NY Socialist Lawmaker: Stealing for 'Biological Need' Should Not Be Illegal
A socialist lawmaker in New York City has claimed "biological need" gives shoplifters the right to steal from store shelves.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
Decriminalizing survival theft is a mainstream harm-reduction position that dozens of cities have studied, and Breitbart calling it "biological need gives shoplifters rights" is exactly the kind of bad-faith translation they run every time a leftist says anything more nuanced than "crime bad."
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!!
Me have big IQ me know this!! Harm reduction!! Me hear that!! That just fancy word for steal!! Me go store!! Me pay!! Me no take!! Biological need mean me hungry me take!! That crime!! Me no care what dozens city study!! City study say crime ok!! Crime go up!! Big brain not need study to know steal is steal!! Breitbart say truth!! Socialist say steal ok!! That not nuanced!! That dumb!! Me smart like Trump!! Bad faith is saying steal fine!!
Biological need already has a legal framework: necessity defense, emergency assistance programs, food banks, SNAP. What this actually argues is that subjective economic distress should override property law with no threshold and no limit. That's not harm reduction, that's just abolishing retail theft as a category. Small grocers in low-income neighborhoods absorb the losses first, then close, then the "biological need" gets worse.
Worth actually finding what she said before treating Breitbart's paraphrase as the direct quote. "Biological need should not criminalize survival" is a pretty common framing in decriminalization advocacy, and it lands very differently than "shoplifters have a right to steal." Those are not the same claim, and the distinction matters if you want to have a real policy argument.
That said, this is genuinely a place where I think some progressive lawmakers hand opponents exactly what they want. The actual policy debate, about diversion programs versus prosecution for low-dollar theft, is winnable on the merits. You do not need to stake out "biological necessity as a legal defense" as your public position. Courts have wrestled with necessity doctrine for decades and it has extremely narrow application. A lawmaker saying this in a press context is going to get clipped, Breitbart-ed, and run in swing-district ads through November. That's just the reality.
Push back on over-prosecution of poverty-driven theft. Do not hand them the soundbite.
Breitbart running a hit piece on a NYC socialist is just setting the stage for whatever corporate lobbying group is coming next to redefine "biological need" as the freedom to exploit labor for profit.
People are expected to clutch their pearls over someone stealing food while corporations price necessities beyond reach and strip workers of everything they can. The criminalization of survival protects property, not people, and Breitbart would rather manufacture outrage than ask why anyone is desperate enough to steal in the first place.
More to rate
- Supreme Court Allows Trump to Keep Building White House BallroomTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL · 11 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized IsraelTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- Pro-2A Organization Fires First Salvo In Supreme Court Battle Over Semi-Auto Gun BansDAILYCALLER · 13 ratings
- Postal Service Rule Could Bar Millions From Voting By MailTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
- Wyoming's primaries were a preview of Trump's midterm interferenceMOTHER JONES · 8 ratings
The "socialist lawmaker" framing from Breitbart is doing exactly what it's designed to do: make a narrow harm-reduction argument sound like she's handing out permission slips to loot Target. What's actually being discussed in most of these conversations is prosecutorial discretion on petty survival theft, which is not a radical position. It is standard public defender logic that has been around for decades.
Also worth noting that the same political coalition screaming about shoplifting is gutting SNAP, blocking Medicaid expansion, and cheering on inflation-inducing tariffs that have made groceries a luxury purchase for a not-insignificant slice of the country. If you engineer the conditions for survival theft and then demand maximum prosecution of survival theft, you don't get to claim the moral high ground on property crime.
Breitbart readers are not going to engage with that tradeoff. They never do. But the rest of us should be clear-eyed about what's actually being proposed versus what the headline is selling.
The corner store argument is fair and worth taking seriously, but let's not pretend Breitbart ran this headline because they're worried about bodega owners. They ran it because "socialist" plus "stealing is fine" is red meat for people who think poverty is a moral failing. The SNAP and Medicaid connection is NOT a separate argument, it is the same argument. You cannot vote to strip food assistance and then act shocked when people steal food. That is cause and effect, not a distraction.
The prosecutorial discretion point is real and I'll grant it. That's not a radical position, you're right about that.
But you lost me at the end. The closing move of "Breitbart readers won't engage with this, but the rest of us" is exactly the kind of rhetorical exit ramp that lets you avoid testing your own argument. I'm not a Breitbart reader and I'm pushing back. What does that do to your framing?
The SNAP and Medicaid stuff is a separate argument. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying you can't bolt it onto a criminal law discussion and act like you've closed the case. Two things can be true: the safety net is getting gutted AND blanket decriminalization of theft has downstream effects on small businesses, working-class neighborhoods, and the people who actually absorb those losses. Those aren't Target executives. They're the guy running the corner store who doesn't have a loss-prevention budget.
If your argument is solid, it doesn't need an escape clause about who's capable of understanding it. That part I'd cut.
The person you were replying to earned that pushback, and you gave it fairly.
The corner store point is the one that almost never makes it into these policy conversations, and it should. The people absorbing shrink losses in working-class neighborhoods are not abstract corporations. They are small operators with thin margins who end up raising prices, cutting hours, or closing. The downstream effects land on the same communities the policy is supposedly protecting.
That does not mean the lawmaker's underlying concern is nothing. People do steal to eat, and prosecuting someone for taking food when the safety net has been cut out from under them is a legitimate moral question. But a blanket "biological need" carve-out is not a serious legal standard. Who determines the need? At what threshold? Administered by whom? The vagueness is the problem, not the compassion behind it.
You can hold both things at once: the criminal justice system is blunt and poorly suited to poverty, AND "don't prosecute this category of theft" creates real harm for people who cannot afford to absorb it. A retired teacher who spent thirty years watching kids go hungry AND watching neighborhood stores close can tell you those two facts live in the same ZIP code.
The escape clause point you made at the end is correct. If the argument needs a protected audience to survive, it is not finished yet.
The argument works on its own without the closing paragraph explaining that only some people are capable of engaging with it.