It takes a special personality type. One who doesn’t care about acceptance in society.. It is easier for most people to accept high prices, world hunger and the rapid depletion of natural resources than to see their daughter or sister foraging thru trash. So yeah it ISN’T for everyone, but I love the lifestyle and sleep with a clear concious. Thanks for sharing..

I appreciate the response.

“if i say that i feel violated or attacked by your posting on this blog, and tell you to stop, are you going to stop?”
My posting here is neither illegal nor harassing, ergo no risk of slippery-slope, nor any transgression. As opposed to illegal activities committed against your person.

“they obviously considered the owners demands…. they considered them to be invalid and therefore ignored them.”
You’d agree there are some demands that shouldn’t be ignored. Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

they obviously considered the owners demands…. they considered them to be invalid and therefore ignored them. it’s called disagreeing. it happens.

anarchists have these ideas, see, one of them is that my freedom to do as i please extends to the point where it infringes upon your freedom to do as you please. private property (different from *personal* property) violates this innate freedom, therefore her demands that the divers respect the tenet of private property (and get out of the dumpster and leave the accumulated food to rot), even when it impedes the exercise of their freedom, is not valid. if would be a different story if she planned to use the food for something for herself.

I’d appreciate it if you could point me to a more explicit “how-to” guide.

You’ve both missed and illustrated my point simultaneously. One could just as easily say that your mindset is silly, and hers isn’t. The metaquestion was “When in conflict, who gets to impose their mindset upon whom, and to what degree?” Your answer was, “I doubt she’d care – she’s so clearly silly!”

On top of that, you presumed that her sincerity should only manifest itself in ways you consider valid, by presuming that if she cared about what transgressions are committed against her person, she would have donated to charity (though I fail to see the connection).

You also seem to be implicitly denying her the benefit of the doubt of being an intelligent, reasoning person because you condemn her apparent mindset.

All of this attitude seems diametrically opposed to one of the core principles of collectivism/anarchism I see touted so frequently here: the fair consideration of the ideas and feelings of others, in a representative fashion.

(Unless that only applies to the ideas of the people in your group, or ideas that you believe are valid – but I give you and the blog’s author & commentators the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere and intelligent in their beliefs.)

Again, in this example, the crime – and it is a crime – being committed is essentially victimless, with only the storeowner’s sense of security/ego at minimal risk (not enough harm to claim damage, so although she is a victim, it is in an insignificant way). But the fact that she may not have consciously considered the metaquestion does not mean that on a less-conscious level, it did not disturb her – she was angry, and it was her store; the conclusion isn’t that she simply valued the law over your actions (as both you and the author oversimplify), but that she is witnessing a (perceived) wrong against her, and you/the looters ignored her, and her considerations, entirely – on the presumption that your opinions were valid, hers were not, and that was sufficient to exercise your will over hers.

Of course, Liz’s philosophy may not be that – it may be that she only exercises this when the “common good” (feeding several people) is the benefit, and the cost is insignificant (“victimless”). But I don’t know Liz’s principles that well, which is why I’m asking. I’m neither condemning nor encouraging her actions and opinions, just inquiring: I’m pathologically curious, and this subject is fascinating…

…as if you couldn’t tell by this tiresome tirade

Wow. Well said. I hope you put all this stuff into a book sometime.

second -
“So you fled like cowards with your tail tucked between your legs, afraid of a ticket for dumpster diving?

Some revolution this is gonna’ be.”

I cant help but feel you missing the point.
Dumpster diving isn’t a revolution because its not sustainable – it relies on he waste the over all revolution is fighting. There is nothing to fight for here. All that would happen is that they would pay a fine to police and if they didn’t they would be arrested. No one learns and nothing happens. There are ways right now to live a more free life, this is one of them. If society ever changes and there is no more waste, then good. I am sure the author of this blog would agree that it would be a high wholy day when resources are so well used that there is no use for dumpsters anymore.

Third
“but the metaquestion may well be what disturbed this lady: Who gets to decide what’s important for whom, again?”
Maybe i’m being assumtuous here, but i doubt someone who is throwing out tons of food and then getting angry at people who are taking the garbege is really asking this metaquestion. If she had wanted to take any step towards being involved in the decision making process of what important to whom, she should/would have donated the food to a local charity she cares about. She is trapped in the silly mindset that law trumps all – specifically that the letter of the law trumps even the spirit of the law. This garbage is important to noone, its a burden on her, its a burden on the trash company, its a burden on our landfills, its a burden on greenspace, on the enviroment, the atmosphere, and society. ontop of all of that its a usable resouce simply going to waste.

Keep writting, one of these day’s i hope to follow.