> It is important to me that you know that I have a great deal of respect for the work you do and I am very sorry that I wasted some of your valuable time today. This project is in no way a critique on security or what defines safety in contemporary society.
Though I think there's also an undercurrent of fellow-feeling for the actual in-the-flesh human beings who do that job, who don't exactly bear the blame for 'what defines safety in contemporary society' or anything like that. (In that, you know, the policeman is playing a part precisely as much as the prisoner is.)
I get the sense he may be a bit mentally unsure of the line he's drawing between respecting the workers and disrespecting their work.
I don't think it's sarcastic exactly, or feigned, I think he genuinely respected the working people on the security staff, and didn't mean them or the mall any harm. (I'm not sure I believe he genuinely respected the mall and its owners in an unfeigned way). But, yeah, the choice to emphasize that in his narrative seems probably affected by his hope to avoid going to jail.
Specifically, it should force us to ask whether such laws (a) drive up the quality of properties, or rather (b) merely make it impossible to rent a property in the price range someone might pay for this mall apartment.
I can't see how any serious-minded person could ask "Is the entire concept of property a bad idea, because someone can't rent a dingy apartment in a Rhode Island mall?". Of course the answer to that question is 'no'.
Our minds just generally go to the 3 year old's conception of property, "Its mine and I can do whatever I want."
But, of course, no. "Property" for grownups is a jumble of rights AND responsibilities.
It's good to question those, especially when it gets to what might be absurdities, e.g. Ted Turner owning a literal U.S. state's worth of land.
(I don't know how I feel about all that, really. I don't regard myself as a capitalist drone who thinks that someone like Elon Musk deserves to be richer than a heart surgeon. Jeff Bezos maybe, but, well, suffice it to say I understand the market is not perfect. But I also can't bring myself to think that it's more entitled - in the character-trait sense - to claim ownership to something I built myself, than to claim ownership to the fruit of other people's work, which latter claim is pretty much what the r/antiwork crowd are making. It's a messy argument to say the least...)