Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
- Much as it pains me to admit it, I think Haley Barbour has a point, here. Not sure I trust the federal government to make the right decisions in this Toyota mess when it’s also a majority shareholder in one of Toyota’s biggest competitors.
- Note to media: Taking food, water, and clothing from open or vacant storefronts after a catastrophe isn’t “looting.” It’s surviving. Especially when there are no legitimate ways of accessing essential needs, as is currently the case in much of Chile. If people were taking TVs and iPods, we could talk about looting.
- This is one of the more depressing stories I’ve seen in the last week.
- Charlotte police officer resigns after he’s accused of influencing victims in line-ups. This is a good reason while lineups should be conducted by officers who have no knowledge of the case.
- Norway fighting infection by cutting down on use of antibiotics.
- Great commercial. Unfortunately, the commercial does nothing about the fact that Old Spice still smells like grandpas.
- U.K. government bill aimed at protecting copyright will essentially outlaw open WiFi networks.
- I think we’ve reached a tipping point in the public consciousness when the innocent recipients of a mistaken drug shipment say the first thing that crossed their mind was that a SWAT team may be on the way, and they feared for the safety of their dog.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 at 9:28 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Drug War, Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
If people were taking TVs and iPods, we could talk about looting.
You forgot cases of Heineken.
Seems to me there’s no more reason to trust Southern politicians standing up for a company with a major home-state presence?
Seems to me there’s no more reason to trust Southern politicians standing up for a company with a major home-state presence?
Except that Haley Barbour doesn’t have much control over what the federal government does about Toyota. I don’t disagree with your assessment of his motivation for writing that piece. He was pretty up-front about it. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t also have a point.
#1 Ben,
Actually, beer is great during survival situations. Its bottled, so it wont get contaminated. Its calorie dense. Its liquid. And it provides relaxation under stressful times. Just dont get smashed =)
The Norwegian story is interesting. Presumably, the restriction on prescribing antibiotics is promulgated by the public health service, and I’ll bet that the detailed interviews and testing of anyone who has had contact with a MRSA patient are also coordinated by the government. I wonder what would happen in a free-market situation in which patients (who are often ignorant of microbiology) demand antibiotics.
Alcohol also dehydrates you which is a Really Bad Thing when clean water is hard to come by in a crisis.
It’s also good to see some of the leaders of those black sororities and frats coming out to attack the people who are upset over the white teaming winning. Double standards only promote racism.
I wonder what would happen in a free-market situation in which patients (who are often ignorant of microbiology) demand antibiotics.
This is a good point. I’m sure I’ll get flack from the anarchists here for this, but I do think the regulation of antibiotics is a legitimate public good. Of course, the counter to that would be that the system currently in place still isn’t stopping them from being overused.
Just a data point, but from the coverage shown in the German media this weekend, it was pretty clear that there were folks in Chile running off with major electrical appliances and other non-essential goods.
“Taking food, water, and clothing from open or vacant storefronts after a catastrophe isn’t “looting.” It’s surviving.”
My thoughts exactly,Taking TV’s stereos, jewelry and such is looting. Taking food and TP is getting by during a crisis.
#4 | anonanerd |
I think you missed my use of an internet meme for an attempt at humor.
Although I must add, there were a lot of folks engaged in survival “looting” as well.
Haley Barbour’s apparent fairness toward Toyota is mostly because of the bennies Mississippi gets from it. If those plants were located in Alabama, Barbour would probably be attacking Toyota like everyone else. Politicians are yukky. You don’t want to rub up against one because it leaves a stain and it’s almost impossible to get the smell out.
The article reports that Norwegian hospitals also trace the vector of MRSA infections through interviews and tests, and “medical staff who test positive stay home.” Might those be the more important reasons why their MRSA infection rate is so low? Is it possible that the Norwegian health care establishment is being stingy with antibiotics to save money, and now they’re making a virtue out of necessity?
The article mentions a couple of other successful anti-MRSA programs, but it doesn’t say they reduced the prescription of antibiotics.
hat’s off to the north carolina prosecutors for coming down on the overzealous cop- I wonder if he used Garrity?
the people who called 911 about the mysterious fedex delivery were nervous about their dog getting shot? I’m thinking the word’s getting out!
