# Looting - Right or Wrong



## GenJen54

As many of you may have seen, heard or read by now, Hurricane Katrina devastated much of the gulf coast in the U.S. states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In its (her?) wake, she has left hundreds of thousands of people without homes or jobs, over 1 million without electricity, and has left the coastal areas in environmental and economic ruin. 

The city of New Orleans and its surrounding suburbs (pop. 1,337,726) is evacuating completely. It may be months before the city has enough of an infrastructure to re-build.

One of the repercussions of the destruction is the looting that has taken place in New Orleans and other places along the coast. People have broken into pharmacies, grocery stores, clothing and jewelry stores and even department stores to take merchandise.

I’ve had many discussions with friends and family over the past twenty-four hours. Many of the people I have spoken to believe looting is wrong under any circumstances. It is against the law, period (full stop) and the people who are looting are criminals and should be prosecuted as such.

My question is threefold:
* Does there exist a “grey area” between what is considered right and lawful 
(not looting) and/or looting for the sake of surviving? 
* What are laws against this kind of thing like in your country? 
* Is there, in any circumstance, justification for this kind of behavior?

All thoughts and comments are welcome.


----------



## VenusEnvy

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> My question is threefold:
> * Does there exist a “grey area” between what is considered right and lawful
> (not looting) and/or looting for the sake of surviving?
> * What are laws against this kind of thing like in your country?
> * Is there, in any circumstance, justification for this kind of behavior?


Wow, Gen, great question! I had just heard on the radio this morning on my drive to work about the looting happening in New Orleans. The conversation was sparked because someone had seen (on the news perhaps?) a woman carrying bags and bags of looted baby diapers.

I don't know if I want to say much at the moment. But, my basic opinion on this is (and will continue to be) that it's just not right. Mass stealing? As my father always used to say, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" Just because the masses are taking advantage  of this disaster doesn't make it any more right. (This is, my personal opinion.) I couldn't bring myself to do it. I just couldn't.

EDIT and Thought-out Exception: If my house had been burned to the ground (or, flooded!), if everything I owned were taken from me unexpectedly, and if my children were on the verge of dying, I would loot, yes. But, only the things necessary to live: Food and water.


----------



## modgirl

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Is there, in any circumstance, justification for this kind of behavior?
> 
> In my opinion, yes.  If I were with children who were hungry, and I had no other means to obtain food for them, quite frankly, I'd steal.  And I'll sheepishly say that if I were hungry enough, I'd probably take some for me, too!
> 
> However, non-essentials like jewelry and clothing and such -- it's no different than if the person had broken the window or door to steal.  Perhaps it's even worse, since you're taking advantage of a lack of security.  (Now, if I were naked and cold and happened to walk by a store, yes, I'd grab something to put on!  But that's different from walking away with designer outfits that aren't truly needed)


----------



## cuchuflete

Good, and difficult questions GenJen.

Background:  The hurricane was no surprise to those who weren't too stoned or drunk to hear about it days before it hit.  Evacuation was ordered.

Therefore, for the vast majority, there is no excuse for looting/stealing.  First, they should have left town.  Second, if they were determined to stay, they should have prepared.  

But, if one was crazy enough to stay, had no food or water, the choices may have come down to theft or hunger/death.  Survival needs little legal justification.

I'm sure some stern moralist will say that stealing is wrong under any and all circumstances.  I make the same exception as my fellow foreros where survival depends on finding food.

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The hurricane was no surprise to those who weren't too stoned or drunk to hear about it days before it hit. Evacuation was ordered.


 
I was wondering about that.  However, I also read in the paper that either on Saturday or Sunday, even though the major highways were also ordered to flow one direction (out of town), they were still gridlocked.  Do you know how much advance notice people had?  It must be horrible to be told to leave your home, knowing that pretty much everything will be destroyed.  Thankfully, I've never been in that situation, but I suppose my first thought is that I'd cram my car with absolutely everything that I could then leave.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Modgirl*
> even though the major highways were also ordered to flow one direction (out of town), they were still gridlocked.


I believe most of the people who stuck out the storms were in the more impoverished areas of New Orleans. Some, but not all, had to stay because they had no monetary means to leave. Others chose to stay because they thought they could ride it out. I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm simply citing what has been reported. I do not know what kind of efforts (if any) the city of New Orleans made to transport (via bus?) people out of their neighborhoods and get them into shelters.

Gridlock on I-10 west (north) was very bad. I read one account where people were just trying to get up to Baton Rouge, and/or Alexandria. They got on the highway, and it took them almost nine hours to travel approximately 60-70 miles.

To put that into perspective, the trip from New Orleans to Dallas, Tx (assuming 70 mph) is approximately nine hours.


----------



## BasedowLives

if the stuff was gonna be destroyed anyways, i'd take it.

plus, who are you stealing from?  corporations.  unless they are family owned stores then it's bad.


----------



## VenusEnvy

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> plus, who are you stealing from?  corporations.  unless they are family owned stores then it's bad.


So, why is it ok to steal from corporations, but not family-owned businesses?


