Skip Navigation
53 comments

  • (Before clicking the link): the victim is going to be a POC or vulnerable isn't he.

    (After clicking): sigh. Mob mentality and dehumanisation. Please treat other human beings with care and respect.

  • Taking items, belongings to a different person is wrong.

    Causing physical harm to a person is even far more wrong.

    Regardless of laws i believe these those to be true in civilized society

    But to add to that, to who exactly do the items on display in a store belong? (I asked this question to ai to make following list)

    1. The items belong to the store owner or corporation that owns the store, having been legally purchased for resale.
    2. The items belong to the workers who produce them, as their labor creates the value of these items.
    3. The items belong to the community or society as a whole, ensuring collective access and distribution.
    4. The items belong to those who use them, with property being legitimate only when actively utilized.
    5. The items are part of the common resources that should be freely accessible to all individuals, promoting mutual aid and cooperation.

    Noteworthy is that the items never belong to the store employee from any perspective but it could belong to the thieves according to 3, 4 and 5, If the thief happens to work at the factory they can also fall under 2.

    • I agree but the ai list isn't very good tbh, your reading of it is worse - if you're counting the thieves into 3 4 5 then excluding the staff is a weird choice.

      Assume this is a state run distribution center and people take more than they're allotted then sell them to people who now don't have access to them, are you going to say those people have more right to the foods than those working in the store? Of course not.

      • Fair enough i should indeed not have excluded the staff according to my own logic. Neither should policy be made based on internet comment. I also should have refrained from using chatgpt as i could have easily made such list myself.

        Thanks for your feedback

        I am an advocate for using ai to enhance speech if it’s clearly labeled. The desire to be a good example towards this labeling appears to have lead to me doing so where not actually needed or relevant. I didn't misread its output as much then it was already wrong in my head while writing the prompt.

        My intention was to explore the meaning of ownership and belonging rather than proposing theft be fully legalized. I understand that in modern society we only consider economical ownership but i deeply question such.

        To answer your hypothesis of a state run distribution center, you must understand i answer this purely from my own understanding of the world.

        Depending on your own perspectives i am both pro and anti government at the same time.

        To me (and this is a personal-anarchism perspective) a state at minimum is but an organized collective of people concerning the general well being and health of all members of its own people. If a state can be just this then i want it. If it’s not this then what is its purpose.

        A state run distribution center running out of goods because the people it distributes toward made inefficient and asocial choices and committing acts of exploitation (creating scarcity by taking to much, profiting by creating exclusive ownership of the goods yourself) is a sign of a broken society and in extends its government as such system is not sustainable.

        People who compromise the sustainability of their own society are a system of systemic neglect of education and mental health.

        Yes my pov is radical and extremist. Till someone comes by that can properly show me how and why taking this perspective and talk about it is more wrong then silently going trough the motions of the planet wrecking machine. I am unlikely to think differently.

        Thanks for reading, whoever did.

53 comments