Will Baude smartly observes that the problem of whether or not to shoot looters is at its core a question of the relevant institutions: "The basic paradox is that the more the social order is put in peril, the harder it will be to find a trustworthy and transparent group of people to save it."
I personally have been mortified by the suggestions that looters be shot by police or citizens or so-called libertarian bloggers or whoever else, first of all because the definition of looter is so unclear. Some media reports refer to those finding food in grocery stores as looters (depending, in some cases, on the color of their skin), but as Will points out the question is not just about who is a looter, but also about who gets to decide who is a looter -- and without some even handed institution in place, people will die in vain.
But even more troubling is the question of what could possibly be gained by shooting looters. Maybe some of the loot will have economic value at some point in the distant future if things get back to normal, but even then the missing items are for the most part insured (this of course doesn't make it right to take them, but it does make vigilanteism seem like a waste of effort). I have some sympathy for those who are weighing these lives against the value of law and order as an institution, but at this point restoring order as we usually think of it appears to be a lost cause, and in any case many of the laws that are on the books (against stealing food from abandoned grocery stores, for instance) don't make sense in the new context, and therefore shoulnd't be enforced.
If anything should be enforced, it's the government's directive to evacuate the city. Lethal force should be employed only to protect those who are enforcing this directive and those still in the city as they are being evacuated (forcibly, as necessary). This strikes me as a much more sensible (and attainable) level of public order -- not one that one that will satisfy the television-watching public's thirst for justice, perhaps, but one that will in any event put an end to the sorry spectacle.
I think you are right in that really enforcing the mandatory evacuation order was the best thing to do to avoid all this. Given that that did not happen, yes shoot looters. Reports of just a few looters being shot would have done wonders, I believe, in keeping these gangs of armed hoodlums that we keep hearing about off the streets. To say that restoring order is a lost cause doesn't strike me as the right attitude to take in dealing with a disaster like this. But hell we're both far away, sitting in A/C rooms and have plenty of food & water all around us, so Godspeed to those in need. I'm sure more facts will come out in the coming days to give some perspective on what truly happened, as for now the Media is busy inducing myopia as fast as it can on the general public.
Given that "we're both far away, sitting in A/C rooms and have plenty of food & water all around us," don't you think it makes sense to exercize restraint with the deadly force, rather than calling for people to be shot, regardless of what they've done?
It seems to me that restraint is what many looters saw, which is why they kept on looting and harassing people.
Post a comment