this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
884 points (94.7% liked)

Memes

45581 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 65 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Between highschool and starting uni, I did a small stint as a cashier.

I called the cops on two people, one was stealing beer, the other some keychain. Both cheap items, but not necessities.

I saw multiple people steal baby formula and diapers and there wasn't a bone in my body that even thought of calling the cops on them.

The first are stealing to steal.

The later are stealing to survive.

Imho the law should make a clear distinction between the two too.

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Problem is that you open one item to be allowed to be stolen, you then set the precedent of anything being allowed to be stolen. That’s what welfare and social programs are for.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The distinction in the law should be different penalties, not allow one of them.

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago

That's why crimes do not have a set penalty but a range for the judge to... well judge taking things like that into account.

[–] yyyesss@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

what you did there is called the "slippery slope fallacy"

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Because this tends to happen in law, especially when it sets a precedent for future cases.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah just because stores sell food doesn't mean they should feed people for free. There are a lot of costs involved in getting food onto the shelves such as planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, packaging, and distribution, and the costs of running the store. This especially applies to small mom and pop stores.

Same sort of thing with non-food items, track any particular item and they don't just appear on the store shelves, it takes a lot of people and effort and materials to get them there.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hence why stores should deliver unsold goods to food/supply banks instead of tossing it.

The cost was already made, the item gets written of for not being sold, still does some good in the end.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tyfud@lemmy.one 4 points 2 years ago

Agreed. Though judges have some leeway here, there's nothing official that would give them an incentive to treat the cases differently other than their moral compass.

[–] Eylrid@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As Aladin put it "Got to eat to live, got to steal to eat"

[–] PFShady@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

Otherwise we’d get along!

And that will be in my head all day…

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 50 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I remember standing in line at a liquor store, watching a (likely) homeless woman carefully pocket some food item. I said nothing. I talked about it the next day at work. A coworker suggested I'd just passed an "ethics test."

That was many years ago, before I'd established my current worldview. Today, I'd be silently rooting for them. "Get some food!"

[–] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call that necessarily passing an ethics test. You could've wanted to say something, but were too lazy.

Not doing something wrong is different from doing something right.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Does your liquor store sell food??? All the ones here sell only liquor.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Probably like a snack. Like a small bag of chips.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Ah lol I had this magical liquor store that sold like groceries and stuff for BBQ. Get your Jack, a 24 pack and a fresh cut brisket to smoke.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

I used to live in a red state and liquor stores there can only sell alcohol. Here (California), they're really just common bodegas. Even BevMo has snacks and party supplies.

[–] prd@beehaw.org 39 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but very rarely are desperate parents the ones stealing baby formula to feed their baby.

Baby formula theft is done in large quantities by a middleman for two purposes:

  1. to be resold at another smaller store, not any cheaper than the original retailer

  2. to be used to cut / dilute the product in drug manufacturing

People stealing baby formula are not handing them out to grateful mothers in a Robin Hood style act of compassion.

[–] AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That sounds more like DARE style bullshit to justify getting angry at people stealing formula. I've definitely heard of baby powder or baby laxative but that's because they react similar to coke by dissolving in water like blow or acting like a numbing agent. Baby formula doesn't numb and it gets milky in water.

It makes no sense from a economic stand point either. People cut drugs to make more money. Most of the shit they use costs next to nothing, isn't watched and definitely isn't locked up.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 years ago

Yeah it's always assholes looking to resell it. Much like all the theft at hardware stores, with people reselling stolen power tools.

[–] Case@unilem.org 4 points 2 years ago

They do get sold directly to some consumers, if its free product its all profit, though both your points are also valid.

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I completely agree with your sentiment, but I still wouldn't report them. If the odds of them being a parent in need is 10% I'd still look the other way. Shoplifting from a multi-hundred billion dollar business barely feels like theft to me. If that theft is for drug addicts and unfortunate parents I'm not gonna complain.

Now if they're stealing jewelery or other non-necessities I'll point that out, but when it comes to things like baby formula and diapers I didn't see shit.

Edit: In an ideal world baby formula and diapers would be universally free or at least as free and accessible as condoms at many health provider locations. Maybe at Walmart chargers transportation costs while planned parenthood is completely free. Either way we shouldn't be fretting about these things. I feel like this is something the left and right should be able to agree on.

[–] theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

People can make drugs from baby formula?!

[–] evilgiraffe666@ttrpg.network 35 points 2 years ago

If they're stealing it from people, I think I'd do something. But corporations aren't people.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 28 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Same thing I do when I see someone punch a Nazi.

[–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago

Barely hold back from loudly rooting them on?

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago

Stop what you're doing and also punch a Nazi?

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Distract any nearby clerks, duh

[–] EherVielleicht@feddit.de 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I've finally made it 🦾

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 21 points 2 years ago

Or toilet paper/other hygiene products. The first 5 years of my 20s evaporated due to an abusive relationship dumping me into homelessness. I stole more hygiene products than I'd like to admit...

[–] b00m@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago

I just can't be bothered to get involved. Be it baby formula or beer

[–] Laticauda@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lemmy can be so naive about this topic.

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It’s an interesting trend i have seen online since the onset of the post-pandemic inflation.

At its core it’s an ethics problem of Kant vs Utilitarianism. On the one hand Kantians are big into the golden rule. They would point out that we shouldn’t accept stealing in society, because we as individuals don’t want to be stolen from. If you can steal from a store why not steal from your friend’s parents or the local community centre? In fact why don’t we just all go steal the things we want whenever we want? Utilitarians on the other hand would argue that someone stealing food (if they really need it) creates more good than some investors losing a small amount of profit does harm. Utilitarians think we should live in a world that minimizes harm and maximizes good. If you’re familiar with the trolley car problem they would pull the switch to kill the 1 guy instead of the 5 on the track. They argue there is no objective system of ethics but rather every moral problem depends on the situation and the circumstances of the perpetrator and victim.

In my experience people on both sides of the political spectrum fall into utilitarian and Kantian camps. But I think people who fall on the left of the political spectrum and who also have utilitarian beliefs have a much more amplified opinion on this because they not only see stealing as a lesser of two evils but they view the whole capitalist system as an exploitation of the working class, and that the gains were ill gotten in the first place and theft is almost a natural revolutionary action to take back what is rightfully there’s.

The additional complication though is that this is also an economic problem in an economic system. Sure maybe if it was a one-off thing where somebody desperate stole something from a store one time then no systemic problem would occur, but because this is happening in larger volumes it becomes a multi-period prisoners dilemma. As opposed to the single period prisoners dilemma where defecting is the optimal choice, in the multi-period version participants develop rational expectations. Recently grocery stores such as target have been closing in inner cities because shoplifting has become endemic and they no longer believe they can make a profit there. This is terrible for inner city residents that do not commit theft because it raises the cost for them to transit and find groceries. So the system of “stealing when you need” isn’t tenable in this economic system.

Whether you believe that means we need to change the economic system or alternatively you believe we need to impose harsher penalties for crime, what’s clear is that in the end we will need a legislative solution, and so we probably should’ve just gone and done that in the first place.

[–] devfuuu@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Oh a Dean Winchester with a thick beard.

load more comments
view more: next ›