Well, as sad as it is when cops shoot a dog, people will be more quick to condemn them for that than they will for shooting a person who, in “the land of the free”, is usually presumed by the public to be a “bad guy” simply because the cops raided his house. In other words, the “bad guy” probably deserved what he got, but the dog was innocent. When people are actually having to step over the bullet-ridden bodies of the neighborhood pets on their way to work, they may reevaluate their stand on the drug war.
If it sounds like I don’t believe the end of the drug war is anywhere in sight, it’s because I don’t. And if it further sounds like I hold the public largely to blame for that, it’s because I do. They’re not called sheeple for nothing.
The issue with the Charlotte cop is only one of many CMPD officers who have resigned/been fired due to misconduct in the last few months. The chief of police has been stalling and hiding from answering questions.
Sorry Radley, but taking food, water and even TP is still looting. Looting has always been the act of taking another person’s private property without their permission by force, usually by stealth. In the case of Chile, they are in fact taking someone else’s private property. The fact that it’s necessary for their survival doesn’t make it “not looting.”
However, they get a pass. Just as if you kill someone in self defense you “usually” get one, too. When it comes to self preservation and survival, anything is fair game so long as no more force than necessary is utilized (i.e. you kill someone when all you had to do was punch him).
My girlfriend likes my Old Spice deodorant!
There have been plenty of other people in the automotive journalist field who’ve made the connection between Government Motors and the Toyota crisis. I certainly wouldn’t put it past the current administration.
As for getting Weed via FedEx? If I don’t recognise the box, I don’t accept it. Simple. I’m also very picky about tracking purchases my family makes.
So, the non-black Sorority shouldn’t have been allowed to perform in a stepping competition?
If so, then the US ought not to have been competing for the Gold Medal in the Olympic hockey competition; Americans, Koreans, South Africans, Fijians, Australians, Continental Europeans, Argentinians and Canadians et. al. ought not be permitted to compete in July at St. Andrews for the Open Championship, and god forbid that any basketball competition should be opened up to worldwide competitors outside of the US.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and participating in another’s tradition is a profound form of admiration and respect. It’s off-putting and abasive to elevate class rights and class consciousness above these natural, embracing human inclinations.
I wear Old Spice deodorant. And yes, I’m a chick.
The Old Spice ad was good, but still nowhere near the awesomeness of Bruce Campbell’s Old Spice Ad
#18
My girlfriend also digs my Old Spice body wash and deodorant.
21- so does my girlfriend- she steals mine!
Radley,
Is what the government doing now all that different than what they did with Ford and the Firestone tire incident? Government grandstanding over an issue is as reliable as the sun rising in the east and I highly doubt that this would be any different if the government didn’t own GM.
Nando,
What do you do if you want to pay for the food and water, but there’s no way to pay for it from that store because it’s abandoned?
I’m sure the store isn’t abandoned. The proprietor is probably out trying to take care of his family and doesn’t have time to go protect his business and property with a shotgun.
Like I said, I don’t think that what these people are doing is wrong or uncalled for, I just call it what it is, looting. If they wanted to pay for it, they could either leave money on the counter or find out who owns the store and pay him when they can.
“Unfortunately, the commercial does nothing about the fact that Old Spice still smells like grandpas.”
That commercial was pretty clearly targeted at women whose husbands/boyfriends have reached that age when they start to slip a bit and sadly don’t look anything like the pitchman. That age happens to correlate reasonably well with the opening of the grandpa window – the age at which one’s own children may be starting families of their own.
So smelling like a grandpa may not be very far off target in this case.
I hope when those people are done ‘surviving’ that they remember that they stole from those shops, and made it that much harder for the shop owners to ‘survive’. Those guys are getting just as destroyed, and on top of that, people are stealing the few assets they have left. There’s a debt building up there, owed by the takers, but given the way people are, I’d be surprised if any of those thieves remember that debt when that shop owner’s in trouble later.
We had this same sort of discussion during Katrina. From the media coverage, you’d think it was some sort of zombie gangland apocalypse down there.
Re. looting, a lot of people drew the same distinction between stealing food/water and stealing TVs and the like. But the problem with that is, you know, what exactly are you supposed to do once all the food has been taken? Well, one option is to grab something else of moderate value to barter for food. And let’s not kid ourselves–the situation on the ground in NOLA was such that food was probably way more valuable than waterlogged electronics anyway.
Actually, through most of Western Europe’s history, people drank what we would call a ‘lite beer’, because the alcohol content was low enough that they could still function but high enough to kill disease-causing bacteria. The water was simply unsafe to drink and going through life with a light buzz was better than typhus (especially if you were a medieval peasant.)
