Stealing

[Devils_Advocate]

We recognize that a society rests upon individual rights, and one of them is the right to property. PRIVATE property, though. Excepting the materials used for the three functions of government (police, army, and courts), does the state have the right to property? An example: Michael is a rare book collector. At the local public library owned by the government, there is an incredibly valuable rare book. Would he be justified in borrowing it and not taking it back, i.e., stealing it?

Edited July 31, 2008 by Devils_Advocate

[Qwertz]

No. Because it isn't his property. He did not create or earn it. Chattels aren't like real property (where anyone can claim unowned property if they do it correctly). Absconding with the book would be an immoral taking of unearned value.

~Q

[Devils_Advocate]

No. Because it isn't his property. He did not create or earn it. Chattels aren't like real property (where anyone can claim unowned property if they do it correctly). Absconding with the book would be an immoral taking of unearned value.

~Q

Thank you.

Just to increase it a little bit and add another layer, what if he checked out the book, claimed it was lost, and paid for it? I guess the question here would be more, is it permissible to buy without the original owners knowledge?

[D'kian]

An example: Michael is a rare book collector. At the local public library owned by the government, there is an incredibly valuable rare book. Would he be justified in borrowing it and not taking it back, i.e., stealing it?

No. He has no right to that book anymore than you or I do. government property, aside from that used in proper functions, shouldn't exist. But that doesn't mean anyone can just take it. In a sense you can say it's properly the property of every citizen in a country.

If a rational government took over, it should sell all its property, except as noted above, and either apply that money towards the government debt, or towards proper functions, or, if possible, return the money to the citizens.

[Qwertz]

Just to increase it a little bit and add another layer, what if he checked out the book, claimed it was lost, and paid for it? I guess the question here would be more, is it permissible to buy without the original owners knowledge?

Claiming it was lost when in fact it was not lost would be a lie. You haven't provided circumstances that would morally justify such a lie, and paying for the book would still be obtaining a value by fraud.

~Q

[kainscalia]

Thank you.

Just to increase it a little bit and add another layer, what if he checked out the book, claimed it was lost, and paid for it? I guess the question here would be more, is it permissible to buy without the original owners knowledge?

A transaction can only occur by the mutual consent of the parties involved. If the book was not originally for sale, Hypothetical Michael has no right to create a counterfeit reality ("The book was lost" when it wasn't really lost) in order to 'buy' the book (the payment of fees for a lost book does not equate purchasing of it, but rather a penalty paid for lost goods) in order to justify his desires. If the original owner does not want to sell or is unable to sell, Michael has to accept reality as it is and not try to create some kind of masquerade to displace guilt and responsibility (the only reason he would create the "lost" excuse and then pay the fine would be to assuage his guilty conscience from badgering him because, as he knows, he has actually stolen another's property).

[nochrieaz]

The appropriate (read: egoist) way to approach this question is to ask yourself which is more important to you: a book or law and order? By never returning the book you have declared, implicitly and by precedent, war against the government. Now, logic would tell us that if a government is so out of control that guerilla warfare is a man's only recourse, there are certainly more important governmental targets than a book inside a library.

Taking that book and never returning it violates a rational man's hierarchy of values. Like I said, it places some minor, incidental knowledge above (albeit some minor, incidental amount of) law and order. Unless the book we're talking about is the last known copy of Atlas Shrugged left in existence, law and order is clearly a more broadly applicable, and thus more important, value. But more importantly than law and order even, assuming one understands and agrees with the above, by taking the book out of some duty to the "principle" of private property, one is sacrificing his rationality for a lesser value. He is giving up his understanding of the hierarchical nature of philosophical principles for the sake of whatever emotional pleasure he will get because of his fidelity to private property. At that point, he is not following principles; he's following rules.

Edited August 4, 2008 by nochrieaz

[LovesLife]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned honesty. Stealing is dishonest, whatever the reason behind it. It is therefore immoral. You are either an honest person or you aren't. You're either a moral person or you aren't. If you only steal once in a while, you're still a thief. A is A.

As to whether the hypothetical situation is actually theft in the first place, just look at the definition of theft: taking something that doesn't belong to you (even if the other party is compensated in some way, it's still theft). That clearly fits in this case. Believing otherwise is just rationalization.

[Geoff]

Would I be justified If I were to forcefully take back all the money that the government has taken from me by force? Keeping in mind that the government was the one who initiated the use of force.

[Pokarrin]

Would I be justified If I were to forcefully take back all the money that the government has taken from me by force? Keeping in mind that the government was the one who initiated the use of force.

Good luck with that-it's already been spent.

