Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry • Hacker News Board

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#291

Post by protomyth » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

pka wrote: post #282

protomyth wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many of the worst abuses of history have come from black and white thinking (people with black skin are not people, jews are not people, people without my political beliefs are not people). That's a crap argument, and has nothing to do with morality that's base racism and can be just as easily phrased as some shades of grey. I'm getting sick of people twisting what people say into some racial thing when we are talk…

Trying to force your morals on other people (by claiming they are absolute) makes the world a worse place.

Society does it all the time, that's why no murder and stealing are pretty much the first laws people make. Trying not to cause pain does not make the world a worse place.

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#292

Post by refal » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #200

stronglikedan wrote: post #133

I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The potential for abuse due to hunger being subjective notwithstanding, there are social programs in place to accommodate the needy. Do they not have these programs in Italy? I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for th…

> I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The Catholic Church would agree: stealing is intrinsically evil, and thus wrong always and everywhere. The way they handle situations like this is by defining "stealing when starving" as "not stealing at all, but reappropriating things according to God's design for them." They…

Hm, I dimly remembered what was called "Mundraub" in Germany, so I looked it up and interestingly, the German wikipedia entry mentions 5th book Moses, 23,25 (probably should be 23,24?) as an example of theft permitted if for immediate consumption (and perhaps in not too large quantities):

When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, thou mayst eat grapes thy bellyful at thine own pleasure: but thou shalt put none in thy bag.

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#293

Post by jeffdavis » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #247

steego wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. * Stealing something back * Stealing Hitler's secret plans * Stealing a portion of everybody's property/income, but providing vital protection, infrastructure and social services in return. * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her. * Stealing land from the commons to efficiently put it to work * Stealing land at market valu…

These kinds of discussions always make me think of this story: "A Scottish miner was walking home one night with a bunch of pheasants he had poached from a local landowner's estate when the landowner appeared and demanded that the miner hand over the pheasants. "Why should I hand them over to you?", asked the miner. "Because this is my land and those are my pheasants", the landowner replied. "OK", said the miner, "wh…

Land is special because it has always existed and (practically) you can't make more of it.

There are reasons to make it private, but it's quite different from, say, a sculpture. Clay is nearly worthless, so if an artist turns it into a valuable sculpture, that value was created. Obviously, there's a spectrum here. Even land typically requires an investment to make it useful for anything.

Food is largely created; especially something like sausages or cheese. So the tale of the miner above doesn't really apply. It may not even apply well in that case, if the pheasants were feeding on crops cultivated by the landowner.

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#294

Post by WhoBeI » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

elcapitan wrote: post #111

garyrob wrote: post #30

It's a little hard to understand how this ruling won't cause a certain degree of chaos. Can any hungry, homeless person now steal food from any store in Italy without repercussion? Certainly as a matter of compassion, this ruling can be argued as being reasonable, but how can it work as a practical matter?

I think there is a fundamental difference between different law systems - I'm assuming Italy is roman-style civil law, while you are probably expecting Anglo-Saxon style common law. This means that that case is not setting a precedent, it is merely ruling that the particular case is not going to be penalized.

It's very common to mix them up. We use civil law in Sweden but due to the influence of US movies and TV series it's common, in my experience, for people to think about laws in a US fashion.

Wikipedia has a good article [1] with a map showing the different legal systems in use throughout the world.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#295

Post by vidarh » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #238

vidarh wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Believe what you want, but I sure as hell didn't grow up in a privileged position. I think the disconnect there is that we appear to have very different ideas of what is required to be privileged. Have you ever starved? (And going hungry is not starvation). > Churches will give food, its part of many faiths. Again, have you ever starved, and tried to think clearly enough to find someone willing to give you food? >…

> Have you ever starved? (And going hungry is not starvation). I've gone hungry and I know my Dad did. There was choices made by this person before they hit starve. They were hungry first. Why is visiting a church or other organization unacceptable to you?

> I've gone hungry and I know my Dad did.

Going hungry and starvation are two vastly different things, both physiologically and mentally.

> There was choices made by this person before they hit starve.

And these choices were insufficient to save him. So now what? Do you want him to starve to death because he was unable to fix things? Are property rights for a few euros worth that much to you compared to the well-being of a fellow human?

> Why is visiting a church or other organization unacceptable to you?

If you think that is what I said, you did not understand what I wrote.

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#296

Post by aninhumer » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #205

aninhumer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I missing some sarcasm here? Legalising stealing is basically abolishing property rights.

You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time. Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many…

>You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation.

Unless you're suggesting everyone be allowed to steal, you're going to spend as much effort (if not more) working out which thefts were legitimate as you are working out who is allowed welfare.

Not to mention you're replacing a predictable system with ad hoc chaos. (Maybe insurance can smooth it a little, but then that's just further overhead.)

>Or maybe you'd just hire private security.

Private security is largely toothless if they can't hand people over to the police. Even if they throw you out, you can just come back the next day and try again.

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#297

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #91

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Italy is a welfare-style state, this just opens up cannoli snatching and such instead of going to whatever socialized or charitable shelters and services. Unhealthy high sugar and high caffeine foods will be in demand by snatchers. Ironically, this is going to hurt the working poor the most who work at low margin restaurants, retail shops, etc as people just grab whatever they want because there is no mor…

If society has failed people so badly that they're starving in the streets, they should probably expect riots let alone petty theft.

You expect riots when healthy, well-fed people suddenly stop receiving handouts. By the time people are actually starving in the streets, they don't have the energy to riot.

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#298

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #286

thaumasiotes wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no such rule in the U.S., although a lot of people mistakenly assume there is one. There certainly is such a law. It's not something to be proud of. > In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores > Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discr…

What? This is exactly what I said. "race, color, religion, or national origin" is a short whitelist of protected classes, which "homeless" and "poor" are not on.

"I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers". That was correct.

And US law, using the theory of disparate impact, treats discrimination on basically any category at all as discrimination by race. Barring entry by poor people would be prosecuted as anti-black discrimination seconds after a store tried to do it.

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#299

Post by dllthomas » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #133

I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The potential for abuse due to hunger being subjective notwithstanding, there are social programs in place to accommodate the needy. Do they not have these programs in Italy? I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for th…

My views on the matter are complicated and probably a bit conflicted. But for a cute presentation of a particular alternate viewpoint: http://blog.ninapaley.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/NA_Inve...

Re: Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

#300

Post by wfo » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #250

vidarh wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is black and white That you believe this makes it absolutely impossible for me to think you're not in a privileged position. > The whole point of government social programs is to provide for survival. There are organizations that provide and places to go. Great when you know where to go, and they work as they should. They are not perfect. And people are not perfect. Especially not when starving.

The problem with peddling guilt is that not everyone subscribes to it. I pay taxes, and I expect the needy and the poor and the sick and the hungry to be taken care of. If anyone should feel guilty, it should be the government leaders and the people that don't hold them accountable for the duties there are tasked with performing. I think stealing is wrong, no matter the situation and desperation. However, I also beli…

It's your job to make sure the needy and poor and sick and hungry are taken care of. The government is you, what it does is your responsibility. Paying taxes, shrugging your shoulders, and saying "not my problem anymore" is not an option from a moral standpoint. If it is ineffective, it's on you and all of us to make sure it works properly.