THE CASE FOR LOOTING
 |
James Joyner | Monday, April 14, 2003 |
Steven E. Landsburg argues there’s really nothing wrong with the looting we’ve seen in Iraq. His argument is interesting, and even has merit, but ignores some important concerns. Sure, having the peasantry steal back riches that were in the possession of the former tyrants may be a crude form of justice. But, surely, the ransacking of hospitals and destruction of priceless Sumerian antiquities is both socially disadvantageous and morally unconscionable. Further, much of it isn’t simple theft but grand-scale vandalism and destruction of public property. Coalition planners went to extraordinary lengths to spare hospitals, cultural treasures, and administrative buildings from the carnage of war. Those efforts have been undermined by criminals. While those buildings once housed a despotic regime, they will soon house a more democratic government. Before that, though, they must now be rebuilt. Somebody has to pay for that and, to the extent resources are finite, that presents a substantial opportunity cost.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
For a more upbeat "analysis" of the looting phenomenon, see this post:
"LIKE, MAN, IT'S SO, LIKE ... SURREAL!"(Monday, April 14, 2003).
---
Comments are Closed
