Accepting Government Funds

[Eric Mathis]

A technical correction: Since the person has forfeited his right to his property, taking it does not qualify as stealing.

You seem to be quite unfamiliar with Objectivism! "Rightful" is not the same as "moral." I only said you had a moral right to take Charlie's money, not that it would be moral for you to do so.

You have a moral right to consume cocaine, but that does not mean it would be moral for you to consume cocaine.

If a person who supports taxation forfeits his rights to his property, then to whom does the property belong? Wouldn’t forfeited possessions fall into the category of unclaimed property? Wouldn’t it then be both “morally right” and “moral” for any innocent person to take possession of that property, the same way deep sea divers take possession of gold doubloons on the floor of the ocean or a pedestrian takes possession of a coin on the sidewalk?

[Oakes]

Your statement sets up a dichotomy between rights and morals, as if one could morally take possession of a good that one has no right to. But if it is moral for someone to take something, why doesn’t he have a right to it?

I believe our argument essentially boils down to linguistic confusion. You never have a right to medicare, but assuming the two prerequisites I gave, you have a right to accept medicare. Does that clear things up?

A person who initiates the use of force forfeits his rights. A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property. Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.

I agree that if you support theft, you are guilty of theft yourself and forfeit your rights. However, the extent to which you forfeit your rights depends on your crime: if you steal two AA batteries, the government may not confiscate everything you own as punishment. The punishment must fit the crime.

I'm curious why Ayn Rand never recommended that adherents of her philosophy engage in this form of enterprise.

Objectivism states that the right to retaliatory force (other than for immediate emergencies) are delegated to the government, so your deduction is a false one: no Objectivist may steal from another citizen, whether or not the citizen initiated force.

If a person who supports taxation forfeits his rights to his property, then to whom does the property belong?

If a person forfeits his right to liberty, to whom does his liberty belong? To both questions the answer is the same: the government (assuming, of course, that you committed a crime).

Edited May 24, 2005 by Oakes

[Eric Mathis]

I believe our argument essentially boils down to linguistic confusion. You never have a right to medicare, but assuming the two prerequisites I gave, you have a right to accept medicare. Does that clear things up?

I don’t see the distinction. If I don’t have the right, say, to a stolen car, how can I possibly have the right to accept a stolen car?

I agree that if you support theft, you are guilty of theft yourself and forfeit your rights. However, the extent to which you forfeit your rights depends on your crime: if you steal two AA batteries, the government may not confiscate everything you own as punishment. The punishment must fit the crime.

No disagreement.

Objectivism states that the right to retaliatory force (other than for immediate emergencies) are delegated to the government, so your deduction is a false one: no Objectivist may steal from another citizen, whether or not the citizen initiated force.

If a person forfeits his right to liberty, to whom does his liberty belong? To both questions the answer is the same: the government (assuming, of course, that you committed a crime).

I will assume that your remarks are in response to my discussion with Capitalism Forever who wrote:

“A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property. Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.”

Let’s then suppose we have Government A which taxes (initiates force against) Taxpayer B, with the support and encouragement of Voter C. Now Capitalism Forever’s position is that Voter C by supporting taxation “has forfeited his own right to property” and that “innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.” Presumably such an innocent (and victimized person) would be Taxpayer B.

But your position is quite different. As I understand it, you argue that Voter C would forfeit his property or liberty (or portions thereof) not to an innocent person (Taxpayer but to an initiator of force, the government which stole B’s money. Since most of the people in the U.S. favor some form of taxation, a majority of Americans would either end up in prison or have their property taken over by initiators of force. Those who steal would become even richer!

Edited May 25, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Oakes]

I don’t see the distinction. If I don’t have the right, say, to a stolen car, how can I possibly have the right to accept a stolen car?

Again, if the government forces you into a situation where life is impossible without acceptable stolen wealth, you have a right to accept it, but this does not imply that you, by your nature, have a right to someone else's wealth.

Since most of the people in the U.S. favor some form of taxation, a majority of Americans would either end up in prison or have their property taken over by initiators of force.  Those who steal would become even richer!

