Imagine a young woman living in the country of Anarchistan, a society where traditional government structures are replaced by self-managed, stateless communities. Anarchistan values mutual aid and collective responsibility, yet, paradoxically, it is home to large, well-established companies that operate within its borders.
She is facing severe hardship and resorts to stealing clothing and food to survive. She makes a conscious decision to target only these large companies, intentionally avoiding theft from individuals or small businesses, and spends considerable time contemplating the morality of her actions.
Let’s give the young woman a name, Carol and let’s assume she isn’t stealing to live an opulent life. Here are a few points that shape my opinion regarding Carol’s actions: Carol seeks to steal clothes and food, she has chosen to steal from large companies and not individuals, and she spent time pondering this moral dilemma. Other facts in the case that I used to formulate my opinion; The companies are large and well established, the companies are located within an Anarchist country, and the companies are complicit to the rules established. As a show of transparency, I categorize myself as Anarcho-Communist, so I have a strong bias in this argument. Studying this information provided and the assumption I have made I believe that Carol’s behavior is: Permissible.
Here is my inductive argument: Carol is stealing clothing and food specifically targeting large companies; therefore, Carol probably doesn’t have food or clothing and needs these to survive. Carol has chosen to steal these items from large companies because she doesn’t want to inflict harm to those that would be most impacted by her actions. Carol is not described as stealing items of great value or excess luxury. It doesn’t imply an inherent greed driving Carol’s actions.
I view this argument as weak because I cannot verify that this is the case. I cannot say for certain that Carol is living without food or clothes. I would expect that if Carol was only stealing food, I would have no qualms about her actions and I could make this argument stronger. It seems hard to accept that Carol requires clothes often enough that she is constantly stealing them. I understand the need for clothing for survival as it is our most basic protection from the outside world, and I recognize my ignorance for the struggles that Carol must be experiencing therefore I won’t use her stealing clothes evidence to condemn her actions.
Here is my deductive argument; the companies targeted are inside the boundaries of Anarchistan, thus these companies must be complicity to the same norms that the rest of the country recognizes. These companies are large enough to require warehouses and utilize sweatshops for labor, and so it can be understood that these companies must have built its success in Anarchistan. It is impossible to believe that companies are creating wealth under an anarchist system without impacting those around them in some manner.
I believe my argument is perfectly valid. A company that is designed in this manner and profiting on those around them shouldn’t be accepted or pictured as OK. Accepting companies that can withhold food from the starving is being complicit in human suffering. Carol is doing what is only natural, she is seeking food, however her actions are the ones we question. I feel the real question we should take from this exercise is, “Is it morally okay to allow a company to flourish and force those around them to steal for survival?”
“Remember, if you see someone stealing food, no you didn’t.” Food isn’t a commodity, it’s a right.
Comments