An important economic reality undermines the idea that “free” loot actually exists.
“In terms of potential crimes that people can commit against the state, it's basically nonviolent...”
“[Looting] demonstrate[s] that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.”
Contempt for looting, meanwhile, is driven by “anti-Blackness and contempt for poor people who want to live a better life,” Osterweil claims.
So basically, this person is claiming that not only is destroying a business owner's property and livelihood somehow non-violent, they also claim that if you oppose someone violently destroying your property and livelihood that you must be racist. The 'logical' conclusion here is that we can all have a great life simply by looting everything. How could that possibly go wrong?
How can NPR, funded in part with our tax dollars, take this person seriously? Clearly, they can't even think rationally. 'Debunking' shouldn't be necessary. Common sense should be sufficient. This article kind of makes me want to loot NPR offices across the country. I'll even donate the proceeds to the poor. If you don't support me then you must be a racist.
Source: Debunking NPR’s Bizarre ‘In Defense of Looting’ Interview - Foundation for Economic Education