A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions
If your post is
- Open ended
- Not offensive
- Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
- not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)
it’s welcome here!
- 0 users online
- 14 users / day
- 96 users / week
- 138 users / month
- 435 users / 6 months
- 19 subscribers
- 537 Posts
- 4.4K Comments
Food and clothing. Other then those, no.
Only as a mitigating factor if the stolen good is an essential product.
Yes, it should always be.
And even if someone isn’t in poverty, shoplifting is just cool and based.
Yes, if they are going without food or other essentials.
If people feel the need to shoplift, chances are they aren’t being provided for by society. I would look to wages and employment first.
Yes, always. Shoplifting from anything but a good worker-owned enterprise is entirely supportable assuming it’s not just like a mom and pop with zero employees other than the mom and pop.
The entire existence of capitalism is tightly coupled with mass worker exploitation through the theft of the surplus value generated by workers.
Edit: I don’t even care if they aren’t in poverty, I still support them, especially from trash like Target.
If a person needs to resort to stealing essential supplies, they’re not a failure, it’s society that’s failing.
It depends on what is being stolen. It’s a difference if you steal an essential food item or a bottle of perfume.
In general I’d say no, but in cases of necessity such a defense should be applicable to reduce or alternate the consequences.