Now the company has to increase prices to compensate for the loss of profits. We all start paying for the shoplifters, ridiculous, right?
But who are we really protecting by paying more, though? The shoplifters or the company? Who’s REALLY the parasite here? The rich company or the person forced to steal?
EDIT because I might’ve not made my point clear - if we eliminate the company and replace it with public services, there would be noone to take profit and thus no need to hike the prices.
Privatization is evil. The idea of profit is parasitic.
This statement is something that I dont understand. While yeah, if that would happen to a big store, it might be alright but if I ran a corner store, I wouldnt be okay with this.
Also people who steal food here are gypsies and narcs. Normal people with financial difficulties get their goods from government, food shelters, churches and other help associations.
Now, I’ve been fucking dirt poor, I’ve gone sleep hungry, I’ve had to walk to every place instead of taking public transit. Still I’ve never thought about stealing food.
This statement is something that I dont understand
I’ll try to help fam. The hungry deserve to eat and they have the moral high ground over the ownership class that would rather that person starve and the food they stole destroyed.
You aint solving hunger by stealing ribeyes crabs and lobsters.
Normal people that struggle financially seek help from the government, they go to food banks, there is help to get without having to resort to stealing.
You don’t just wake up one morning and all of a sudden have to steal to survive. This isn’t the US. (The hint is in the £ sign)
Because drug addicts are famously affluent and gypsies don’t need food at all. Also capitalism is widely known for taking care of the people in need and no one ever goes hungry or homeless unless they want to.
Do you own a corner store? Or are you just making baseless assumptions? Just because you had a certain experience doesn’t mean that is everyone’s experience. Learn some compassion you wanker.
Remember, folks: if you saw someone shoplift food? No. You didn’t.
Now imagine every tenth customer starts stealing.
Now the company has to increase prices to compensate for the loss of profits. We all start paying for the shoplifters, ridiculous, right?
But who are we really protecting by paying more, though? The shoplifters or the company? Who’s REALLY the parasite here? The rich company or the person forced to steal?
EDIT because I might’ve not made my point clear - if we eliminate the company and replace it with public services, there would be noone to take profit and thus no need to hike the prices.
Privatization is evil. The idea of profit is parasitic.
A good argument for reducing inequality through higher taxes.
Exactly my point, thank you
Dear God, think of the profits!!!
I am thinking of all the profits!
or at least we would be able to hold the gov accountable for any bad behavior on theyer part, unlike a corp.
And if you see anyone shoplifting from Walmart, no you didn’t.
This statement is something that I dont understand. While yeah, if that would happen to a big store, it might be alright but if I ran a corner store, I wouldnt be okay with this.
Also people who steal food here are gypsies and narcs. Normal people with financial difficulties get their goods from government, food shelters, churches and other help associations.
Now, I’ve been fucking dirt poor, I’ve gone sleep hungry, I’ve had to walk to every place instead of taking public transit. Still I’ve never thought about stealing food.
I’ll try to help fam. The hungry deserve to eat and they have the moral high ground over the ownership class that would rather that person starve and the food they stole destroyed.
Could you present a weaker strawman if you tried?
You aint solving hunger by stealing ribeyes crabs and lobsters.
Normal people that struggle financially seek help from the government, they go to food banks, there is help to get without having to resort to stealing.
You don’t just wake up one morning and all of a sudden have to steal to survive. This isn’t the US. (The hint is in the £ sign)
The term “gypsies” is a slur by the way.
Because drug addicts are famously affluent and gypsies don’t need food at all. Also capitalism is widely known for taking care of the people in need and no one ever goes hungry or homeless unless they want to.
Do you own a corner store? Or are you just making baseless assumptions? Just because you had a certain experience doesn’t mean that is everyone’s experience. Learn some compassion you wanker.
Why did we have to bring ethnicity into this? Implying that people of certain ethnicities do not need to eat?