looting

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a utilitarian argument, the same one used by folks who colonised already inhabited areas, because they felt that the land was being wasted. Use is a subjective measure, and can justify stealing anything.

[KrazyHorse]

Any goods in that city are a total wash. Store owners are going to declare as lost their entire inventory. There's no chance anything is going to be in any condition to sell in a month or two when they finally drain the water.

Anybody who defends a moral system in which it's better to throw goods into a fire rather than let property "rights" be violated is off their rockers...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's a utilitarian argument, the same one used by folks who colonised already inhabited areas, because they felt that the land was being wasted. Use is a subjective measure, and can be justified to steal anything.

What a ridiculous statement.

The utility of land in the hands of native peoples is a complex issue. The utility of a TV whose insides have been corroded is not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Any goods in that city are a total wash. Store owners are going to declare as lost their entire inventory. There's no chance anything is going to be in any condition to sell in a month or two when they finally drain the water.

Ok, does that make the goods mine? Does that change the fact that I have stolen them in order for my own benefit? That's the real debate here, is it wrong to do something, even if it isn't going to hurt anyone else?

Anybody who defends a moral system in which it's better to throw goods into a fire rather than let property "rights" be violated is off their rockers...

The same concept of property that protects what I own is the same thing that protects everyone elses. That being said I don't have much property, so why don't I take some from other people who are just letting it go to waste?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az
don't feel bad. Project Kuciwalker is proceeding smoothly enough - Look at how he defended looting to save stuff, plus I think he went utilitarian - now the only thing left is to prove to him that a planned economy will enjoy the benefits of technology much more than a market one, and we'll so be done.

You'll have a hard time with that last one

[Ben Kenobi]

What a ridiculous statement.

The utility of land in the hands of native peoples is a complex issue. The utility of a TV whose insides have been corroded is not.

So why bother to steal something that is useless to you? That has no value?

The only time someone says that they can use something better than someone else is if they want to steal something that isn't theirs to begin with.

[Kuciwalker]

So why bother to steal something that is useless to you? That has no value?

The idea is, if you don't steal it, it will BECOME useless (because it'll be dumped in the water).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ok, does that make the goods mine?

It makes them finders keepers., sure. If you abandon property then whoever can make good use of that property should be welcome to it.

[lord of the mark]

Jewish law has a concept of "hefker" or abandoned property, which is free for the taking. IIUC this would usually apply to property left abandoned in a public place. Damaged goods on private property are up to that private property owner to dispose of as he sees fit - he can donate it to the charity of HIS choice, or he can try to gain some value out of it, or he can choose to destroy them, for whatever reason.

Utility here is based on the rule, not the act. IF we allowed every individual to confiscate property whenever there doing so had greater utility, the result would be a system that would lower utility.

Its up to governments to confiscate property for reasons of social utililty, not individuals. Much less armed gangs.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So why bother to steal something that is useless to you? That has no value?

The only time someone says that they can use something better than someone else is if they want to steal something that isn't theirs to begin with.

Kuci has already explained adequately why this is an idiotic argument.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It makes them finders keepers., sure. If you abandon property then whoever can make good use of that property should be welcome to it.

If i leave a movable item inside my locked store, how is that abandoning it?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you abandon property then whoever can make good use of that property should be welcome to it.

Have they abandoned the property? Or do they intend to return to their property when conditions permit?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Jewish law has a concept of "hefker" or abandoned property, which is free for the taking. IIUC this would usually apply to property left abandoned in a public place. Damaged goods on private property are up to that private property owner to dispose of as he sees fit - he can donate it to the charity of HIS choice, or he can try to gain some value out of it, or he can choose to destroy them, for whatever reason.

Utility here is based on the rule, not the act. IF we allowed every individual to confiscate property whenever there doing so had greater utility, the result would be a system that would lower utility.

Its up to governments to confiscate property for reasons of social utililty, not individuals. Much less armed gangs.

Clearly the government can't quite do that during a flood...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The same concept of property that protects what I own is the same thing that protects everyone elses. That being said I don't have much property, so why don't I take some from other people who are just letting it go to waste?

Normally I'm not in favour of amateurs practicing wealth redistribution. There are certain situations like this one where I couldn't care less. To me, the actions being taken by looters (so long as they're not violent) are pretty much amoral. I probably wouldn't steal a TV myself in this situation, but that would be based on fear of punishment, not moral considerations.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Have they abandoned the property? Or do they intend to return to their property when conditions permit?

Their property will be ruined by the time they get back. Then they will declare their entire inventory as lost (actually, they'll probably declare 110% of their inventory as lost), collect the insurance money and move on. Doesn't matter to them or the insurance company whether the TV is ruined and in the dump or is sitting in some lucky bastard's living room.