Also, beer does contain electrolytes which can help fend off the effects of dehydration if taken in moderation.
God save us from those who would protect us!
That commercial was pretty clearly targeted at women whose husbands/boyfriends have reached that age when they start to slip a bit and sadly don’t look anything like the pitchman. That age happens to correlate reasonably well with the opening of the grandpa window – the age at which one’s own children may be starting families of their own.
People become grandparents at 30? Those commercials are pretty clearly aimed at the 25-40 set, not the 50-60 set. Compare the zaniness of that commercial to other commercials targeting the older gentleman set, Just For Men, Cialis, etc. The Old Spice commercial is closer in tone to that of Axe Body spray than Just For Men.
England is a very scary place.
People are more affraid of cops than drug dealers. Somewhere, there is a DEA agent that thinks this is another sign that we are winning the war on drugs.
“Actually, beer is great during survival situations. Its bottled, so it wont get contaminated. Its calorie dense. Its liquid.”
The general rule of thumb is it takes more water to digest the alcohol in the beer than is provided by the water in the beer.
Let me get this straight: Blacks are upset over this “stepping” thing, but apparently Whites stealing the blues and turning it into rock ‘n roll and making gazillions off it is water under the bridge?
Let me get this straight: the lady who received the mysterious package called 911? [palm slap to forehead] It’s a miracle that dog is still alive.
Let me get this straight: a lefty rag like Slate is against involuntary redistribution of essential resources during a natural catastrophe, but in America during “peacetime” it’s a way of life?
Whaaaaaa???????????
Much as it pains me to admit it, I think Haley Barbour has a point, here. Not sure I trust the federal government to make the right decisions in this Toyota mess when it’s also a majority shareholder in one of Toyota’s biggest competitors.
http://freep.com/article/20100302/BUSINESS01/3020443/1205/business0101/“>Steering-problems-prompt-GM-recall
Will Tin Geithner be hauled before congress to explain this?
A preview, a preview. My kingdom for a preview!
It’s “looting”, but it’s justified when people are getting food and water.
Go spend a few minutes on liveleak.com, though, and you’ll see that it’s not just food and water. Same thing happened here after Katrina.
“Charlotte police officer resigns”
“resigns” being the keyword here…..is also a major problem. When a police officer resigns rather than being fired, he/she leaves that department with a free pass which allows them to go to another law enforcement agency seeking employment. More often than not these crooked cops are hired on by other agencies because there is nothing in their background to indicate they are not rehireable.
LOL! Prosecutors usually join in when they find the common cases of police acting unethically or illegally.
Rule of thumb: it’s not looting if you leave a note.
“It seems to me, however, that the comp any is doing everything it should as quickly as possible to make things right.”
I’ve never owned anything but a toyota, but to claim they’ve been doing everything they should as quickly as possible to make things right is laughable.
It isn’t on point for the looting, but excellent piece on Milton Friedman’s role in promoting economic liberalization Chile in today’s WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703411304575093572032665414.html
He was a tiny man with huge intellect.
@Nando (#17) Sorry Radley, but taking food, water and even TP is still looting. … The fact that it’s necessary for their survival doesn’t make it “not looting.”
Exactly correct.
@Nando (#17) However, they get a pass.
Unless you’re the store owner, that isn’t your decision to make. For all you know, the store owner was on the edge of bankruptcy, with ailing family members who relied on him/her to get by. Even if he/she were a rude, gluttonous moneybags, it’s still his/her decision to make.
Perhaps the store owners are forgiving. Perhaps some of the thieves will return to pay restitution later and ask for forgiveness. But that isn’t up to us to settle, thousands of miles away.
@Nando (#17) Just as if you kill someone in self defense you “usually” get one, too.
Totally different. The store owners didn’t cause the earthquake. However, the person initiating force against you, against whom you act in self defense, did cause the violence.
@Nando (#17) When it comes to self preservation and survival, anything is fair game…
If you’re an animal with no capacity for reason.
The true test of moral character comes when being ethical is difficult.
I’m reminded of a quote from the 1984 movie The Bounty in which Captain Bligh and his loyal men are stuck on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. One of his crew tells him that if he dies, they may eat his body to stay alive. Bligh responds, “No Sir! We were born as civilized men and we shall die as civilized men.”
