Yes, I like that and use that rule most of the time 👍
Again, I just suspect that _sometimes_ it's justified to damage _some kinds_ of property _a little bit_ for a greater good, depending on many circumstances… 🤷
Contaminating meat in the supermarket would affect ~[97.8% of people in Spain](https://efeagro.com/veganos-vegetarianos-flexitarianos-espana/). The vast majority of people eat meat, and I think it's reasonable to think that a good chunk of those people do so for health reasons.
Deflating the tyres of large and medium SUVs in cities would affect way less than ~[27% of people in Spain](https://www.elespanol.com/motor/20200814/primera-vez-venden-suv-espana-coches-convencionales/512949002_0.html) (_Tyre Extiguishers_ denounce only “huge polluting 4x4[s] in the world’s urban areas”), and I think it's reasonable to think that many of those urbanites opted for a large or medium SUV out of vanity, not necessity.
**“Property” comes in gradations, too.**
My heart and lungs are my property, and so is my motorbike. I want ethics and the law to allow for seizure and expropriation of the latter under certain circumstances — but never the former.
A can of baby formula in your cupboard is your property, and so is the umpteenth billion dollars credited to an individual's bank account. They are taxed very differently (ie, those two kinds of property are “respected” to very different degrees), and I think that's good.
The food I buy for myself, and thus the atoms I put _inside my body_ are “my property” in a very different way that ~~my car~~ / ~~the tyres of my car~~ / _the air_ that once was inside the tyres of my car is “my property” — for very good reasons.
Nobody said “carte blanche”. I said “gradient”, “sometimes” and “could”, and expressed mostly doubts in the form of questions.
I can think of a couple ways _Tyre Extinguishers_ could be justified, while _Meat Adulterers_ should be condemned:
[…some/most people **think** are just.]
> _“If you allow it just because the vandals feel justified then what happens when others use the same excuse for causes you might not agree with so much?”_
Yup. That's the conundrum of civil disobedience and other forms of strictly illegal activism. It's not particular to this case, though — rather a generic philosophical question.
I'll go out on a limb and bet that _you_ disobey _some_ law(s) that some people (even _most_ people) are just 😉
You are probably right.
I have doubts because:
There's a gradient of unethical/illegal behaviours. eg, I once left a restaurant without paying the bill because I considered they were being too slow and I was annoyed. What I did was illegal, arguably immoral too. I “robbed” them of their private property (€€€). I was a “criminal” who should have been “found” and “prosecuted”. And still…
Yes: changing the law should always be strategy no. one. Still, civil disobedience is a thing. It's justified sometimes. It depends on the consequences, the importance of the cause, the likelihood of changing those laws, etc. This could (I say _could_) be justified. eg, I probably think that it's “fair” to deflate the tyres of a gigantic Hummer that you happen to know is used just to drive around the neighbourhood?
[I sympathise with the sentiment](https://pixelfed.de/p/tripu/257292372667404288), but:
1. Hybrids and electrics too? Sure, they _still_ pollute. But what doesn't!? Your bicycle pollutes. Electric cars pollute significantly less than equivalent dinosaur-juice-based ones. Electric cars are still quite expensive and some (many?) people make that effort out of concern for the environment. Do they (we) deserve to be punished, too?
1. Isn't this going too far? It's bordering on vandalism. One thing is to put a leaflet on the windscreen, or approach the a driver to start a conversation — a very different thing is to _completely disable a vehicle_. BTW, doesn't the recovery vehicle that will have to be summoned to tow the SUV pollute a ton, too?
1. This kind of actions across the board are always tricky: you just _don't know_ the owners of that car, nor their circumstances. I can think of a few scenarios where an SUV parked on a city street at a given point in time makes sense and is justified.
I just discovered this, and I'm quite conflicted about it:
To me, _subscribing_ isn't time-consuming. [I'm subscribed to many](https://tripu.info/podcasts.html), but at least half of them are disabled at any given point in time, and even among the ones that auto-update I manage to listen only to a handful. Apart from recommendations, to me the title and description (and the guest, if any) is all I need to decide whether to listen to or mark as played.
@torgo We use Snyk at work. Good luck and enjoy it!
Curious about the inner workings of the @w3c? Interested in [their job openings](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Recruitment/)? Willing to join their broad community, either as a member company or as an individual contributor?
My ex-colleague @koalie has written a great intro for the world:
What alternative do you favour?
The master/slave metaphor seems very apt, and it's extremely unlikely that an actual human slave would ever encounter that error message (and if one of them does: I bet the tone of the copy and the quality of the UX of a British online bank is the least of their problems).
@koalie it's quite good!
tripu
boosted
🇳🇱
I respect your point of view. I guess our experiences are quite different.
I just meant that a healthy human society with safety nets and individual rights can exist without any calls to love or to those super-altruistic feelings you seem to invoke.
People help and protect each other and do the right thing for many reasons: basic human decency, fear of the law, fear to be criticised or ostracised if they dodge their responsibility, because they anticipate reciprocity in the future, to earn status or money within the group, etc.
Again, I think a morality that expects or commands people to love strangers would be wrong. Almost no-one does that in practice, and for good reasons. That's not to say we can't make moral progress and be kind to one another.
