime: 1. The person should be arrested, and basically be given the equivalent of "We'll show you how to access services in SF so you don't need to steal in the future. If you're not caught stealing in the next X months, your record will be cleared". 2. For further infractions, they should be given escalating warnings and escalating penalties.

by Timon3 3y ago

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. Can we please be real about what we're talking about? This isn't early 19th century Paris from Les Miserables. On the contrary, SF has some of the best public services for the destitute of any place in the country. There are tons of places around the city where one can get free food. > But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets? My main concern is not about "a bit of money in the store owners pockets". It's abou signaling that the rules simply do not apply, that laws can be picked and chosen based on how you feel about the perpetrator. Again, I said the punishment should fit the crime: 1. The person should be arrested, and basically be given the equivalent of "We'll show you how to access services in SF so you don't need to steal in the future. If you're not caught stealing in the next X months, your record will be cleared". 2. For further infractions, they should be given escalating warnings and escalating penalties.