----------



## panjandrum

Sitting watching CNN/BBC news.
I feel a growing, chilling sense of horror at what has happened.
I heard someone earlier today refer to this as America's tsunami.
I snorted.
Not any more.
The death toll is creeping upwards - I remember that.
First it was 50........
Then it was 500.....
Tomorrow .....?

How can any of us sit in judgement of what people do in these circumstances?


----------



## BasedowLives

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> So, why is it ok to steal from corporations, but not family-owned businesses?



because corporations thrive on the opression of a lower class and usually they're disgustingly rich anyways.  If the monetary benefits outway the cost of human rights/labor, they'll gladly aquiest to their desires.  for a good read, have a look at "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan.


if you stole from a family owned business, you'd be stealing from people that are dependant on their business.


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> because corporations thrive on the oppression of a lower class and usually they're disgustingly rich anyway. If the monetary benefits outweigh the cost of human rights/labor, they'll gladly aquiesce to their desires.


 
Here's the problem.  You're making a GIGANTIC generalization.  There are small corporations (less than five employees) that are greedy, nasty, and ugly.  And there are huge corporations that are not oppressing the poor and are very fair and generous.

We would hate it if others made generalizations about Americans and treated us all the same way.  Why should we do it with corporations?  They simply aren't all the same.


----------



## cuchuflete

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> because corporations thrive on the opression of a lower class and usually they're disgustingly rich anyways. If the monetary benefits outway the cost of human rights/labor, they'll gladly aquiest to their desires. for a good read, have a look at "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan.
> 
> 
> if you stole from a family owned business, you'd be stealing from people that are dependant on their business.



These assertions are astonishing.  I suggest you do not a little, but a lot of research.  Start with the audited SEC financial filings of the "Fortune 200" largest corporations in the US.  Then tell us, with a straight face, that "they're disgustingly rich anyways."  Some earn very good returns; some lose money while paying tens of thousands of employees.

Because this thread is in part about what's morally acceptable, and you have proposed that it's ok to steal from corporate entitities, I suggest you think about who you advocate stealing from.   The largest shareholders in many of the biggest corporations are pension funds.  That's right, the equity owners are retired working grunts.  So in fact, you are saying it's just fine and dandy to steal from the little guy, because his livelihood once he retires happens to be linked to a bunch of large companies.

If I were in New Orleans and had no food, I would look for it in stores large and small, just to stay alive.  If your statements are valid, it would be perfectly ok to rob large chain grocery stores when there is no flood emergency.   I could not possibly disagree more with your position.  

Do you have a right to enter the home of a very wealthy person and help yourself to whatever you like, just because they are "disgustingly rich"?
Do you sit in judgement of their wealth based on how you think they got it?
Does it matter if it were inherited or earned?  What if they amassed a fortune by working hard and being smart?  Is that grounds for you to steal?

Please read the thread about pirate music CDs.  Then learn some basic economics.  Perhaps even consider the moral basis of your statements.


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> I was wondering about that. However, I also read in the paper that either on Saturday or Sunday, even though the major highways were also ordered to flow one direction (out of town), they were still gridlocked. Do you know how much advance notice people had? It must be horrible to be told to leave your home, knowing that pretty much everything will be destroyed. Thankfully, I've never been in that situation, but I suppose my first thought is that I'd cram my car with absolutely everything that I could then leave.



I don't know if the city/state/national guard provided buses or other means to leave, but ignorance of the evacuation was close to impossible.  About 80% of residents did evacuate.



> The sweltering city of 480,000 people — an estimated 80 percent of whom obeyed orders to evacuate as Katrina closed in over the weekend


 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050831/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_katrina


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> That's right, the equity owners are retired working grunts. So in fact, you are saying it's just fine and dandy to steal from the little guy, because his livelihood once he retires happens to be linked to a bunch of large companies.


 
The *enemy* is grandma and grandpa (or even mom and dad) - let the uprising begin!


----------



## panjandrum

I know I'm wandering off topic a little.

I have just heard interviews with several people who did not evacuate.  Their stunned response was along the lines of, "We've heard this kind of warning often before.  We didn't evacuate the last time and nothing happened...."

It seems that many of those who stayed simply didn't believe that this could possibly happen - it's never happened before.


----------



## GenJen54

> originally posted by *Basedowlives*
> if you stole from a family owned business, you'd be stealing from people that are dependant on their business.


 
Hmmmm....Wal-Mart started out as "family owned." Does that now make them oppressive, because the members of the company who are still the majority stock-holders are part of the Walton family?

I second Cuchu's questions, as well, and they are much more eloquently put. 

Thank you, everyone, for continuing to engage in this debate. It's become interesting, although in quite the opposite direction of where I had imagined it going.


----------



## modgirl

Okay, here's a scenario.  Let's say I were in New Orleans, and I did take several items from the stores -- but sincerely with only the intention of returning them to the store later.  In other words, I was trying to be a "good neighbor" by saving the merchandise from looters.  Would the store owners believe me later when I returned the merchandise?  Or, would they think that I had looted and later changed my mind?


----------



## cuchuflete

Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other. 
  Benjamin Franklin


			
				panjandrum said:
			
		

> I know I'm wandering off topic a little.
> 
> I have just heard interviews with several people who did not evacuate. Their stunned response was along the lines of, "We've heard this kind of warning often before. We didn't evacuate the last time and nothing happened...."
> 
> It seems that many of those who stayed simply didn't believe that this could possibly happen - it's never happened before.