@Michael Chaney (#38) It’s “looting”, but it’s justified when people are getting food and water.
It is looting, without the scare quotes.
Unless you are the owner of the store, it isn’t your call to make whether it is justified.
@Xenocles (#41) Rule of thumb: it’s not looting if you leave a note.
It is looting. Leaving a note and later apologizing and making restitution would seem, to me, to be more ethical than just stealing and never admitting it.
But, as I keep saying, unless you own the store, it isn’t up to you decide if it’s justified or if the thieves get a pass, restitution or no.
And a big ole good grief to 44-46.
Steve Jean -
Give me a break. You’re telling me if there’s perishable food and water available in abandoned stores in a town where a catastrophe has made money useless, you’re going to let yourself or your family starve before you help yourself to it?
And that’s the “civilized” option?
First, you’re wrong. And second, I don’t believe you.
Most of that food would go bad or couldn’t be legally sold afterwards anyway. The water would probably be the only thing of value after the earthquake was over.
I’m reminded of a quote from the 1984 movie The Bounty in which Captain Bligh and his loyal men are stuck on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. One of his crew tells him that if he dies, they may eat his body to stay alive. Bligh responds, “No Sir! We were born as civilized men and we shall die as civilized men.”
See, I see nothing wrong with what the Uruguayan rugby team did. I’d rather be alive than a dead “civilized” man.
Even Rand admitted that the ethics of emergencies were different than normal ethics.
If I had the choice of taking food from an abandoned store or starving, I would take the food.
I like to think that I would have the decency to pay the storeowner when I got a chance later, but I’ve never been put to the test on this and cannot prove that I would.
I like layering in the idea of paying back later.
A former co-worker of my ex-wife was working as a temp for next to nothing when his father suddenly died in Uganda — we loaned the fellow $400 for airfare expecting that we would never get it back and not caring that we wouldn’t.
Years later we got a phone call from the fellow, said he wanted to stop by that Sunday afternoon. We said sure. He walks in with wife and children in tow and rolls out four crisp $100 bills in front of his kids and hands them over — an incredible lesson in integrity that I am sure his children carry with them to this day.
In the case of looting, the payback should be anonymous, because integrity doesn’t require exposing oneself to criminal liability.
Then it’s looting done ethically, Steve. I hope you never experience emergent need in a broken society.
For at least two years there’s been a legal requirement that police investigators use an officer with no knowledge of the investigation to conduct photo line-ups so my question is what action the department or the DA’s office is going to take against the officer for a clear violation of law?
That would be police in North Carolina.
And to think I use to dispatch Charlotte police officers! Hmmmffff!
This doesn’t surprise me…trust me here.
No, because I have a two weeks supply of food on hand in case of exactly that sort of disruption happening. Why should people who can’t be bothered to prepare for trouble be allowed to scavenage off those who did?
I would imagine that any perishable products in a store building damaged by an earthquake would, in fact, be written off as a loss. Plus, if the owner is “too busy” tending to his family to protect his store, he certainly isn’t taking steps to preserve his inventory. Whether insurance exists to indemnify the owner from the loss is another question, too, but I still don’t see anything wrong with taking food from the stores – it would have gone to waste.
I couldn’t find any better quality video but here is a story from south Florida about cops using secret codes on traffic tickets to communicate accusations without the defendant knowing…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb9VnvbYGak
My entire experience of stepping is watching some high school step groups for a story I wrote when I was a reporter, which was a while ago.
That said, someone posted the video of the white step group that won the competition on youtube and I saw it. I don’t know a lot about stepping but they were oddly bad for the winners of a big competition, like there were times when some people were noticeably off-beat. I don’t recall ever noticing something like that in the high school step competitions. I never saw the runners up and am not an expert on stepping but I could see why some people at least thought they smelled a rat.
And another good grief to #56.
#44 | Steve Jean — “The true test of moral character comes when being ethical is difficult.”
This is true, but one never knows how one will act in the face of death until one is confronted by it.
“First comes food, then comes morality.” — Bertolt Brecht
I think it’s great that Old Spice smells like grandpas. The other afternoon at work, an older gentleman leaned over me at my desk to point something out on a spreadsheet. It was awkward, because I immediately identified his scent as Axe. That, to me, is like a 45 year old woman rockin’ those sweatpants with “Juicy” bedazzled across the rear. Not okay.
