I am appalled that the Maximum Leader is torn over Joe’s situation. Using almost any moral theory, Joe ought to, indeed has a duty to, report his plasma-tv thief of a relative.

The concept of omerta is not a moral choice. It’s a criminal conspiracy.

Joe received stolen goods - and don’t be fooled, he knew they were stolen goods. The Maximum Leader would laud him for helping cover up the crime of his co-conspirator?

We have a moral obligation to society. We ought to look out for one another. When we refuse to “snitch” and demonize those who do cooperate with the authotites, we create a climate in which criminals can operate in relative safety. If the costs and risks of crime are reduced, the relative attractiveness of crime rises, and we end up with more crime. So Joe’s countenance of his relative’s pernicious behavior is a way of condoning theft. This affects us all.

The unabomber’s family understood this. If they had turned their backs on their moral duty, and hid behind the “blood is thicker than water” canard, we might still have a murderer on the loose in the backwoods. Ted’s family acted morally to bring his Luddite crusade to an end.

I teach many kids who believe that “snitching” is the worst sin one might commit. This is a morally retarded belief. If concern for one’s neighbors, whether based on the golden rule, the teachings of religion, or rational utilitarianism, is the foundation of morality, allowing other people to harm the general public is always wrong.

Family members or not.

MWO ministers beware. If you commit a crime against the public, Smallholder will turn you in. I’ll still be your friend, but I take my obligation to society seriously.