----------



## Papalote

Hi!

Perhaps I shouldn`t enter this debate since I am not a USA citizen and I am not as concerned about New Orleans as you all are (although one of my friends from highschool is, or rather was, living there until 2 days ago!) but I do want to share with you what I think is a big corporation.

In my experience, a big cororation is top executives earning in the millions while secretaries, translators, gofers, women and ethnics (as we are called in this Province) earn less that one tenth this people's bonuses, not including perks. You can say that they make the big decisions, but as far as I am concerned, most of them haven't lasted 2 or 3 years and they still get golden handshakes in the millions, while the thousands of employees losing their jobs because of mismanagement, overseas contracts, etc, go to work one morning and see themselves being accompanied to the main entrance by the guards. Before any one tells me I am exaggerating take a look at the Telecomm business in the last few years.

And, playing Devil's Advocate to my own arguments, should I, humble worker, be thankful for whatever pay because somebody with vision/guts/greed (take your pick) can help me earn a living, or should I feel that I am being exploited and refuse to work (with, hopefully, millions of other workers like me) until IT realizes that without me/us he couldn't get very far with ITS multimillions-making idea? (Did I just coin a word? Did I just start a new argument?)

I do not condone the looting, and I am very thankful to have never been in the position of having to compromise my morals in order to survive. I do think though that 100% of New Orleans knows that their city was built way under the water line, that they knew way in advance that they should evacuate, so I find it a little bit insulting for my friends who died in the tsunami to compare a tragedy for which people could not prepare to one where people just couldn't care less and decided to stay for whatever reason. If it is because of poverty (physically not being able to leave), then perhaps this is a good opportunity for the richest society in the world to start taking a good look at what is really happening there so that it will never happen again. No offense meant, as I know personally how generous and courageous the American people can be and how much there is to admire in the USA (like all of you debating in this forum!).

Please take everything I've said with a grain of salt! 

Take care,

Papalote


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Panjandrum*
> I have just heard interviews with several people who did not evacuate. Their stunned response was along the lines of, "We've heard this kind of warning often before. We didn't evacuate the last time and nothing happened...."
> 
> It seems that many of those who stayed simply didn't believe that this could possibly happen - it's never happened before.


There is truth to that because they have heard these warnings before, in some instances multiple times. In every case, they were able to ride it out, or else the storm took another course entirely. It's the old "Crying Wolf" syndrome. Others I have heard chose to stay because they had "weathered out" Camille in 1969 and if they could survive what was then dubbed "the storm of the century," they could certainly survive this.

Okay - back on topic. 

*Edit: *


> Perhaps I shouldn`t enter this debate since I am not a USA citizen


No salt needed, Papalote. It's interesting and often eye-opening to get other perspectives - especially those from people outside of the US. You're certainly welcome to participate.


----------



## rob.returns

W-R-O-N-G. The end doesnt justify the means.


----------



## lsp

The problem with condoning stealing from big corporations with fat cat CEOs who make millions in salary and millions more in perks and bonuses is the fact that when trouble arises, who gets hurt? It's naive to ignore that the little guys like you and me will lose our jobs or our raises or our benefits when stealing affects the bottom line.


----------



## Andre Balian

Okay, I won't get too deep into this.  

But defending Wal-Mart is not commendable by my standards. Any corporation that uses (or exploits) third world nations for labor to maximize profits is clearly immoral. I have no sympathy for anybody looting wal-mart! 

I also believe that in these circumstances everything is considered lost anyways.  Why not salvage.  

But more importantly, I don't believe necessarily that the corporations are entirely bad. The bottom line is that the individuals that make the greedy and exploitive decisions, and the government (and individuals within it) that have created a system of commerce that allows for such corruption and concentration of wealth and polarization of social classes are really the ones we should be looting. We should be looting our rights back from the damn patriot act.   We should be looting money from the military industrial complex to pay for health care and social welfare.  

There's always a bigger bad guy.  

And don't you think most of these businesses have some type of insurance? I can't sympathize for the insurance companies either. 

Everybody has made good points, but loot on!  

Peace.


----------



## asm

You might be right, however, I do not know if we can blame the one who did not flee on time. I am a humble observer, I have my fridge full (well, not quite, but I can go to wal-mart in few minutes), and I did not loose everything. I am not in a traumatic shock. I cannot condemn anybody. 



If I were there, with my kids also there, assuming I was the most stupid man in the world for not leaving on time, I'd use all I could use to feed them. Does this include robbery? I do not know, but probably yes.



Evacuation was not the same option for everybody. I am thinking on those immigrants with little command of English, what could they do in order to just understand what was going on? 

Stealing is incorrect, but according to my understanding, that was not the main concern for Jesus, was it? 

Now, if those guys were to steal money, jewelry and the like, that’s a shame





			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I don't know if the city/state/national guard provided buses or other means to leave, but ignorance of the evacuation was close to impossible. About 80% of residents did evacuate.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050831/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_katrina


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Papalote,

I'm certainly glad you commented.  You have said a lot worth thinking about.  