In a perfect world, men would appreciate the seductive brilliance that is a tailored scent (that costs more than $10 and cannot be picked up at Rite-Aid). In the meantime, however, I appreciate the cheap alternative to smelling like a 16 year old skater. I don’t tend to wonder about a man’s motives when he’s wearing Old Spice – in fact, I generally assume he has none at all. :P
@Radley Balko (#48) Give me a break.
As I keep saying, it isn’t up to me to give you a break for claiming that stealing what doesn’t belong to either of us is ethical. That decision is up to the shop owners.
Please review your basic libertarian principles.
@Radley Balko (#48) You’re telling me if there’s perishable food and water available in abandoned stores in a town where a catastrophe has made money useless, you’re going to…
I said no such thing. You’re engaging in a tu quoque fallacy. Not once did I make any claim about what I would do.
This is about the definition of theft and who has the moral authority to decide when an act of thievery is excusable, to one degree or another.
@Radley Balko (#48) And that’s the “civilized” option?
Don’t mix and match what I wrote with the quote of a movie.
Not stealing is always the most ethical choice. To me, behaving civilized means respecting the rights of others, including the property rights of store owners who aren’t in place to make mutual, consensual exchanges.
@Radley Balko (#48) First, you’re wrong.
About what? The fact that theft is theft? Or your tu quoque strawman?
@Radley Balko (#48) And second, I don’t believe you
You don’t believe what? Again, I never made any personal claim.
Read more carefully and review the basic principles of property rights.
@Aresen (#50) Even Rand admitted that the ethics of emergencies were different than normal ethics.
That woman was not a holy prophet and got a number of things wrong.
Of course each situation involves varying contexts. It’s not that there are different forms of ethics, but that ethics must be applied in context.
It may be that the shop owner recognizes the context and forgives the people who stole from him, i.e., that the theft in such a situation was a lesser wrongdoing, to the people involved.
@Xenocles (#52) Then it’s looting done ethically, Steve.
Sigh. Again, with feeling, the shopkeeper gets to decide if it’s OK. It’s his property so he has the moral authority to decide what gets done with his stuff. If he decides it’s not acceptable, then it isn’t ethical. If he decides that the context makes the wrongdoing minor, then it’s unethical, but to a lesser degree.
@Xenocles (#52) I hope you never experience emergent need in a broken society.
Same to you.
Don’t make this discussion of principles personal. See my reference to tu quoque above.
Matt D, who are you? Charlie Brown?
@Cynical in CA (#64)
Again, don’t make this personal. This is about principles.
Whether or not I would partake of looting in desperation doesn’t change facts. See my reference to tu quoque fallacy.
sorry, “Cynical in CA” was #61
An earlier post talked about killing in self-defense. We don’t call this murder.
It’s still killing, but it’s not murder.
Just like we don’t call stealing food during a natural disaster to be looting. It’s still stealing, but it’s not looting.
In times of crisis, people do abandone less important things for their own survival. When I hear the word “abandoned”, I think no more ownership of said item(s). No ownership, not stealing. When to term something as abandoned is another story. If people were really concerned about their stores being looted, they would be there to defend them. I don’t know if that’s happening or not.
If you aren’t there to defend your property in a time of crisis, then I would say that abandoned is the right term to use. It’s up for grabs.
Re Barbour: I always find it amusing that those who rail about how incompetent the government is somehow think it suddenly regains, not only competence, but extraordinary competence, in these situations. As anybody who has ever worked at a big business knows, as long as the folks in charge of the two separate areas are in different departments, inter-office rivalries will keep them from cooperating in anything.
@Juice (#69) Just like we don’t call stealing food during a natural disaster to be looting. It’s still stealing, but it’s not looting.
Personally, I could accept a definition of “looting” which drew the distinction between wanton theft with no intention of payment and the person who wrote an apologetic note and showed up to pay later. But that’s just off the cuff and I wouldn’t presume to speak for everyone. Someone with a bit of historical knowledge of the usage of the word could persuade me one way or another.
In other words, I don’t care for the collectivist fallacy invoked by saying “we call” or “we decide”, unless “we” refers to a particular group which has explicit, unanimous agreement.
“Don’t make this discussion of principles personal. See my reference to tu quoque above.”
Principles always become personal because it’s people who practice them. So I was merely hoping that you never face the dilemma because you’d be toast if you did.
As an aside (#56), don’t think you’re invincible because you have a stockpile. The nature of the disaster could easily render your supplies unusable or inadequate. It’s not feasible to prepare for everything.
