• michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    5 days ago

    Morally nobody is being deprived of value because the goods aren’t saleable and thus no effort will be made to collect them. They are rather insisting that others who would have enjoyed them should simply let them rot. So first you are arguing for moral evil for no purpose. Next it is normally the case that goods that are abandoned on purpose eg making no attempt to collect the bananas cannot be stolen.

    Lastly such a threat is absolutely insane.because it is a threat to go after private citizens with the power of the state to punish people for what normally isn’t a crime, wasting the publics resources hurting people for doing something that was never morally wrong.

    Does this still make sense to you?

    • percent@infosec.pubEnglish
      21·
      5 days ago

      Sure, I understand the moral arguments, but it’s very common to have legal consequences when taking something that doesn’t belong to you — regardless of morals.

      Of course it would be morally better to give everyone permission to take the bananas. It sounds like that hasn’t happened though, so it seems very simple to understand that there would be legal consequences for taking them.

      How is this not obvious? Did I miss some critical detail?

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        You are missing everything basically.

        Normally its actually legally impossible to pursue charges against someone for picking up something you deliberately abandon. Furthermore the act of doing so would in the best case involve spending thousands to tens of thousands of the people’s money to pursue such charges. Threatening to burn the people’s money and hurt people to keep people from eating food that has been abandoned is absolutely crazy.