[strawberrybird]

A similar situation occurred not to long ago. http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view...ns/5373007.html

However, in this case, a woman stole a book from a library because she did not believe other patrons should have access to the book. She felt the book was inappropriate. Rather than following the complaint process that the library had in place, she checked out the book, and wrote a letter to the library stating that she had checked out the book, was not planning to return it, and sent them a check for the cost of the book. The library took her to court stating that she stole the book. She said that she did not steal it, as she paid for it. She was fined $100 for the $21 book (essentially paying late fees and replacement fees for it). The library will replace the book. I wouldn't be surprised if she stole it again.

This process is not uncommon. Many people, everyday, "steal" books from libraries to prevent others from reading them. Just thought I'd share.

[iago]

No. He has no right to that book anymore than you or I do. government property, aside from that used in proper functions, shouldn't exist. But that doesn't mean anyone can just take it. In a sense you can say it's properly the property of every citizen in a country.

The government has no right to take from you the taxes that you pay. It all goes to the "collective whole" without the approval of the individual taxpayer, so that it becomes "public property" and NOT your property. So, if the act of making something "public property" is immoral, then you should have no respect whatsoever for the "property" status of anything that is "public".

I believe it is morally right to take back from the government as much property as has been stolen from you, even if you have to "steal back" a specific item, such as a book.

It is easy to calculate how much you have paid in taxes, now the hard part is to calculate how much the item you take back is worth...

In the case of not returning a book, you should calculate the market value of that specific book and deduct it from the amount that has been stolen from you.

The majority of the people don't even have to bother calculating it, because it's not gonna get near as much as what has been taken from them.

On the other hand it is morally wrong to take social welfare, because it is a way to comply with the immoral system.

[DavidOdden]

So, if the act of making something "public property" is immoral, then you should have no respect whatsoever for the "property" status of anything that is "public".

Now this raises the question of which person should be allowed to confiscate a particular piece of property. For instance, if I see a car bought by the state which I covet, may I rightfully claim that car, and is my right to the car superior to that of my neighbor who also claims the car? Can I rightfully shoot my neighbor who seeks to assert his right to the car? Since you are operating in the context of a lawless society where the government plays no role on protecting rights, and you're depending on the morality of each and every individual to prevent this anarchy from dissolving into utter chaos, we need to understand how one determines the conflict in men's interests.

I believe it is morally right to take back from the government as much property as has been stolen from you, even if you have to "steal back" a specific item, such as a book.

I presume that you consider receipt of benefits from the government to be outside of these computations. For example, if I pay $10,000 in taxes and receive $5,000 in services in the form of garbage collection, subsidized health insurance, employment, education and so on, I would still be entitled to confiscate $10,000 worth of property, with no reduction in entitlement because I've already received. The problem with the plan to steal back all of the money that was taxed away is that if you add up everything that has been taxed away, and look all of the remaining tangible assets, there is only a fraction of what has been paid in taxes still available for re-confiscation. So from a practical point of view, those who can steal the most the fastest will have the greatest chances of recouping their tax losses; or, those who are better-armed and better able to confiscate and maintain possess of this property.

On the other hand it is morally wrong to take social welfare, because it is a way to comply with the immoral system.

Does that mean that a person who allows the government to collect his garbage (without paying a garbage collection company), or who receives an education without paying the full cost himself, would lose the moral right to steal "public property"? Or is their theft-entitlement reduced according to how much they have received from the state. Or, is this simply a case of them being morally wrong but still entitled to full recovery of all of their tax losses?

[adrock3215]

So, if the act of making something "public property" is immoral, then you should have no respect whatsoever for the "property" status of anything that is "public".

I'm not sure I agree with the fact that everyone should go around writing graffiti all over government buildings. Whether or not it is moral or not is irrelevant in this context. The fact of the matter is that if you steal government property or write graffiti on the White House, you will go to jail, which makes either act not in your own self-interest.

[iago]

Now this raises the question of which person should be allowed to confiscate a particular piece of property.

The amount of government property is so vast that when that starts to happen the country will be free a long time ago...

I presume that you consider receipt of benefits from the government to be outside of these computations.

If you have not choice weather to be provided with a service or not, then it matters not weather you receive that service.

With the same logic, a company could paint your house without your knowledge while you were on vacation and then charge you for it, by saying you were provided with their service.

If you assume that the government has that right while the private company has not, then you should have a reason for it.

The fact that the government has the power to enforce that right while the private company does not is NOT a valid reason, for if it were valid then the government should have any right it is able to enforce. That's the same principle that the Christian political philosophy is based on: blind obedience.

Edited October 2, 2008 by iago

[DavidOdden]

The amount of government property is so vast that when that starts to happen the country will be free a long time ago...

This has no relationship to what you proposed. You said that because government property is purchased with stolen money, anyone has the moral right to steal it. Not "once we become a free society". Do you want to modify your claim, or to answer the question: when two people covet a piece of government property, who has the right to steal it?