@Mattocracy (#70) In times of crisis, people do abandone less important things for their own survival. When I hear the word “abandoned”, I think no more ownership of said item(s). No ownership, not stealing. When to term something as abandoned is another story. If people were really concerned about their stores being looted, they would be there to defend them. I don’t know if that’s happening or not.
If you aren’t there to defend your property in a time of crisis, then I would say that abandoned is the right term to use. It’s up for grabs.
Oy vey!
That’s just a mess of inconsistencies and specious rationalizations.
You forget that in an earthquake, the shop owner may be trapped under rubble at the back of the store, unable to defend his property until he is rescued, hours or days later. You’re going to tell me that his predicament negates his ownership? Really? Man, I can’t begin to imagine how that makes any sense.
But suppose the shop owner is there in person. Suppose he locks his doors and puts up a sign that says he will open up in the morning. But a gang of people break in, overpower him, and take what they want? Is that OK?
What if the shopkeeper has a gun and starts shooting people who break in? Is he justified?
You see, when you make up rules of morality as you go, without drawing distinct lines based upon consistent principles, others can always come up with different situations to challenge your ad hoc rules, to the point that their inconsistencies are laid bare.
Yes, of course, the circumstances create particular contexts in which there may be varying outcomes. Suppose, for example, that you steal my car. I find my car in a lot and see you walking out of the store holding my keys. In that context, I’m justified in using force to take my keys from you to reclaim what is mine. But in other contexts (like you’ve never done anything to me), I would not be justified to physically assault you.
The crucial fact here to consider is that the owner of the shop has done nothing to hurt the people who are stealing his property. His ownership is based upon the fact that he worked hard and spent his money to open his store and buy the merchandise. That doesn’t change just because of an earthquake. It doesn’t change just because he isn’t there.
Proverbs 6:30, 31…
“(30) People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,
(31) but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold; he will give all the goods of his house.”
It occurs to me, that if he is reduced to the position of needing to steal food, he probably has no “goods of his house” to “pay sevenfold” with…
OK, I’m convinced. From now on I’ll be carrying a credit balance at all the nearby food stores, just in case there’s a catastrophe. You know, so no one can accuse me of looting.
@Steve Jean: Excellent, logical and consistent posts.
I, too, most likely would take food and water to help my family, but I would never dare to NOT call it looting. One does not get to change the definition of a word to make a point. It IS looting. It may be necessary and justified, but it is still looting.
Also, the Old Spice commercials suck.
@Xenocles (#73) Principles always become personal because it’s people who practice them.
You miss the point. See this.
Radley falsely assumed that I had made a statement that I would act in a particular way. I didn’t.
I simply pointed out the fact that taking the personal property from someone who has done nothing wrong without their permission is theft. Always. By definition.
Whether a majority of people would steal in particular circumstances doesn’t change the definition of theft.
@Xenocles (#73) So I was merely hoping that you never face the dilemma because you’d be toast if you did.
And, if a bolt of lightning hit me on the head, I’d be toast. What the bleeding hell is the point of mentioning how susceptible I am to dangerous situations?
If you want to get into the particulars of survival, I know that I could last for weeks without food, so I wouldn’t panic after a few days of not eating. I’ve fasted many times as part of a healthy diet program (Paleo) which included intermittent fasting (IF). Sadly, most people today think you need to eat every few hours or horrible things will happen. Such ideas would have amused our pre-agricultural ancestors.
Humans need water more frequently. I learned from Les Stroud and Edward Grylls that filtering (though a clean shirt, for example), then boiling water a couple times can remove debris and can kill germs and parasites. It won’t remove salt or chemicals, but if that isn’t a problem, doing a little bit of work would give you potable water without having to resort to stealing.
I’m not saying that the people on the ground have all those options, but, as Douglas Adams advised, Don’t panic!.
One issue I’ve not seen mentioned with looting in disaster situations is that it generally results in a chaotic and inefficient distribution of resources. If the first person arriving in a destroyed store can know that the items in the store would be of no use to anyone if he left them alone, he may be morally justified in taking them. If, however, the goods would have been of use to someone else–regardless of whether they would ever have had any value for the shopkeeper–someone who takes goods deprives others of the ability to use them.
This is not to suggest that goods in a destroyed store should go unused, but rather that even extreme circumstances do not justify unchecked looting.