			
				Papalote said:
			
		

> Hi!
> 
> Your experience is somewhat limited.  The corporations you have described did, and do, exist.  I would be careful extrapolating from that experience to generalizations about *all *big corporations.  Many behave otherwise.  I've been employed and consulted for both the variety you describe, and some that behaved very differently.
> In my experience, a big cororation is top executives earning in the millions while secretaries, translators, gofers, women and ethnics (as we are called in this Province) earn less that one tenth this people's bonuses.... overseas contracts, etc, go to work one morning and see themselves being accompanied to the main entrance by the guards. Before any one tells me I am exaggerating take a look at the Telecomm business in the last few years.    We could discuss the telecomm business at length.  Some of the failures were caused by corporate management dishonesty, some by the bursting of the dot com bubble, and others by structural changes not foreseen by management or labor or government.  Again, the danger is generalizing that corporations are evil incarnate.  It simply is not a truthful generality.
> 
> And, playing Devil's Advocate to my own arguments, should I, humble worker, be thankful for whatever pay because somebody with vision/guts/greed (take your pick) can help me earn a living, or should I feel that I am being exploited and refuse to work (with, hopefully, millions of other workers like me) until IT realizes that without me/us he couldn't get very far with ITS multimillions-making idea? (Did I just coin a word? Did I just start a new argument?)  I think you just re-invented the labor movement of the 1920s!  Papalote



I have a lot of respect for your even-handed analysis of a lot of difficult questions.

un saludo,
Cuchuflete


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Rob.Returns*
> W-R-O-N-G. The end doesnt justify the means.


So, given these circumstances and *only* these circumstances: 

You have a four-month old child;
You were unable to leave your home because the child's mother is very ill;
Your home was demolished;
You are now stranded - living amidst dying corpses in chemical-infested waters with no electricity, no plumbing, no refrigeration and no possibility of _*immediate*_ help;

Would you not then go to any desperate measure - including taking what does not belong to you - to ensure your family's safety and save your child's life?

In this question, I am _only_ asking _based upon the criteria given_.  Is the life of your child worth less than the moral sacrifice it would take to break the law?


----------



## BasedowLives

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Do you have a right to enter the home of a very wealthy person and help yourself to whatever you like, just because they are "disgustingly rich"?
> Do you sit in judgement of their wealth based on how you think they got it?
> Does it matter if it were inherited or earned? What if they amassed a fortune by working hard and being smart? Is that grounds for you to steal?
> 
> Please read the thread about pirate music CDs. Then learn some basic economics. Perhaps even consider the moral basis of your statements.



1.  if i was in a situation where i needed to, and i couldn't get any assistence because of shitty pay then yes
2.  Yeah.  Who needs such masses of wealth?  What good does that do to anybody besides their own personal desires, when  1.2 Billion people live on less than a dollar per day.  (Global Problems and culture of capitalism - Richard Robbins)
3.  not really.  you can "earn" money by shitting all over people
4.   then good for them.  i respect people that work hard.  but not when they turn from a person who worked hard into a corporate entity 
5.  yeah, i wouldn't mind some property damage


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> 2. Yeah. Who needs such masses of wealth?


 
So, you're against achievement, apparently.  Why should we teach our children to study and work hard only for it to be taken away?  If people like you were in power, we'd all be robots without incentives.


----------



## BasedowLives

no, you've been cultured to the capitalist mindset.  life shouldn't be proportionate to how much money you can pull in for somebody else.

we should teach our children to work hard and study for the betterment of society and themselves.

i'm not against achievement, i'm against a system where necesities such as food and education have been transformed into a commoditee to only be attained by those fortunate enough.


----------



## asm

I think there is a huge gray zone.

Do not take me wrong, but if 80% of the population fled on time and they will not come back soon (some will never come back at all). Who will use those products (perishable goods) we are concern about? If they do not allow people to take them (under certain circumstances) the products will be trash on behalf of morality. 

If you were the person who decides on this matter, would you let the products get rotten? 
I am not favoring stealing, but what would you do with a truck full of milk? (this is figurative, but there are places that have more milk than the one a truck can load) What would you do with a truck full of diapers? 80% of your market is gone!!!!! People are dying. 
Who is more guilty, the person who steals a bottle of water from a store (under this condition) or the person who sells it for 3-4 dollars a bottle or more, because of the situation (I have learned that some places have this problem, prices go up in a crazy way, I am not talking about people in NO, I am talking about real people who have done this in the past.

What would you do?



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> As many of you may have seen, heard or read by now, Hurricane Katrina devastated much of the gulf coast in the U.S. states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In its (her?) wake, she has left hundreds of thousands of people without homes or jobs, over 1 million without electricity, and has left the coastal areas in environmental and economic ruin.
> 
> The city of New Orleans and its surrounding suburbs (pop. 1,337,726) is evacuating completely. It may be months before the city has enough of an infrastructure to re-build.
> 
> One of the repercussions of the destruction is the looting that has taken place in New Orleans and other places along the coast. People have broken into pharmacies, grocery stores, clothing and jewelry stores and even department stores to take merchandise.
> 
> I’ve had many discussions with friends and family over the past twenty-four hours. Many of the people I have spoken to believe looting is wrong under any circumstances. It is against the law, period (full stop) and the people who are looting are criminals and should be prosecuted as such.
> 
> My question is threefold:
> * Does there exist a “grey area” between what is considered right and lawful
> (not looting) and/or looting for the sake of surviving?
> * What are laws against this kind of thing like in your country?
> * Is there, in any circumstance, justification for this kind of behavior?
> 
> All thoughts and comments are welcome.