If you have not choice weather to be provided with a service or not, then it matters not weather you receive that service.

For example, garbage collection, which you can refuse and pay for privately; education; social security; employment by the government in any form; public parks; police and fire protection. Answer the question: do you propose that a man's right to morally steal is limited by how much he has taken back from the government, or that it be subject to no limit up to all of the taxes (direct and indirect) that he has paid.

[iago]

when two people covet a piece of government property, who has the right to steal it?

I'm going to answer that question with an analogy:

Suppose that you are very rich and so are 3 of you neighbors, which you are not friends with. I am an expert criminal hacker and I have been stealing from the 4 of you every month for 20 years and, since you were all people who didn't pay much attention to their finances, you never found out. One day I make a big mistake and the 4 of you find out at the same time. In court, the prosecution proves that all of my wealth came from the money I stole from the 4 of you and almost all of it was traded for durable goods. The jury decides that the goods should be distributed to each of the 4 according to the proportion of the theft from each. Now there is a problem: most of you are interested in the same goods and the market value of each good is hard to tell... Also, selling the goods would probably reduce their value in comparison to the value of use... If you are all 4 rational individuals, would you decide that since the values are not objective then nobody can take anything or would you make an agreement for each one to take what interests him the most?

Now suppose 40,000 people were being stolen from and only 4 of you find you, and the jury also says that you can take the equivalent of what has been stolen from you... But now you have 10,000 times more goods to choose from... And what if the movement grew steadily until when it got to about 10,000 people and the crime stopped happening? Would the other 30,000 people benefit from not being stolen from, even if they didn't get everything back?

do you propose that a man's right to morally steal is limited by how much he has taken back from the government, or that it be subject to no limit up to all of the taxes (direct and indirect) that he has paid.

To have the right to morally steal he would have to use only the services he cannot avoid... Then he would have the right to get back all he has paid, since the only reason he uses the sidewalk is that he cannot fly.

Edited October 2, 2008 by iago

[DavidOdden]

I'm going to answer that question with an analogy:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but technically speaking, evading the problem doesn't constitute giving an answer. Are you claiming that a man's moral right to recovery of stolen property derives from his ability to exercise superior force compared to all other morally entitled victims? Or are you simply saying that morality and reason are impossible when the government taxes citizens?

To have the right to morally steal he would have to use only the services he cannot avoid... Then he would have the right to get back all he has paid, since the only reason he uses the sidewalk is that he cannot fly.

So we need to deduct his usage of garbage collection, schools, any direct salary from the government or salary from a private company doing government contract work, also some reasonable fee for fire and police protection services. BTW, another problem with your position is that is fails to consider how much choice a man really has. For example, you do not need to drive on government streets, you can walk (and sidewalks are generally paid for by the property owner). It may be somewhat inconvenient, but it's also somewhat inconvenient to have to pay for private school. There are very few services which the government actually forces you to accept. So the deduction for services accepted would be substantial.

[iago]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but technically speaking, evading the problem doesn't constitute giving an answer. Are you claiming that a man's moral right to recovery of stolen property derives from his ability to exercise superior force compared to all other morally entitled victims? Or are you simply saying that morality and reason are impossible when the government taxes citizens?So we need to deduct his usage of garbage collection, schools, any direct salary from the government or salary from a private company doing government contract work, also some reasonable fee for fire and police protection services. BTW, another problem with your position is that is fails to consider how much choice a man really has. For example, you do not need to drive on government streets, you can walk (and sidewalks are generally paid for by the property owner). It may be somewhat inconvenient, but it's also somewhat inconvenient to have to pay for private school. There are very few services which the government actually forces you to accept. So the deduction for services accepted would be substantial.

yeah, maybe that was a wrong trip if you think of it as an "action plan".. It started when I asked myself "why would it be wrong to steal from the government?", and I couldn't find any answer. I still think that stealing "small items" such as a library book would be justifiable for most people, because they are not getting a lot of their money back... But I gotta admit that it's pretty petty way to go about it.. :-/

what makes more sense is to refuse to pay taxes in the first place, and refuse also to use the services.. If enough people did that, they couldn't just put everybody in jail.

have you ever heard of Agorism?

Edited October 2, 2008 by iago

[tanyaacatherine]

In most countries, acts like murder, treason, or plotting to overthrow the government rank among the most heinous crimes a person can commit. In Italy, stealing secrets from Ferrari ranks right up near the top of the list, too.Following a long, drawn out process, two former Scuderia Ferrari engineers, who stood accused of stealing secrets from Maranello and giving them to rivals at Toyota F1, have been convicted. Pending appeal, Angelo Santini was sentenced to nine months and Mauro Iacconi to 16 behind bars on charges of industrial espionage.

----------------

Tanyaa

Social Network Advertising

[Jomeda]

I believe the original question posed was if the State has a right to property (outside of stealing it, of course).