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I am not saying that our government may currently punish or jail those who support its own crimes. That of course is ridiculous. We all recognize that the government is currently not abiding by Objective Law; I was speaking of a rational government. But this does not mean that we may become vigilantes and take the law into our own hands; as long as we have a representative government allowing free speech, the only thing we can currently do is morally condemn those who support our government's crimes.

[Eric Mathis]

Again, if the government forces you into a situation where life is impossible without acceptable stolen wealth, you have a right to accept it, but this does not imply that you, by your nature, have a right to someone else's wealth.

Let’s say Government A steals $5,000 from Taxpayer B, and that Government A, through its statist economic policies, throws the country into a deep recession, causing Citizen C to lose his job and face starvation.

The question now becomes: what to do with that stolen $5,000? If the $5,000 rightfully belongs to B, shouldn’t it be returned to B in whole and forthwith? On what basis could we say that Citizen C should get any part of it? You may say that C has a “right to accept” a portion of the wealth. But does this “right to accept” override Taxpayer B’s property right to the whole of the $5,000?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I am not saying that our government may currently punish or jail those who support its own crimes. That of course is ridiculous. We all recognize that the government is currently not abiding by Objective Law; I was speaking of a rational government. But this does not mean that we may become vigilantes and take the law into our own hands; as long as we have a representative government allowing free speech, the only thing we can currently do is morally condemn those who support our government's crimes.

Fine. Let’s suppose we are speaking of a rational government. Under such a condition, would there be any merit at all to Capitalism Forever’s statement that “A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property. Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money”?

You have already made a worthwhile point about punishment being proportionate to the crime. But, given that proviso, does verbal support of or voting for taxation under a rational government constitute an action for which one should be deprived of a portion of his liberty or property?

[Oakes]

The question now becomes:  what to do with that stolen $5,000?  If the $5,000 rightfully belongs to B, shouldn’t it be returned to B in whole and forthwith?  On what basis could we say that Citizen C should get any part of it?  You may say that C has a “right to accept” a portion of the wealth.  But does this “right to accept” override Taxpayer B’s property right to the whole of the $5,000?

When a camp guard cuts off all your meals, and tells you that you must steal food from a fellow inmate if you wish to live, should you violate his right to property or should you acquiesce and voluntarily die? This is an unreconcilable dilemma that morality cannot objectively sort out. Like I said, welfare states make societies cannibalize themselves, and in such a system there is no way you can respect others' rights and expect to live.

You have already made a worthwhile point about punishment being proportionate to the crime.  But, given that proviso, does verbal support of or voting for taxation under a rational government constitute an action for which one should be deprived of a portion of his liberty or property?

This brings up a periphery discussion over the limits of free speech. You may advocate an initiation of force, but if you are advocating immediate crimes (so there is no time for others to respond and argue) or if you are working directly for a group that is committing crimes, you are initiating force. Under your example or CF's, I can't tell if these prerequisites are being met.

[Capitalism Forever]

If a person who supports taxation forfeits his rights to his property, then to whom does the property belong?  Wouldn’t forfeited possessions fall into the category of unclaimed property?

Yes, that is exactly what I said when I wrote:

Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.

Wouldn’t it then be both “morally right” and “moral” for any innocent person to take possession of that property

I was right, you know pretty little about Objectivism. "Morally right" and "moral" (and "morally correct," etc.) mean exactly the same thing. "Rightful" and "moral" mean very different things. I suggest you read the pertinent chapters of OPAR (better still, read the entire book) because you will never get my point until you learn to distinguish between rights and virtues.

To answer, it is NEITHER "morally right" nor "moral" (which two phrases mean the same) for a person to take his tax-supporting neighbor's money under normal circumstances in the present-day United States. Why? Because it would go against his rational self-interest, in two ways:

• He would be sent to jail for it.
  
• The partial rule of law in present-day America is a greater value to him than any amount of restitution for taxation.
  

In the case of welfare, he would neither be sent to jail for it nor would it go against the principle of rule by law. The little restitution he gets for the taxes he paid is a greater value to him than the alternative of gaining ... nothing.

