• Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • BlackLotus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • AgreeableLandscape
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      If a person needs to resort to stealing essential supplies, they’re not a failure, it’s society that’s failing.

  • marmulak
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    In general I’d say no, but in cases of necessity such a defense should be applicable to reduce or alternate the consequences.

  • sizerz@fapsi.be
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    It depends on what is being stolen. It’s a difference if you steal an essential food item or a bottle of perfume.

  • edward
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yes, it should always be.

    And even if someone isn’t in poverty, shoplifting is just cool and based.

  • m-p{3}
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Only as a mitigating factor if the stolen good is an essential product.