----------



## gatocloneado

A hurricane is a lot different from a Tsunamy, namely the preparation time you get, or warning. Looting, in my book, is wrong. No 'ands', 'ifs' or 'buts' about it. As for being poor, this day in age? who does not own a vehicle, or knows some one who has one. Every body in new orleans knew that the city was built below sea level, how can anyone not know? 
I came poor to this country and I am now able to live a life with what I need, maybe not as much as I want, but I have what is needed. I don't blame anyone else for my past and present condition, the fact is, with a little bit of will, anyone, and I mean anyone, can make it here. 
I don't wish to be in anyone's shoes that walks New Orleans today. But please, there were plenty of warnings. 
Why are we looking at rich people for finger pointing? Fact is, people who spent several years of their lives to become doctors, or lawyers, and engineers also lost all of their belongings. They did something from the begining to be prepared for the future. I don't fit the category, I have no college degree, But I work and at my age, I am going to school. I see no millionaires blocking the doors to the classrooms.


----------



## cuchuflete

I too have the ability to rationalize and justify most any action. That doesn't make it right. 





			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> 1. if i was in a situation where i needed to, and i couldn't get any assistence because of shitty pay then yes Is it fair to assume that it would always be someone else's fault that a person would have such needs, together with the shitty pay?
> 2. Yeah. Who needs such masses of wealth? What good does that do to anybody besides their own personal desires, when 1.2 Billion people live on less than a dollar per day. (Global Problems and culture of capitalism - Richard Robbins) Please remind me to send my poorest friends to your house. Maybe they can make better use of your computer, or need it more than you do. Compared with some of them, perhaps you have 'masses of wealth'. If it's really up to each individual to decide what others are entitled to own, and when it's ok to rip them off, perhaps you will need some extra dead-bolt locks.
> 3.  not really.  you can "earn" money by shitting all over people  And, it seems you are the one best qualified to decide who's earnings are honest and worthy, and whose are not. I'm not that wise, so I'm glad you are there to make the decisions for the rest of us. At least you don't have any false modesty about the talent. If you've got it, flaunt it.
> 
> Where should one go to learn how to judge when other people's stuff is fair game for communal seizure? Are there schools for this, or does one learn it in church or school or at the knee of a wise relative?
> 4. then good for them. i respect people that work hard. but not when they turn from a person who worked hard into a corporate entity Please learn what a corporate entity is before condemning this legal form. It's really very much like the LL.C. form used by most Mom & Pop shops. As noted earlier by another forero, some corporate entities employ just a handful of people. They do not all have the same size or standards or forms of behavior. That variety may make generalizations more difficult, and it's harder to find just the right slogan for each situation, so I suppose it's efficiency that leads one to generalize.
> 5.  yeah, i wouldn't mind some property damage



If I were a perfect paragon of virtue, I too could construct a moral scheme to allow me to self-righteously promote theft, and construe this as Robin Hood taking from the evil sheriff and friends to feed the poor, downtrodden residents of fairy tales. Sounds nice and neat and pure in motivation, even if it has an underlying whiff of other things not so attractive.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *asm*
> Who is more guilty, the person who steals a bottle of water from a store (under this condition) or the person who sells it for 3-4 dollars a bottle or more, because of the situation (I have learned that some places have this problem, prices go up in a crazy way, I am not talking about people in NO, I am talking about real people who have done this in the past.



You bring up a very interesting point.  I know this was the case after 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.  A friend of mine who was in rescue work there told countless stories of people trying to sell the rescuers water and/or food for exorbitant prices, all in the name of profiteering. 

Thank goodness this was not the case in 2001.  

I hope we do not see the same crop up in this latest catastrophe.


----------



## BasedowLives

i'm not even going to respond to any of what you said cuchuflete.  It's obvious through your sarcastic as hell remarks, that you hold some sort of deep seeded contempt for me.  

i don't know everything.  i don't know a lot of things...but what you can't seem to grasp is the fact that we could try something different than this type of exploitive american-style capitalism that we have.  our system is pretty good for us, yes...for US.  and i am greatful to be in the situation i am, where i have access to education and things of the like.  but i can't stand it when there is so much injust everywhere.  

and what am i gonna do about it?  because i know you're going to try to be a smartass and ask me "well what are you gonna do about it?" i plan on joining some sort of aid-organization and moving to south america for a while perhaps to teach english or technology or just help out.  

i'm gonna cease debating here, because you are stuck in your hierarchical mindset.


----------



## cuchuflete

I just read Gatocloneado's post.  While some others were whining about  the injustices of "the system", it seems he was working and achieving.  I salute him.  