[Eric Mathis]

When a camp guard cuts off all your meals, and tells you that you must steal food from a fellow inmate if you wish to live, should you violate his right to property or should you acquiesce and voluntarily die? This is an unreconcilable dilemma that morality cannot objectively sort out. Like I said, welfare states make societies cannibalize themselves, and in such a system there is no way you can respect others' rights and expect to live.

I’m disappointed that you chose not to respond to my question about Government A-Taxpayer B-Citizen C, but instead launched into an entirely different hypothetical. So here’s the deal: I’ll answer the question in the first part of your post #56 if you’ll answer the first part of my post #55.

This brings up a periphery discussion over the limits of free speech. You may advocate an initiation of force, but if you are advocating immediate crimes (so there is no time for others to respond and argue) or if you are working directly for a group that is committing crimes, you are initiating force. Under your example or CF's, I can't tell if these prerequisites are being met.

The question is not peripheral at all: it is central to the issue of whether Capitalism Forever’s position is the correct one. If, as CF argues, advocacy of taxation should result in the dispossession of the advocate, then free speech rights under laissez faire do not include calling for any form of taxation. Thus, books such as The Communist Manifesto and even Progress and Poverty would be outlawed.

[Capitalism Forever]

If, as CF argues, advocacy of taxation should result in the dispossession of the advocate

I never said that. First, there is a difference between mere advocacy and active support. You have a right to write the Communist Manifesto, but you do not have a right to implement it. Second, I did not say that support for taxation should result in the dispossession of the supporter; I said it may rightfully result in it. Again, it's the distinction between rights and virtues.

[Hal]

Yes.

Taking things from a thief is still a form of force, although not an initiation of force. It is retaliatory force. Everyone has a moral right to use retaliatory force, but in a free nation, that right should only be exercised through the government.

Are you claiming that the police would have the right (moral, legal, whatever you wish to call it) to systematically take all the possessions of every single person in the country who currently supports taxation?

I'd like a definite answer here, because I find your position extremely confusing. Are you honestly saying that if a law were passed by Congress tomorrow where every single person who had ever expressed support for taxation and not repented (and bear in mind we are almost certainly talking about over 98% of the population of America here, probably including your parents and many of your friends, and certainly people like Bill Gates along with most other successful businessmen - in other words, every single person in America who wasnt either an Objectivist, an anarcho-capitalist or an extreme libertarian) were to be stripped of every last possession they had, including their houses, cars and clothing, you would have no problem with this whatsoever? That this would be a perfectly acceptable and moral action for the government to take, and wouldnt even constitute theft since "when a person has forfeited his right to his property, taking it does not qualify as stealing."?

Edited May 25, 2005 by Hal

[Oakes]

I’m disappointed that you chose not to respond to my question about Government A-Taxpayer B-Citizen C, but instead launched into an entirely different hypothetical. So here’s the deal: I’ll answer the question in the first part of your post #56 if you’ll answer the first part of my post #55.

How is the hypothetical any different in principle? If the government creates conditions where citizen C cannot live without accepting wealth the gov't stole from taxpayer B, the alternative is for B to suffer/die (at the hands of the gov't) or C to have his property violated. The moral dilemma is irreconcilable.

[Eric Mathis]

Yes, that is exactly what I said when I wrote:

I was right, you know pretty little about Objectivism. "Morally right" and "moral" (and "morally correct," etc.) mean exactly the same thing. "Rightful" and "moral" mean very different things.

Strawman. I have not taken the position that “rightful” and “moral” mean the same thing. For example, “rightful” can have a legal denotation.

I suggest you read the pertinent chapters of OPAR (better still, read the entire book) because you will never get my point until you learn to distinguish between rights and virtues.

I’ll re-read it. Perhaps I missed a discussion of how advocates of taxation forfeit the rights to all their property.

To answer, it is NEITHER "morally right" nor "moral" (which two phrases mean the same) for a person to take his tax-supporting neighbor's money under normal circumstances in the present-day United States. Why? Because it would go against his rational self-interest, in two ways:

• He would be sent to jail for it.
  
  
  
• The partial rule of law in present-day America is a greater value to him than any amount of restitution for taxation.
  