You’re right Steve. From a standpoint of strict logic, your arguments are valid and sound. You have done an excellent job of illustrating the propensity to fall victim to the “tu quoque” fallacy, and in process, have called attention to another of my pet peeves, the ambiguous “we.” Well done.
The only thing I have to add is that the example we have debated exists only in the theoretical. In the real world, where the State is the norm, ethics and morality gets rather confusing in practice. That does not prevent any individual from behaving as consistently as possible with libertarian principles, but property rights are just not that cut-and-dry in the world in which we live.
Consider a more extreme scenario than the quake. You are stuck deep in the Sahara with nothing but a GPS system and an empty gallon jug. There are no water sources for 50 miles, but with the GPS system, you can make it out, but your body will require a gallon of water to make the trip or you will die. A stranger approaches. He is in the same predicament, but his water jug is full (he acquired his water honestly at his expense). You both know that if you each drank half a gallon, you will both die.
So, your choices are: (1) take his water without his consent so you can live, knowing that he will surely die; (2) convince him (without trickery) to give you the water so you can live, even though he will die (by his own choice); or (3) die. Assume that he cannot be convinced, so #2 is not up for discussion.
Who will agree that choice #1 is theft (and murder)? If you agree, then you’ve already accepted the principle that taking property from another person without his consent is theft, even if not doing so means you die.
Alter that scenario step by step until you get to the quake scenario. At what point do you judge that taking without permission is no longer theft? (Avoid previously used logical fallacies, please.)
@Cynical in CA (#80)
Word.
#34 Unless you’re drinking “sex in a canoe” beer.
Steve Jean,
Don’t you think the murder is the circumstance that makes it wrong? If the guy had 2 gallons of water, enough for both of you to make it to a water source, then a lot fewer people would think the theft is unjustified.
The Sahara example does get to the heart of the matter. Everything else begins the slippery slope to our present Statist mess.
Once the first exception to “theft is never justified” is made, it is very easy to lower the bar further, until private property does not exist.
@Mo (#84) Don’t you think the murder is the circumstance that makes it wrong?
Both are wrong. The theft is the first wrong. The consequence of that wrong is that the man dies a horrible death. (I suppose you could bash his head in to speed things along if want to be a kinder, gentler murderer and thief.)
@Mo (#84) If the guy had 2 gallons of water, enough for both of you to make it to a water source, then a lot fewer people would think the theft is unjustified.
Why would you steal the water if the stranger had 2 gallons? Wouldn’t you ASK him for help? Bargain, barter, beg?
In general, the ethical path is to use reason instead of force or fraud, so I don’t think anyone, including the stranger, would have a problem with you convincing him to voluntarily give you a gallon.
But suppose he refuses. If you decide to steal from him, are you going to take both gallons? After all, if he’s got enough water to make it, he’ll probably want to hold you accountable for stealing precious water from him.
If you only steal one, are you going to evade responsibility? Or, will you, once you know you’ll survive, put yourself at his mercy and be held accountable?
Finally, if he refuses to give you water and you die, do you think that he has done anything wrong? He hasn’t violated your rights and isn’t obligated to be your savior? Still, I would consider him a scumbag and wouldn’t want anything to do with him. But that’s my values and I can’t force him to share them.
@Mo (#84) If the guy had 2 gallons of water, enough for both of you to make it to a water source, then a lot fewer people would think the theft is unjustified.
I overlooked the appeal to popularity fallacy.
Radley (@ 7):
It’s a good thing to know that you’re still endorsing a society run by people who know what’s best for everyone else.
No shit one would ask first. Theft is a last ditch effort an if it came to that, I would not feel as obligated to repay as if the person volunteered to do it.
Finally, if he refuses to give you water and you die, do you think that he has done anything wrong? He hasn’t violated your rights and isn’t obligated to be your savior?
Yes. Property rights aren’t the only source of ethics in the world. If a person had two gallons of water, and one was unneeded, and kept it for himself when the other person would die, than yes he is unethical. This is true under multiple ethical frameworks, whether it’s consequentialism or deontology (since inaction that causes a death is worse under the principle of permissible harm than theft of a gallon of water that doesn’t lead to a death).
Rule utilitarianism with preventing theft as the absolute highest priority, even above the preservation of life, is a monstrous ethical value system.
Note the difference between Chile, Haiti, New Orleans, etc. and Japan?
No looting.