			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> i'm not against achievement, Except when, in your wisdom, you decide that someone has done more of it than they really need and thus you are entitled to share in what they have achieved by stealing.  You said these things.i'm against a system where necesities such as food and education have been transformed into a commoditee to only be attained by those fortunate enough. For over half of the existence of this country, education was not considered a necessity.  Now that it is, it is paid for largely by taxes on ...I know this will hurt you deeply, but facts are facts...LARGE CORPORATIONS.   Most of the remainding funds come from property taxes, which means that the unfashionably wealthy pay for a disproportionately large share of the cost of schools.  Too bad your arguments keep on flying into one another.


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> no, you've been cultured to the capitalist mindset. life shouldn't be proportionate to how much money you can pull in for somebody else.
> 
> we should teach our children to work hard and study for the betterment of society and themselves.
> 
> i'm not against achievement, i'm against a system where necesities such as food and education have been transformed into a commoditee to only be attained by those fortunate enough.


 
Unfortunately, you tend to think that most people aren't smart enough to fend for themselves. I respectfully disagree and think that we're a lot more resourceful and intelligent than you give us credit for! Of course, there will always be those who need extra help, and we are morally obliged to help them, no doubt. But to penalize those because you don't think someone "deserves" the fruits of his labor is simply playing God. Perhaps someone will decide that you don't deserve what you have, either.

I really, really like my freedom. And yes, with freedom comes responsibility.

“Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
—Ben Franklin

“Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither.”
—Thomas Jefferson

You're welcome to your communist views.  I've seen first-hand what it zaps from people.  Their ability to think for themselves.  I don't have time to get into a heated debate, but as soon as you begin playing God with people and telling them what they deserve, pretty soon the same will happen to you.  And then no one ends up with anything.  Except the dictators.

Your freedom is valuable.  But you may never know that until you lose it.  And then it's too late.


----------



## BasedowLives

to cuchuflete

 redistribute the wealth. thats what i mean by all that.  that should be simple enough.

edit:  sadly, yes most "communist" societies haven't done very well, with the exception of China, which is still pretty strict and not communist.

i'm idealistic, what can i say?


----------



## cuchuflete

I have no contempt towards you.  I strongly disagree with your statements and positions, which I find to be self-serving and immoral, while wrapped in noble-sounding words about overcoming injustice.   It's easy to blame  the rich, the corporations, the system, the hierarchical mindset.   It takes a different sort of energy to change things.   You seem intelligent and full of energy.  I hope you find a way to put it to use to accomplish change.  

Many aid organizations are corporations.  Some of them are big corporations.  Have a look at Americares, for example.  It distributes thousands of tons of medicine and other relief supplies to disaster areas in the US and other countries.   It receives these supplies as gifts from large, very large, corporations, including the obscenely profitable pharmaceutical manufacturers.  Most of its cash is donated by filthy rich individuals.   
Whether any of this is good or bad I leave to you to judge.  Food for thought, perhaps.



			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> i'm not even going to respond to any of what you said cuchuflete. It's obvious through your sarcastic as hell remarks, that you hold some sort of deep seeded contempt for me.
> 
> i don't know everything. i don't know a lot of things...but what you can't seem to grasp is the fact that we could try something different than this type of exploitive american-style capitalism that we have. our system is pretty good for us, yes...for US. and i am greatful to be in the situation i am, where i have access to education and things of the like. but i can't stand it when there is so much injust everywhere.
> 
> and what am i gonna do about it? because i know you're going to try to be a smartass and ask me "well what are you gonna do about it?" i plan on joining some sort of aid-organization and moving to south america for a while perhaps to teach english or technology or just help out.
> 
> i'm gonna cease debating here, because you are stuck in your hierarchical mindset.


----------



## BasedowLives

a lot of aid organizations are NGO's.  which i hold to a higher standard.  they are non-profit.  different than multinational corporations (which have been known to support coup d'etats [see united fruit company])

i'm glad you replied the way you did.


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> i'm idealistic, what can i say?


 
Idealistic is to believe in people and allow them to make decisions for themselves.  You want someone to play judge and decide who gets to keep how much money of what was earned.  I find that very sad, not at all idealistic.


----------



## BasedowLives

modgirl said:
			
		

> Idealistic is to believe in people and allow them to make decisions for themselves. You want someone to play judge and decide who gets to keep how much money of what was earned. I find that very sad, not at all idealistic.



no i don't want somebody to play the judge.  

if you really wish to know how i feel the ideal system should be, look into participatory economics.


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> no i don't want somebody to play the judge.


 
But you said that you want to take wealth away from those who earned it.  Who decides?


----------



## asm

I am not against achievement, I am not in favor of amassing fortunes either. I am not the person you asked the question, but I want to express my ideas. I think that being rich is risky (I did not invent this, read Mt, 19-24.). 



If you measure achievement with money, I just give up with the conversation because I do not have any argument to debate the point; I loose, you win, period. However, if you think there are other yardsticks, you might concede different opinions. While I think money is important to achieve some goals, your life cannot be measured by those achievements.