In the case of welfare, he would neither be sent to jail for it nor would it go against the principle of rule by law. The little restitution he gets for the taxes he paid is a greater value to him than the alternative of gaining ... nothing.

Fine, but you’ll note that my question in post #51 was not confined to present-day United States. So, to better focus, we will now restrict out discussion to cases in which a rational, laissez faire government reigns. You wrote in post #43: “A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property. Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.”

Therefore, provided that we have a rational, laissez-faire government, it would in your view be rightful for innocent people, via the agency of government, to “take all the money” of a “person who supports taxation.”

Now, to get more specific, would it be rightful for this rational, laissez-faire government to take all the money of

• A college professor who says that Marx-Engels’ proposals in The Communist Manifesto should be implemented?
  
• A follower of Henry George who says that government should be minimal but should be financed by a “Single Tax” on land?
  
• A patriot who worries that voluntary methods of government finance are inadequate to provide for defense and advocates a 2% tax on incomes to keep America strong?
  

Edited May 25, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Oakes]

How is the hypothetical any different in principle? If the government creates conditions where citizen C cannot live without accepting wealth the gov't stole from taxpayer B, the alternative is for B to suffer/die (at the hands of the gov't) or C to have his property violated. The moral dilemma is irreconcilable.

Sorry I meant to write "the alternative is for C to suffer/die (at the hands of the gov't) or B to have his property violated."

[Eric Mathis]

How is the hypothetical any different in principle? If the government creates conditions where citizen C cannot live without accepting wealth the gov't stole from taxpayer B, the alternative is for B to suffer/die (at the hands of the gov't) or C to have his property violated. The moral dilemma is irreconcilable.

Your response is a shrug of the shoulders. My own answer is that B is morally due the return of all of his money. C has no legitimate hold on any part of it. Is it moral for C to claim, accept or take any part of B's stolen wealth? No. Should he go ahead and morally err in order to save his life? That is what I would do.

That does not mean that one's survival justifies any moral transgression. If I needed a heart transplant and the only available heart was beating inside the chest of someone unwilling to give it to me, I would die before committing murder.

[Capitalism Forever]

Are you claiming that the police would have the right (moral, legal, whatever you wish to call it)

Stop right there. The distinction between moral and legal rights (and also between current legal rights and ideal legal rights) IS relevant. No "whatever you wish to call it."

to systematically take all the possessions of every single person in the country who currently supports taxation?

...who actively supports taxation. If a person does not like taxes but thinks that some taxation is "a necessary evil" in order for the government to be able to function, then he is probably innocent in the matter. The necessity of taxation is pretty much taken for granted in today's culture and it takes brains and books to discover otherwise.

I'd like a definite answer here

I always give definite answers.

Are you honestly saying that if a law were passed by Congress tomorrow where every single person who had ever expressed support for taxation

...who had ever actively supported taxation...

and not repented (and bear in mind we are probably talking about 90% of the population of America here

With the above qualifications, it is more like 20-30%. Broadly speaking, it's the "Save Social Security ™" crowd.

including (perhaps) your parents

I am not American, nor are my parents.

and many of your friends, and certainly people like Bill Gates and most successful businessmen)

Altruistic businessmen are the ones who do the most harm. They definitely deserve to be held accountable.

were to be stripped of every single thing they owned, including their houses, cars and clothing, you would have no problem with this whatsoever? That this would be a perfectly acceptable and moral action for the government to take?

First, I have to tell you the same thing I told Eric: Learn to distinguish between rights and morality. There are many, many, MANY rightful actions but only a narrow subset of them are moral.

Now, for the definite answer I promised: I would love it to happen. (Provided that we are talking about the S.S.S.™ mob). You realize, of course, that a civil war--a kind of revolution--is pretty much the only way this could ever happen. This does not only mean that the adherents of the Dark Side would be left homeless, carless, clotheless and penniless; it means many of them would be DEAD. If such a war were fought to establish a just and rightful government, I would definitely not hesitate about which side to fight on.

[Oakes]

Is it moral for C to claim, accept or take any part of B's stolen wealth? No. Should he go ahead and morally err in order to save his life? That is what I would do.

What is the purpose of morality if there are situations in which it is okay to violate it?

