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.
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.
The distinction in the law should be different penalties, not allow one of them.
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.
I would imagine that other workers in his store wouldn’t be so human and would balance out this precedent
what you did there is called the “slippery slope fallacy”
The slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. The strength of a slippery slope argument relies on the ability to show that the initial action will actually lead to the predicted outcome. The fallacy comes in when connections are drawn between unrelated concepts - an easy example of this is the argument that legalizing abortion will lead to the legalization of murder. In this case, I think it’s pretty likely that making a certain item legal to steal will pave the way for more items to be legal to steal in the future. After all, who decides which items should fall under that law? I’m sure there will be plenty of people with very strong, differing opinions on the topic.
Would you care to provide some additional context? On some levels I agree with you, but I would be interested in hearing the rest of your thoughts on the matter.
Because this tends to happen in law, especially when it sets a precedent for future cases.
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.
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.
There may also be legal issues if the stores products gets someone sick or hurt because the store will probably get caught in the legal crossfire.
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.
You probably also thought people were stealing Sudafed because they had colds.
This medication in most stores crap doesn’t exist here.
Ah. My point was that those are some of the easiest to resell. Sudafed is used in the creation of meth.
Wow! Easily accessible to be stolen? In my country, we have 2 sudafed formulas – the meth kind (pseudoephedrine) and a different type (phenylephrine). The meth kind is only available by asking the pharmacist and showing your state-issued identification. The other kind is freely available to steal.
It’s that way here now. It wasn’t yet when I worked in a grocery store.
creation of meth
Another thing that barely exists here XD
Tell us you don’t live in Florida without telling us you don’t live in Florida.
Where is “here”? Because there’s plenty of meth in my location (I don’t do meth, I’m just aware of it).
While there is meth in Europe, there’s nowhere near as much of it anywhere in Europe.
Some countries have a rising meth problem, but it’s really nothing compared to the plague it is in the US.
What about the Czech Republic?
As Aladin put it “Got to eat to live, got to steal to eat”
Otherwise we’d get along!
And that will be in my head all day…
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!”
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.
deleted by creator
So ying yang?
Does your liquor store sell food??? All the ones here sell only liquor.
Probably like a snack. Like a small bag of chips.
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.
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.
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:
-
to be resold at another smaller store, not any cheaper than the original retailer
-
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Yeah it’s always assholes looking to resell it. Much like all the theft at hardware stores, with people reselling stolen power tools.
They do get sold directly to some consumers, if its free product its all profit, though both your points are also valid.
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.
People can make drugs from baby formula?!
deleted by creator
-
If they’re stealing it from people, I think I’d do something. But corporations aren’t people.
Depends where you are. In the US they actually are:
I’ll believe it when they execute one
Or just jail a CEO
Why not whole board?
They’re ‘people’, but they’re not people.
Same thing I do when I see someone punch a Nazi.
Barely hold back from loudly rooting them on?
Stop what you’re doing and also punch a Nazi?
Distract any nearby clerks, duh
you earned it.I’ve finally made it 🦾
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…
I just can’t be bothered to get involved. Be it baby formula or beer
Lemmy can be so naive about this topic.
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.
Something something USA NEEDS MORE PARTIES something
i have parties
Can I come?
Can I come?
Oh a Dean Winchester with a thick beard.
Removed by mod
no decent person steals from small business… its common sense to avoid that and most people who do steal do it from walmart and megacorps. idrk where u got worrying ab small business from, its just considered shitty to steal from them. but big corps who lay around in their yacht profiting off of others being too broke to eat and feed their kids? fuck them. steal all you can from them because they will from you.
But end of the day its all the same in society. Corporations suck but so does turning a blind eye to thiefs. It’s never cut and dry as ‘only steal from corporations’ because a decent person doesn’t steal and we should all be more concerned with being decent people instead of ignoring behavior like stealing. Its a good feeling to be at arms length and condone these heroic actions like stealing diapers from Walmart and thinking its some poor mother trying to survive in a harsh world. But everyone I ever met like that in life were people who just assholes in everything else. They lie to your face, they cheat on their loved ones, they’re drama goblins because they’re a mess and they don’t care about others, only themselves.
People commit theft because the barriers / consequences of theft to obtain an item or less than the barriers/consequences of legitimate purchase. It’s always a supply and availability issue. Humans aren’t intrinsically evil. Also there aren’t a bunch of programs to provide free baby supplies. Even WIC requires application but some people might not have the time or ability to go to. And it’s not free with WIC, you still have to pay.
