thoughts on haiti

Since the earthquake in Haiti there has been much published about looting and the possibility for societal breakdown.  Lots of hand ringing concerning how damaging it is etc..   Lots of written words and TV shows saying loads of alarming things about allowing looting to happen. 

During a conversation the other night i stated that i could understand why a person would loot after a catastrophe.  Having been in a major one myself i understood why people, seeing buildings totally destroyed, think if i don't scavenge the stuff some one else will.  i stated that it was no different from financiers knowingly swindling investors.

i was immediately slapped down, saying you couldn't compare the two.  One could result in the break down of society, the other was different.  We changed the conversation but i wanted to delve deeper into the intricacies of theft and what makes one so different, acceptable, or not acceptable than the other.

After Hurricane Hugo was finished tearing St. Croix apart, business's that hadn't survived the onslaught, were open to the elements.  Roofs had been torn off, walls had collapsed, rain had poured down on the goods and everything was exposed.  It didn't take long before people all over the island started scavenging.

Refrigerators, TV's, and washing machines, along with food and water rolled down streets that had no electricity and wouldn't see any for months to come.  They scavenged everything, even things they would never be able to use, but they did it.  They did it because they were scared and they did it because they were trying to provide for their families.  They did it because they could.

Rumor had it at the time that owners of these gaping businesses had said in some circumstances to go ahead and take it, the insurance company would cover the loss.   They certainly couldn't resell damaged goods so many said have at it.  i suppose somewhere, months down the line, after the island had been cleaned up, the owners may have been able to sell some as damaged goods, but by that time things were more normal and people wanted new items. Not filthy dirty hurricane left overs.

Anyone who participated in the scavenging after the hurricane was labeled a "looter" or a "thief." 

Today, people in Haiti are labeled "looters" for scavenging food, medicine, clothing etc. from crushed buildings.  They are being shot and killed for "petty theft" while others are successfully getting away with the goods.

So what exactly is the difference between looting and swindling or fraud?

All involve stealing something that doesn't belong to you for personal gain.  For some the gain is strictly  survival for others its a chance to obtain something always dreamed of.  This gain may or may not swell the coffers of others besides themselves, but the looter or swindler is the primary criminal.

All of them do it because they can.

I'll start with my financial comparison.  Some may rationalize a swindle or a Ponzi or some other type of monetary theft as different from looting because not just one person gains, and some have consented.  Those getting involved in the fraud initially may actually come out ahead before it collapses or is found out. 

Well the looter that gets there first, who scavenges successfully also helps his family and friends.  He brings home the goods and distributes them just like the heads of the financial firms.

The head of a financial institution who knowingly bets against himself and makes millions or billions while others lose is a thief who should do time or be killed just like the looter.  He is no different from a looter and in many cases is much worse than a looter.  He hasn't taken advantage of a natural catastrophe, he has created one and yet is viewed as somehow above a common looter.

The newspapers and television say looting is different because it can cause chaos and a break down of society. 

Well haven't we seen today how the bundling of worthless financial instruments and trading them on international security markets causes chaos and a break down of the world economy which affects societies everywhere.

The difference between the two is not minimal for the break down in both cases should be contained when law enforcement steps in.  Problem is, the economic breakdown world wide caused by financial manipulation is much more devastating to higher numbers of people and in fact hasn't stopped, than what looting can cause. 

Hundreds of thousands of Haitians remain in desperate need of food, medicine, water and shelter so scavenging destroyed buildings is utilizing their survival skills and who are we to say that they wouldn't later come back and repay what they took.

Some will say, well consent has been given in the case of investments in Ponzi schemes or other types of manipulation, well maybe consent was given to scavenge in the buildings too.  If the consent in either case was given under deceptive circumstances then it cancels the consent.  Rumor may have been the spark that started the looting but it will end when the goods are all distributed.  It can only happen as long as there is a supply of commodities.

The swindle ends when the money dries up, only those who have stolen are still regarded as pillars of society, not criminals and not subject to annihilation by a police force wielding guns.

What is wrong with this picture?  Why is looting by desperate people looked upon as so much worse than swindling by white collar criminals? 

And so, i view the looting going on in Haiti as much less damaging over the long term than the looting that went on in our monetary markets over the past few years.  Its time we put things in perspective and stop condemning people who are trying to survive.  This is not a cut and dried issue.  Any one of us who found ourselves with nothing during a natural disaster could quite easily turn into a "looter."