(no subject)

[ewt]

Several times over the past day or two I've seen the opinion put forth that looters in New Orleans are justified in taking food, water, and essential toiletries, but not in taking jewellery or electronics.

Why? As bradhicks pointed out, non-essential items like jewellery may be useful in barter later on. These people have lost everything, and no shop is going to go back and start looking for televisions or diamond rings, it'll all be written off as an insurance loss. It isn't hurting anyone to break into a shop that might have clean drinking water. It isn't hurting anyone to steal a diamond necklace that the store wasn't going to be able to recover anyway. It is probably stupid to carry a television that won't work when one could be carrying food instead, but it isn't hurting anyone except the carrier.

Now, guns... well. When you get lots of desperate people in a desperate and unfamiliar situation and there are very limited resources, people are going to get violent. Some of them will get violent because they panic and don't know what else to do, and some of them are going to get violent because they (rightly or wrongly) assess the situation as one where they must harm or be harmed. If weapons are readily available, they'll be used during a crisis by whomever has access and perceived need. It's ugly, it's violent, it's unfair, but the people who survive and pass their genes on have not traditionally been the ones to say, "Well, why don't we just share it?" when there is enough bread to keep one person alive for a day and four people want it. Most of us would like to think we wouldn't resort to violence, but how many of us have ever been in a position where the options are (really or perceived) fight or starve?

Let's just say I'm glad that I live in a country where guns aren't quite so easy to get hold of.

Comments

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Because essentials are precisely that. I think what people are saying (well, what I'm saying) is that all looting is wrong, but there is a defence of necessity if you steal things you need. Stealing for barter is just using theft as a way of advantaging yourself against other people in a similar situation. Who's to say that the shop won't recover their stock? They will eventually if it's still there.

[kosai.livejournal.com]

That's a nice justification, but looking at the news sites -- people are shooting at rescue helicopters, boats, police and firemen. It's not just "harm or be harmed".

- C.

[oban23.livejournal.com]

Is a civil war looming large on the horizont? Perhaps, after all, American civic identity is only a skin deep illusion. Or just a taste of things already happening in Iraq, maybe?

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

You know, if I'd been trying to get out of the city before disaster and I'd been left behind to drown, I might not trust anyone enough not to shoot them after that, either. Actually, I suspect that it doesn't even get as far as that sort of reasoning, because a lot of people are thinking screwy due to serious shock/hunger/dehydration.

Yes, there are some people who wouldn't leave, but there are probably just as many who couldn't.

[ewtikins.livejournal.com]

I sincerely doubt there'll be any stock recovered from any shops that water got inside, and I'm pretty sure that would be the case even without looting. It's cheaper to write the whole thing off than to employ the labour for the salvage operation.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Plenty recoverable from a jewellery shop. They appear to be demonstrating this by recovering it, albeit illegally.

[kosai.livejournal.com]

Or just a taste of things already happening in Iraq, maybe?

The parallels are surprisingly large:

• the people you're supposed to be rescuing are shooting at you
  
• no exit plan
  
• no timeline
  
• no hope
  
• rebuilding on hold indefinitely while the security situation collapses
  

Sound familiar to anyone? (There are differences too, thankfully, such as the majority having evacuated.)

- C.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Several times over the past day or two I've seen the opinion put forth that looters in New Orleans are justified in taking food, water, and essential toiletries, but not in taking jewellery or electronics.


On the other hand, looting a children's hospital is never justified.

[dizze.livejournal.com]

If they are good little American citizens their losses will be covered by thier insurance.

I would assume that even Americans arn't stupid enough to steal unsalvagable electronics.

Gold does not tarnish, diamond is as hard as it comes. Both will survive getting wet and retain value indefinatly, and are trivially recovered.

I am not even in favour of most Americans having access to sharp rocks let alone guns. Especially given the ammount of fear that the US media loves to pump in peoples faces.

I wonder if one could setup organised gangs to be "on-call" for a natural disaster and then enter such areas and nick stuff? Certainly Florida seems to have at least one huge "evacuate now" type hurricaine every year. W

[martling.livejournal.com]

Are you following interdictor, by the way?