looting post SHTF.

[bigpaul]

I wasn't quite sure which heading to put this in, an open box(here) or in morals and ethics? anyway, American site, subject as per box above. http://readynutrition.com/resources/sust..._10092013/

[Sunna]

good point about avoiding small shops who owners may well put up a fight for their goods .
for me i would get as much as i could from places i know well taking advantage of my hgv skills .
i have no moral worries about this ....

[Midnitemo]

I'm hoping not to need to go out aquiring stuff in the early stages as i feel the risk of conflict leading to injury or death is to great , i will have people dependent on me, i aim to pick stuff up at later stages and hopefully from people who no longer need there gear.

[bigpaul]

I have an "emergency fund" and in the initial stages I will be BUYING up the small shops stocks, later on I shall "acquire" materials and other stuff from commercial premises no longer occupied or in production.

[Prepper1]

I think looting is the wrong term...
I class looting as taking stuff like tv's xboxes etc...

I know its the same but its just like shopping without paying, I suppose you could always leave a cheque or your name and address with what you'd appropriated if you feel that bad about it but like b.p's saying large commercial premises are different from peoples homes...

[bigpaul]

(15 September 2013, 14:45)Prepper1 Wrote: like b.p's saying large commercial premises are different from peoples homes...

and post collapse commercial premises are more likely to be unoccupied, we cant be so sure about houses, I feel better about taking stuff from industrial estates, safer too, peoples houses could be more dangerous as they will fight to keep the stuff, companies will already have gone bust or the employees have abandoned the place to look after their own families.

[River Song]

"Large commercial premises are different from peoples homes..????"

Oh really? Dontcha just love the justifications :-)

Theft is Theft no matter where, no matter when, and no matter to whom.

Once we have that out of the way, we can then make some adult decisions as to
whether we are going to engage in it. But lets no kid ourselves that its not looting or theft.

I would leave a cheque ............... and then no-one can say I didn't intend to pay.

[bigpaul]

its not theft if everyone is dead or dying and there is no rule of law. its making use of stuff left behind, its called SCAVENGING. there is no point in standing on your morals and ethics and dying because of them.

---

its just silly putting todays morals and ethics whilst there still is rule of law on something we will ONLY do post collapse when there is NO rule of law. its called survival and I for one will do WHATEVER I have to to ensure me and mine's continuing survival. anyone who says less is just fooling themselves.

[Prepper1]

Technically that's true without rule of law means no laws so.....
Technically as the laws aren't in force they don't apply....

[River Song]

(15 September 2013, 17:44)bigpaul Wrote: its not theft if everyone is dead or dying and there is no rule of law. its making use of stuff left behind, its called SCAVENGING. there is no point in standing on your morals and ethics and dying because of them.

You are probably right. That's why I say we need to make some 'adult' decisions. I may be playing semantics but it would still be 'theft' in my opinion. I may engage in it for survival sakes, but it is still what it is.

"without rule of law" means it is not being enforced and only that.