[Capitalism Forever]

Strawman.  I have not taken the position that “rightful” and “moral” mean the same thing.

You have not explicitly taken that position but your post very much seemed to imply that you are not aware of the exact difference between them.

For example, “rightful” can have a legal denotation.

That's the least important difference.

"Rightful" is about what you MAY do without inviting retaliation. "Moral" is what you SHOULD do if you want to live and live well. There are a lot of things that you MAY do but SHOULD NOT.

Now, to get more specific, would it be rightful for this rational, laissez-faire government to take all the money of

• A college professor who says that Marx’s proposals in The Communist Manifesto should be implemented?
  
  
• A follower of Henry George who says that government should be minimal but should be financed by a “Single Tax” on land?
  
  
• A patriot who worries that voluntary methods of government finance are inadequate to provide for defense and advocates a 2% tax on incomes to keep America strong?
  

I refer you to my post immediately after the one you replied to:

there is a difference between mere advocacy and active support. You have a right to write the Communist Manifesto, but you do not have a right to implement it.

That should answer all three cases you mentioned.

(BTW, since there is no taxation in the laissez-faire society, there is necessarily no one who actively supports taxation. You can actively support only that which exists. This is why I was talking in terms of present-day United States.)

[Eric Mathis]

I never said that. First, there is a difference between mere advocacy and active support. You have a right to write the Communist Manifesto, but you do not have a right to implement it.

You formerly did not use the term "active support." In post #43 you wrote, "A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property." So now we know that “active support” is the necessary ingredient and it means to “implement.”

In post #44, I said, “My neighbor Charlie twice voted for Bush. Does that mean Charlie supports taxation?”

Your response in post #45: “Yes, Charlie is a thief, and thieves have no moral right to their property.” So voters are the thieves and the implementers.

Now specifically what Charlie did was twice cast a ballot for Bush. However, by contrast, a single follower of Karl Marx may convince hundreds of people to devote thousands of hours towards getting statist legislation passed. I think we need some clarity on what makes one an implementer.

Second, I did not say that support for taxation should result in the dispossession of the supporter; I said it may rightfully result in it. Again, it's the distinction between rights and virtues.

You insisted that Charlie has no moral right to his property. If he has no moral right to it, why shouldn’t innocent people, via the agency of their rational, laissez faire government, take it away from him? Is there a virtue in leaving thieves unpunished?

[Eric Mathis]

You have not explicitly taken that position but your post very much seemed to imply that you are not aware of the exact difference between them.

That's the least important difference.

"Rightful" is about what you MAY do without inviting retaliation. "Moral" is what you SHOULD do if you want to live and live well. There are a lot of things that you MAY do but SHOULD NOT.

Since I have not contested any of these definitions or positions, nothing would be served by responding to this portion of your message.

I refer you to my post immediately after the one you replied to:

That should answer all three cases you mentioned.

And I refer you to my questions in post #68.

(BTW, since there is no taxation in the laissez-faire society, there is necessarily no one who actively supports taxation. You can actively support only that which exists. This is why I was talking in terms of present-day United States.)

In post #43 you wrote, “A person who supports taxation is an initiator of force--by virtue of his failure to recognize the right to property--and therefore has forfeited his own right to property. Innocent people can rightfully take ALL his money.”

Now, as you said, “since there is no taxation in the laissez-faire society, there is necessarily no one who actively supports taxation.”

But suppose the government was changed to permit a (small) tax. Apparently, if we follow what you have previously written, those who voted for that tax would be thieves, initiators of force, and would forfeit their own right to property. Therefore, those who voted against the tax (innocent people) could rightfully take all of the property of the pro-taxers away from them.

[Eric Mathis]

What is the purpose of morality if there are situations in which it is okay to violate it?

Ayn Rand says, “It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence.”

[Oakes]

Ayn Rand says, “It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence.”

But this is exactly what you don't seem to be doing. You've declared that it is immoral to accept a handout (beyond what was taken from you, I believe), and referenced the right to property to justify it. The principle of not stealing is a rule of conduct in normal conditions, yet you extend it to emergency situtions as well. You're not doing any differentiating.