To a certain extent, they do. The State is an organization. They need property via government buildings in order to have somewhere to assemble and function.

Additionally, property seems to be something that the State is more interested in redistributing and taking. Arguably, when the State takes property for someone, it's always for their own personal gain, and thus, individuals would find it immoral. But, arguably, our system of government is based on a utilitarian framework.

From an objectivist point of view, the State has no right to /steal/ property, but they have a right to it when purchased/earned.

However, sometimes individual needs do not outweigh the needs of the collective unit, so the government feels justified in stealing. Depending on your moral perspective, it's acceptable, or wrong.

[Zip]

However, sometimes individual needs do not outweigh the needs of the collective unit, so the government feels justified in stealing. Depending on your moral perspective, it's acceptable, or wrong.

Emphasis mine...

Have we somehow gone from talking about rights to talking about need?

If that is the case the need of one or 1,000,000,000,000 men do not justify theft.

No, a moral perspective says theft is wrong, full stop, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.00...

[4reason]

... The jury decides that the goods should be distributed to each of the 4 according to the proportion of the theft from each. Now there is a problem: most of you are interested in the same goods and the market value of each good is hard to tell... Also, selling the goods would probably reduce their value in comparison to the value of use... If you are all 4 rational individuals, would you decide that since the values are not objective then nobody can take anything or would you make an agreement for each one to take what interests him the most?

Just an interesting note: I don't think that juries are given the power to distribute a defendant's physical property, nor do I think the judge can say, "okay you get his car, and you get his vacation home, etc." From my understanding, and I'm not a legal expert (yet!) but the damages would be paid pro rate. If the defendant stole $20 from plaintiff A then plaintiff A would get $20 (and maybe some punitive damages, too), etc. The judgment would be in a dollar amount, which the defendant would then have to procure by whatever (and legal) means necessary. Whatever he failed to procure by selling the stuff he bought with stolen funds, they (the plaintiffs via the legal system) would get by other means: most likely, the defendant's other property --such as the house that he bought with non-stolen money-- would be sold and again the money would be paid pro rata until the amount of the damages was met. Physical goods are really only divied up in court in cases where two parties obtained them by mutal consent (ie, divorces, the dissolution of contracts/ businesses, etc), and those cases are usually ruled upon by judges, not juries. (or maybe that depends on the total amount of damages being sued for). Regardless, there would be two trials involved: a criminal trial to prove your guilt of stealing, and a civil trial in which those you stole from sue for damages. It wouldn't be all wrapped up in one arbitray sweep, as your analogy seems to suggest.

As for how they figure the depreciated value of the stolen goods, that, again wouldn't apply in these case because they wouldn't be suing for those values: they would be suing for the amount that was stolen from them (plus punitive damages). The dollar value of the goods that were bought with stolen money would only be relevant to the defendant (the thief) as he'd have to hope he could get the most money he could to pay off as much of the damages as he could by selling these things on the second market. If someone stole your money, would you rather have the amount of the money that was stolen from you or the now-used car that the thief had bought with your stolen money and whose depreciated value would amount to less than your actual damages. Depreciation is a factor, but only in regards to how the defendant would start obtaining the money from the sale of "his" property to pay the judgments against him.

In cases where the court is figuring the depreciated value of items, such as small claims' cases where the dry cleaner ruins your expensive, but two-year-old sweater, the way they figure these values is anything but arbitrary. There are companies out there that exist solely for the purpose of calculating re-sale value of just about anything. A well-known example is NADA or Kelly Blue Book. These organizations base the depriciated value of items (in this case, cars) off of many things, but the biggest factor is the average price that these items go for when they are sold second-hand. That's why different used cars lose value at different rates; because they sell for different prices on the used market. Insurance companies do this too, when they settle claims on an actual cash value basis. They look at what the damaged/stolen item cost new then subtract depreciation and voila, you have the claim amount. Of course, insurance claims are bound to the principle of indemnity (which states that the insured cannot gain from insurance, he can only be restored to where he was before the loss), and that is something that is not factored into situations such as your analogy outlined. In both the used car and insurance examples they are using the law of large numbers, which basically means that percentages based off of larger samples are more accurate than percentages based on small examples. I could give a bounty of insurance examples to clarify this point, as I work closely with claims adjusters everyday working to settle my clients' claims, but I won't bore everyone with that right now. Let it suffice to say, there are precise formulas in play that determine those values when courts are making judgments regarding those values and judges often cite their sources when making those judgments. But again, that is not the case here as the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the full amount of their initial damages: the actual dollar amount you stole from them. They wouldn't want your used crap: they would want their money.

This is based on my best, pre-law school understanding of the legal process as it pertains in such cases; so if I am incorrect in any of my thinking, I would welcome further insight.