Also if you want to talk philosophy, children are too young to consent and be beholden to the social contract. They’re participation is mandatory because they are innocent and dependent. It’s our obligation to provide for them collectively.
WIC is free if you get it.
Removed by mod
If you’re a single man with infants (under age 1) and/or children (under age 5) then, THEY are eligible for the benefits of the program. Women are specifically added in because the program is designed to also help pregnant, breastfeeding and/or postpartum women who have their own nutritional needs. Women who don’t meet those requirements are also not eligible.
So, you don’t get help with food for yourself, but you can get assistance for infants/children … there are other programs to help you.
Search terms used on Google in Incognito mode: single man with children WIC eligibility
Brings you to this page: https://www.joinproviders.com/state/illinois/wic/
Which has the below information:
There are four kinds of eligibility for WIC:- Categorical: you need to be a mom, child, or have custody of a child.
Moms have to be pregnant, up to six months past pregnancy, or up to your baby’s first birthday if you’re breastfeeding.
Children are eligible up to their fifth birthday.
Foster parents, guardians and single fathers who have custody of their children are also eligible.
-
Residential: You need to live in the state where you’re applying.
-
Nutritional: A health professional needs to determine if you are at “nutrition risk.” This might mean you have a medical condition like anemia, or a diet that could be healthier. You can see a health professional for free at a local WIC clinic.
-
Financial: Your household needs to make less than the amounts listed in the income limit table below to qualify for WIC. A pregnant woman counts as two (or more) household members. If you know you’re having more than one baby, count each one as a household member.
The top link for that search is for a page in IL, but I saw similar for other states.
If you have an infant or child I believe you can.
People commit theft because the barriers / consequences of theft to obtain an item or less than the barriers/consequences of legitimate purchase
But that is objective which is my point. I feel guilt that my actions can impact other people negatively. Thief’s though grow up never giving a shit. If you’re around these people long enough you’ll see patterns of behavior that clearly show that consequence part of their brain is different. Its like their pleasure center overrides anything of consequence and their whole life is seeking out personal advantageous at the cost of other people.
Like I said, I’ve known people to have enough money to afford groceries and everything else. But they will steal something like formula. They don’t care. Even at a Walmart there’s managers and employees that need to answer for why there’s such a high theft rate at stores. Its never victimless.
I’m all for providing care. And people aren’t born evil but they do become it in very insidious ways. And one way is being someone who never stopped to care that their actions and behaviors would put a burden on others. They live for themselves only. Like the formula. Think about it in the mind of a person whose brain only looks at how they can benefit. Why spend money on your kid when you can use it to get yourself a treat. Just steal the formula and buy yourself that thing you wanted. Thief’s are like that. Many are not stealing because they need to. Many are stealing because their barrier/consequence calculation removes the part where you have to think of others.
And people aren’t born evil but they do become it in very insidious ways. And one way is being someone who never stopped to care that their actions and behaviors would put a burden on others.
You literally just said: “People aren’t born evil but they do become it by being someone who was born evil.” If they never stopped to care their whole lives, they started that way.
Who are ‘they’?
The most important of questions.
Hold up. Who do you think “they” are
That only works in Uno, babe.
No seriously because I would have though it’s inherent in the comment but also stated. I just surprised it isn’t and would like to know who you think it is before I say since it sounds like you have another idea
The commenter is asking you to define “they” because they don’t want you to try to squirm out from under the statistical landslide of facts about just how bad the poor in America have it. About how they don’t have the money and they don’t have the means to get more money when even a college-educated person can’t land a proper full-time paying position to cover the expenses of a family anymore.
But you knew that, which is why you started squirming early.
What squirming? What fuck are you trying to say
But you can fuck off with this nonsense. They are people who steal. Don’t give two shits who or what they are.
Never seen anyone steal baby formula outside a riot, because it’s always locked up.
But yeah, I’m sure some people steal because they’re hungry, but the people I saw steal when working grocery stole steaks, lobster, shrimp, eye drops, high-end hair products, and workers’ hours. If someone was ever stealing out of need (fuck, even a single carbohydrate) they were slick enough about it not to get caught. But we tracked shrink, and could tell when something disappeared without account.
