The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree.
It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.
The human life of the people looting your property is more important than the well-being of you and your family who will be in debt after that, I see.
Regardless, this seems to be your personal value, something that I (and most people that I know) do not seem to share - even the US constitution and laws do not seem to share it, after all it is legal to shoot someone invading your home. I have no grief to give to someone who died while trying to invade my home and loot my property. They are dead due to their own choices.
> A looted store can be repared, restocked, rebuilt
For free? It can be a lifetime's worth for some. Are you willing to pay it out of your own pockets? If there were enough people willing to do so I would support your statement, but that does not seem to be the case.
Your argument here seems to be that human life is worth less that the value of looted goods. So, if someone looted a TV, you think their life holds less value than a TV?
I want to interpret your reply charitably, but I’m really struggling with this sentence.
The answer seems self evident: Yes. Obviously. Without a doubt of course a human life (even a life that is doing something like looting) is worth more than the value of what it’s carrying.
Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.
Second, we're not talking about individuals protecting themselves or their property. We're talking about the police / military shooting looters, and again not specifically in protecting themselves or others from harm.
Third, this is calling for summary judgement and execution without trial. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Sure it does. If it did not everyone owning property would go to the entrance and physically block it. In addition it implies imminent threat to the well-being of these that have their property taken away from them.
> If you think someone should be shot because they stole / destroyed some property
Under normal conditions I would support shooting them only if it is the only/safest way to stop them (either from committing the act or from running away).
> Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Except the ones that are shoot while they are looting are provably guilty.
Are you against the police shooting someone that threatens the life of an innocent?
Edit:
> We're talking about the police / military shooting looters
You pay your taxes so that the police / military protect you and your property.
The logical hole in this is that when one traces back "why" personal property has such a high value, the only source of its value comes back to it being thought of as an inseparable part of the life-experience of the person who owns it. To contrive an example, let's say someone's a pre-computer author (i.e. before easily duplicable backups), writing one of those life's-work novels, and they have a single copy of the manuscript of their magnum opus - to threaten to destroy the manuscript is to threaten their life's work; to threaten everything they poured their life's passion and effort into. It's conceivable that to destroy it might literally kill them by driving them to suicide.
But that's exactly the hole in the logic: at it's most extreme where property really is equatable with the value of a human life, the only thing that gives this property any absolute moral value is the value of the human life and passion that went into building it. If you've then got a conflict between "a holder of property" and "someone who wants to destroy that property", really it's just a threat on your "life".
--
One is then simply asking a question of whether it's justified to take another person's life to protect your own.
Most secular ethics frameworks say no; christianity and buddhism repeatedly and explicitly say no, over and over again, including direct quotes from christ himself.
I do not subscribe to the notion of universal value. I do think however that for someone the value of looted goods can be greater than the random person who looted them, surely you must also agree with this.
Anyway, looting has effects in the real world too, it is not only "oh no, I lost some value", it is "they looted my shop so my family might go hungry".
> Should we stop someone looting things? Yes. Should we kill them just over the theft? No, of course not.
If we have the option to stop them (along with the rest of the looters) without killing them then sure.
To be honest, how you make the jump from looting and destroying property to someone's life being threatened is beyond me.
If the looters are about to harm someone, and there was no other non-lethal way to stop that then fine. This is certainly NOT what people are objecting to.
I'm not sure how to make it more clear. Looting for the most part destroys property. Destroying or stealing property doesn't justify killing. Having your property taken away doesn't imply a threat to you. I mean c'mon, if that's the standard then we should just execute every petty thief and vandal.
Oh, no! I absolutely don’t agree with this! I would actually stop interacting with someone who agreed with that sentiment, mentally tagging them as a sociopath with no respect for human life.
From "this is calling for summary judgement and execution without trial. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?"
> Destroying or stealing property doesn't justify killing
This is not some universal truth as you try to make it to be, but rather your personal morals.
> Having your property taken away doesn't imply a threat to you
As I said before "Sure it does. If it did not everyone owning property would go to the entrance and physically block it. In addition it implies imminent threat to the well-being of these that have their property taken away from them."
The looters are looting while using the threat of violence.
> if that's the standard then we should just execute every petty thief and vandal
As I said before "Under normal conditions I would support shooting them only if it is the only/safest way to stop them (either from committing the act or from running away)."
What is the point of repeating the same statements over and over?
> mentally tagging them as a sociopath
You would discriminate against people solely due to their feelings - something which they have no control over and does not affect you?
> You would discriminate against people solely due to their feelings
Absolutely not! We were talking about beliefs and values, not feelings. I harbor no ill will against anyone for their feelings. As you say, feelings are mostly not under one’s own control.
But what you believe is well within your own power. If one believes a human life is worth less than some material possessions, then yes, I would remove that person from my life. That’s not a feeling. That’s a choice.
In that case you certainly agree with "I do think however that for someone the value of looted goods can be greater than the random person who looted them" then, despite refusing it earlier.
> We were talking about beliefs and values, not feelings
This part was about sociopaths actually. Having certain feelings is enough to be a sociopath. Do you think that people choose to have ASPD?
> That’s not a feeling
Not feeling sad and not caring when some random person (it can even be someone from your own family) dies is related to feelings however. Something that is probably enough to get you considered as a sociopath by some.
> That’s a choice
Beliefs are a choice now? You do not choose to believe in something, rather, you get convinced due to some event, and this is often not possible depending on your feelings. I do not think that someone can believe that the life of someone who looted their store is all holy and important when they can't feel an emotion when someone dies.
> I would not interact with them.
Mind if I ask why? What would you (or society) gain if you refuse to interact with them? You would discriminate against them just for believing in something?