I can tell you that we can (should, must) teach our children to study and work hard to be better human beings, to be more tolerant with others, to use their knowledge to pursue happiness, to help others achieve their potential, to make this world a better place to live, to learn about their origins (socially, culturally and historically) , and understand the origins of others, to learn how to behave properly in a complex society, to use knowledge and technology to dominate the world with a responsible approach, to help them appreciate art (music in all its forms, literature, etc, ) and science, to learn how to negotiate with a win-win approach, to help them enjoy life as it is, to learn the law to be more responsible and thankful of their past, to be politically active and thoughtful. There are a lot of reasons that I’d include in this list, but I think this is enough for me to educate my children. Did I mention money? Did I mention money with obsession? Is money the only/best motivator? Money in certain amount is a must, but in excess it becomes the compass of your life (like we see too often).



Anyway, my prayers today go for those who lost everything, the rich and the poor, the good and the bad, the wise guy who fled on time and the “dumb” who stayed there (for any reason), the looter and the police who caught him, because they are starting a new life with nothing, while I am pleasantly using the computer, and criticizing other because they do not think and behave the way I think they should (I am speaking just for myself).

Meanwhile, I will “judge” those poor guys only if the court ask me to do so as part of a “jury”. Other than that, let them live on peace, my heart is with them.



I apologize for being so emotional today, but I couldn’t resist so much condemnation to people who are under circumstances that we do not want to suffer even for one day. What are we eating in front of the computer? Are we warm enough? Are seated in the most comfortable chair we have? 

There are plenty of other crimes we do not talk about and they are much worse.



I won’t say anything else in this thread besides that I hope all people involved in WR never ever face something even similar, that nobody who reads this could be, in his-her life-time, under the pressure of “looting” for survival.



Adios

 




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> So, you're against achievement, apparently. Why should we teach our children to study and work hard only for it to be taken away? If people like you were in power, we'd all be robots without incentives.


----------



## BasedowLives

> But you said that you want to take wealth away from those who earned it.  Who decides?


the people

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4710


----------



## rob.returns

OH so you mean "BLOOD MONEY" or "DIRTY MONEY". The problem with your situation, is that you give the most difficult one, and the most pessimistic too. You can't tell it in words buddy. Because there's always a choice in real life, there is always that friend of family who will help you, Your motivation also counts. If that would be the case, all of us would be criminals and prostitutes? Open your eyes, there is more to that situation.





			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> So, given these circumstances and *only* these circumstances:
> 
> You have a four-month old child;
> You were unable to leave your home because the child's mother is very ill;
> Your home was demolished;
> You are now stranded - living amidst dying corpses in chemical-infested waters with no electricity, no plumbing, no refrigeration and no possibility of _*immediate*_ help;
> 
> Would you not then go to any desperate measure - including taking what does not belong to you - to ensure your family's safety and save your child's life?
> 
> In this question, I am _only_ asking _based upon the criteria given_. Is the life of your child worth less than the moral sacrifice it would take to break the law?


----------



## modgirl

asm said:
			
		

> If you measure achievement with money




Not at all!  But with some achievement, financial rewards follow.  The question is:  who are we to judge or take away what was rightfullly earned by someone?


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> the people
> 
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4710


 
Sorry, I don't have time to read the article.

However, I urge you to spend some serious time in a communist country.  I have.  Some concepts look just wonderful on paper but manifest quite different in reality.


----------



## BasedowLives

ok how about this

who are YOU to judge who should be rewarded by what they do? what constitutes "earning" money? there are people that work for the state, cleaning and making new roads and fixing them, and live off of barely enough to survive.

why shouldn't they be paid more? what makes them less important than others? without them, the roads would go to hell and would be undriveable.

so i reverse the question. why should we pay people so much for what they do? yes, doctors are VERY important. but what happens when on the emergency call they get at midnight, his car slips off a road and can't make it to the hospital because the road crews didn't exist?

EDIT:  that isn't a communist website.  its a parecon website.

this is digressing too far from the topic. i suggest that if people wish to talk more about this, open another topic. but i'm going to stop and go back to topic.

so, yeah.  the stuff is gonna be destroyed anyways.  go for it!


----------



## rob.returns

*"A WRONGDOING CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY ANOTHER WRONGDOING"*

Stealing from a Thief, Doesnt make you correct..but it does make you a Thief also.

Thanks


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> ok how about this
> 
> who are YOU to judge who should be rewarded by what they do? what constitutes "earning" money? there are people that work for the state, cleaning and making new roads and fixing them, and live off of barely enough to survive.
> 
> why shouldn't they be paid more? what makes them less important than others? without them, the roads would go to hell and would be undriveable.
> 
> so i reverse the question. why should we pay people so much for what they do?


 
Simple: Supply and demand. Personally, I think it's appalling that someone with a bit of talent like a baseball player or some teeny bopper who just happens to strike a chord with the masses -- make millions and millions and millions of dollars a year. However, I also have the freedom not to buy tickets that help support them. And I think that they have every right to make their millions as long as people are around to support them. It's all about freedom of choice. 

Is there ANY government that is perfect for everyone? Absolutely not. However, in my humble opinion, I've never seen a government that is more fair and gives more freedom to people than capitalism.

Again, give up your freedom, and you give up life.

Edit:  Oh wait, I like the way Patrick Henry said it better:  Give me liberty or give me death!


