The Ethics of Looting from the Looter Majority

Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
71 comments | Share | Flag

Are these unethical behaviors more common among looters? Are they even more conscious of the unethical nature of what they do, perhaps even to the point that some "right" end justifies the wrong means?

Is this manipulative behavior fundamental to a looter's philosophy, or are these just individual bad people?


All Comments

  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If the question is that of morality, then I assert that an individual is morally justified in requisitioning his property from the thieves. Whether the thieves constitute an individual, a gang or a government, is irrelevant. The premise here is that when a government loses its moral authority, it devolves into a gang. As to the actual actions to be taken, that depends on the risks one is willing to take, same as dealing with a gang. Often, brains are better than muscles.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Never served a day. To them it was just taking out the garbage. August and September were the best months when the government does anything and everything to use up it's budget for FY Now to qualify for an increase in FY Next. Others had a less egoist look. Like the lower ranking people who raided the mess hall for leftovers to feed their families. Had to show them how to make it look like they were taking out the garbage.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would agree, the risk of course is the government's wrath and its 'legal' right to use violence to enforce its theft where you would have to be clever and undetected.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    His version of the old Marxist-Leninist (and Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Carville, Lykoff, Soros and of course Hillary rule...."Anything done or said to advance the party IS the truth - at the time it was said or done. It can change tomorrow to fit the needs of the party tomorrow - very pragmatic lineage. But to them it IS the truth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Eliminate indemnification for public officials. That is a good start. Make them individually responsible for their decisions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not sure why there is any difference between a person, a police officer and a rent a cop in terms of authority. Two of them just get paid to do it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps you have stumbled on the first good definition of conservative and liberal . Unethical
    Participants Disease. used mostly by a media of equal moral values. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Always a first time and I think you got the meeting in reverse order. Where were your drops? War stories have their place but they have to based on fact to be credible. Howevcer there is sure cure.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Donald-Brian-Lehoux replied 8 years, 8 months ago
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Now the limits are stated. However to be fair it dawned on me since it's today and not back in the old days plural we now have something called Joint Bases such as McChord Lewis or Bragg Popeand their may have been a terminology change from Air Police to Military Police and the DOD Poice may have pursuit rights with the local community in certain circumstances which would constitute a Status of Forces agreement. but for a federal police officer IF their charter indicates as did ours we had nation jurisdiction. That included one batallion commander and a few Company Commanders and commandeering the use of MPs when needed - usually when a mix of civilians and military were involved and that required us to take over immediately. Didn't work the other way off post. Nuclear Accident involved AEC for starters and come to think of it I can't remember one occuring although security penetration tests were usually and always successfully carried out by some of the SOF units.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you were never sworn. I was when I joined. You are not a veteran, can't be I have NEVER met a veteran that would insult another veteran. When were you in?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What is a broken. I have yet to find that in any of the statute manuals or references. Delusions of misplaced grandeur. abound.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh thou of little experience. when did you experience martial law ever? answer Never. Federal Police officers are always within jurisdiction everywhere and if anything that happens on post or base involves a civilian including dependents have superior jurisdiction unless in certain cases it involves DOD police.. What a poseur you are. Standing security watch and dreaming of what you could have been. and thick veryi thick rentacops are not sworn police officers at any level especially Air Police. Which means you were never an MP that's Military Poice in the real military and even in the Army they were considered servant cllass being just suipport troops..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    during a broken I had jurisdiction over EVERYONE. During martial law I have jurisdiction over EVERYONE. The sheriff is the ONLY lawful authority in the county because he is elected. All the rest are hired by an incorporated agency which makes them, incorporated, a business, which would make you a rent-a-cop. Corporation = rent-a-cop, NOT a real cop.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If it isn't the case you have a false premise in your thinking but in this case in this country it is the case which means rethinking your acceptance of the social contract.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you are using their system against them and in doing so recouping any thing wrongfully taken it's a matter of value received for value taken. There is no immorality since one is not part of their social contract. Further more one may fairly add expenses and prevailing interest perhaps but no one penny more nor one penny less. The government is run so slip shod one would have to recover tens times or a hundred times as much to be noticed.

    If the situation happened where i was part of the social contract - willingly - re-evaluate my my moral standards and for me that still comes to an amount certain not one penny more nor one penny less. To date i have never come out behind nor ahead. But I did the math.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not quite sure if that's always the case. There is such thing as retribution. Wrongs need to be corrected, including a justifiable punishment for the originator of the wrong. Unpunished, it is too tempting to be repeated.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The original statement was actually a lead-on to our interactions with the government. Today, I think that only a brainless fool cannot see that our government has lost the moral legitimacy and is ruling by force alone. By definition, that makes it a criminal. It's criminal acts include stealing from those that it can and enriching the pockets of those at the feeding troth. It follows, then, that any form of stealing from the corrupt government, although carrying the risk of government's force, is morally justified.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Especially if they stole from you first? I usually avoid people whom I don't want to deal with because of their immorality. What happens when the thief is given access to you by mandate (law)? You can no longer avoid the thief, then is it justifiable?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo