What the hell are you thinking?
So, we all know about the looting in New Orleans that is a result of the flooding and general despair in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In fact, were foodstuffs that are going to spoil/rot are concerned, I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, the fact that cops were watching people loot that sort of thing, so long as they would allow the cops to get drugs and first-aid items needed at shelters before the looting resumed.
The problem is these are the only things being looted. And the further problem is that there are "liberals" who are talking about how it doesn't matter that they're looting jewelry and electronics from stores and private dwellings.
They say that the looting of the non-essentials is okay, because it can be put to a "higher moral use"; implying that someone is trading a television set for food that another person has hoarded. I find that a specious argument, at best. After all, what's the hoarder's "higher moral purpose" to accepting the television in return for some food? And certainly the person receiving the food isn't getting the value of the television returned in a similar value of food.
Sure, one could argue that, because of growing scarcity, the food's value is increasing. But all the same, it's not like the hoarder's going to be able to turn that television into more food, and even if he was, somewhere along the chain you come to someone who is collecting televisions, jewelry, jeans and so on by supplying food. And when they can get to an area outside of the disaster zone, they'll be able to sell those things off; if someone doesn't whack them over the head and steal the goods that they had accumulated first.
In short, giving tacit approval to this black-market bartering of such goods whose value isn't artificially high for those whose value is (because they're essentials for survival) only adds to the misery and death. People who don't have the goods to trade on the black-market are going to starve because they don't have the goods, and the hoarders aren't going to give them food without something in trade. The hoarders become targets for other thieves. This isn't helping anyone, and it's not empowering the lower classes.
I've seen "liberals" justifying this because "those items are just going to be written off to insurance, anyhow". Again, this is a totally bullshit argument. After all, as more things have to be charged to insurance (and what use is something to a looter if it's in such poor condition that an insurance company would write it off after a family was able to get back into their house?), the more that insurance premiums will go up for everyone nationwide. And what about people who may not have things like flood insurance and/or renters' insurance? Their valuables won't be written off as insured losses, because they don't have insurance covering the losses.
In the end, stealing possessions from another person is still stealing, regardless of the wealth of the individuals involved. I can excuse it for perishable food items that are going to spoil, regardless. Better for someone to make use of those things. On the other hand, the removal of electronic goods is really despicable. It's taking advantage of a bad situation, and doing absolutely nothing to make it better. And I'm quite disgusted that there are people on my side of the political spectrum who will justify such actions with phrases like "higher moral purpose", "redistribution of wealth" and other shit. It's not like you're taking a billionaire's $250,000 yacht and turning it into cash that you can distribute among your community for everyone. It's taking a $200 TV and getting $30 worth of food in return. It's the lower-class further allowing themselves to be exploited by the dishonourable amongst them, cloaked in the rhetoric of empowerment and class justice.
This justifying from the left is some of the grossest twisting of reality I've seen occur. I'm very sad that my political stances would be associated with this crap.