----------



## BasedowLives

so do you equate money with freedom?

i'm not promoting any kind of opression.


----------



## cuchuflete

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> the people
> 
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4710


I've read the first three or four screens, and it is very idealistic.  Some of it makes very good sense.  Some of it is, I think, doomed to the same fate as Marxist idealism...because it is contrary to human nature.

Why don't we discuss it in detail in another thread?

C.


----------



## gilbert0

You people just shared your justifiable answers and brilliant opinions. I wouuld like to comment please pay some respect to those people who suffered from that calamity specially those people who lost their life there. I think people there are looting for survival reason. Why don't we all pack up and go there and see for ourselves how it feels to be in that situation. 

God Bless...


----------



## Merlin

I think for survival people do it. For me You can get some stuff provided you pay them back. Once you're on your feet again I think it's just right to pay for the stuff you took. Doesn't it feel good that you don't have anything bugging your concience. Looting is still looting. If we can't avoid it, you may do it. However, we must bear in mind that we have to pay it back.


----------



## Kelly B

Returning to Katrina's wake, according to the radio program this morning, the looting has reached the point that most of the police force in the area has been pulled off the job of rescuing people so that they can try to maintain order. I cannot think of a word strong enough to express my disgust at this.


----------



## modgirl

Kelly B said:
			
		

> Returning to Katrina's wake, according to the radio program this morning, the looting has reached the point that most of the police force in the area has been pulled off the job of rescuing people so that they can try to maintain order. I cannot think of a word strong enough to express my disgust at this.


 
I agree completely.  Stealing jewelry just three days after the hurricane is not stealing for survival, in my humble opinion.  And they're only harming themselves.  Are people going to be more likely or less likely to donate money to help them now?  Of course, not everyone is a criminal, but their actions are harmful to all.


----------



## cuchuflete

There seems to be a general accord here, with a few exceptions.

A.  Looting in general is wrong and should be avoided.
B. If it's a question of survival, it's ok to follow human instinct and take what's needed.

The rest of our conversations have moved into other arenas, not off-topic, but very interesting side conversations.  Perhaps those who wish to continue discussing the nature of wealth, corporations, who has a right to take what, new systems for organizing human endeavors, mis-management, biblical guidance, money and freedom,_et alia_, should open new, focused threads.

I'm serious in saying that all of these are very worthy topics.   It's just a little hard for me to consider the lot of them in a single thread.

regards,
C.


----------



## tey2

Yes looting in general is wrong and should be avoided whenever possible, the end does not justify the means here but when you talk about survival and you don't have any other options aside from that then I would say that I might get what I need, though I'm not saying that for this reason it will be right.


----------



## gatocloneado

So it is ok to fire on the rescuers? It is ok to loot because all my life I been idle and did nothing to promote my self? it is ok to steal because I thought the govenment would be there to give me a hand, which by the way, I have been abusing, receiving free food, at the expense of those who did work, did go to school, and pay taxes? 
The more I read the threads, the more I think, and sorry, the less and less I can rationalize the use of stupidity, I been here for twenty odd years, As Modgirl pointed, you have your choice of paying the so called athelete or teenyboper. 
My right, my choice, my freedom.
It has been my freedom to go to school, and study something, and it has been my motivation to find a good job, maybe start my own business, which by the way, will employ others. Sorry, is that being opressed? I just can't see how.
If those idiots would not try and kill each other, the authorities would have a free hand to help those in need. 

I don't equate money with freedom, it is common sense, get off your duff, do something for yourself. Are you too dense to do it, not smart enough? get physical work, no brain needed. 

Those with children should be held resposible to what happens to them, I have been in the situation, I live in florida, trust me, there is no way in hell I would risk my children's lives just because I am too lazy. They are my first and only priority. 

My opinion is, you don't like it here, you think you have been opressed? (that just sounds too corny) Go back to where you came from.

give me freedom modgirl, I like that, or give me death.


----------



## cuchuflete

gatocloneado said:
			
		

> So it is ok to fire on the rescuers?


That has nothing to do with survival.  It's attempted murder. Period.  I would not be sad if those shooting at recuers were made 'victims' of the hurricane, but whatever means.  But we do drift considerably off topic here, don't we?

c.


----------



## BasedowLives

the fact that there are people shooting at rescue helicopters and shooting national guard units is pretty disgusting.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Basedowlives*
> the fact that there are people shooting at rescue helicopters and shooting national guard units is pretty disgusting.



I think we can all agree upon this, but it is not how the situation started.


----------



## modgirl

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> the fact that there are people shooting at rescue helicopters and shooting national guard units is pretty disgusting.


 
Biting the hand that feeds is usually a very brilliant move....

I haven't read the morning news.  Why on earth are people shooting at those trying to help them?  This is bizarre.


----------



## Beverly

I believe that in the circumstances of survival the looter should not be prosecuted! The government should be in place to distribute the necessities, so the people should not be in the situation in the first place! I know if I had a store, drug store, grocery store I would be distributing what I could myself. I saw on TV police serving themselves, fair distribution is needed to avoid 
dealing the merchandise out for profit.  It is  hard for me to think that when a person is trying to survive and help others to as well, we should condemn..... what about condoning!


----------