[Eric Mathis]

But this is exactly what you don't seem to be doing. You've declared that it is immoral to accept a handout (beyond what was taken from you, I believe), and referenced the right to property to justify it. The principle of not stealing is a rule of conduct in normal conditions, yet you extend it to emergency situtions as well. You're not doing any differentiating.

But why should we differentiate between Citizen B’s right to his property when Citizen C is hungry and B’s right to his property when C is not hungry? An individual’s rights are not relative to the well being of others in the community, even in emergencies. If they were, then the welfare state would rest on a very strong ethical foundation indeed. A strict construction of property rights would hold that anything C takes from B without B’s consent is still morally B’s, even if C’s circumstances are dire. If we say C’s acceptance/claim/taking of stolen property is morally valid, then it must follow that B’s title to that property is not valid in all respects.

Do you really wish to argue that B's property rights are weakened because C needs a quick fix for his hunger?

I never said it is "okay" to violate rights. My point is that sometimes (rarely, in my opinion) an individual must choose between self-preservation and respect for the rights of others. We can certainly sympathize with C’s need to eat, to end the pangs of hunger, to live to see another day. But that does not in any way alter B’s relationship with his property. Thus, C’s acceptance/claim/taking of B’s property is not legitimate even though we can fully understand and sympathize with C’s action.

[Ana]

There is a point I didn't notice while reading the post, and I think is important. There are two kinds of taxes.

One kind is what the government takes away from you and uses as it sees fit, that is, redistributes it, presumably according to needs. Such a tax is the income tax, for example.

The other one consists of taxes with specific destinations, such as unemployment tax or social security tax, which is also redistributed, but then again, the very principle of any insurance of any kind, is redistribution.

In my opinion, the first kind of tax is theft and taking any of that money is accessory to theft. Examples of such money are subsidies for underdeveloped areas.

The second kind of tax can be assimilated to an insurance monopoly, in the meaning that I, on my free will, might want to pay unemployment, or social security, for whatever reasons, only I wish I could pay the money to a company of my choice, not to the monopoly established by the government. These taxes are from my point of view as immoral as - let's say - the electrical power bill is, since the electrical power provider has a monopoly where I live. In the case of these taxes, the problem lies with the fact that a monopoly exists, not with wether you benefit from a service you are paying for, regardless of the amount that is returned to you.

[Oakes]

Do you really wish to argue that B's property rights are weakened because C needs a quick fix for his hunger?

This is a horribly dishonest representation of my position. I say "dishonest" because we've been talking for too long for this to be a careless mistake. The context here is not someone who wants to steal from another because he's hungry, but someone who is impoverished by the government and is accepting a handout as his only means of survival given the circumstances. I'm not defending welfare, I'm condemning it for the grotesque cannibalism it foists on innocent people. This will be my last post on this thread.

[Capitalism Forever]

So voters are the thieves and the implementers.

Voters (= people who vote for taxes) are among the implementers. There are other implementers besides them--for example, the politicians who write the tax laws and the goons who enforce the taxes.

Now specifically what Charlie did was twice cast a ballot for Bush.

One thing I don't understand about this Charlie guy: If he wants more taxes, why doesn't he vote for Kerry? It is Bush who is cutting taxes and Kerry who would raise them.

I think we need some clarity on what makes one an implementer.

It's a person who makes it happen. A professor who just says "It ought to happen" is not making it happen; he is just wishing for it. A politician who orders it to be done IS making it happen, as his orders have direct physical effect. A voter who casts a vote specifically for taxes IS making it happen, again because his vote has direct physical effect, and it is the intended effect of his vote, not just an undesired side effect of voting for the lesser evil. A person who chooses--of his own uncoerced free will--to become a taxman IS making it happen; I think I need not explain why.

You insisted that Charlie has no moral right to his property.  If he has no moral right to it, why shouldn’t innocent people, via the agency of their rational, laissez faire government, take it away from him?  Is there a virtue in leaving thieves unpunished?

A virtue is a means to achieve a moral end. The question is not, "Is there a virtue in doing (or not doing) this-and-that?" The question is, "What is there a virtue in doing?" You don't just pick some random action, ask "Why shouldn't I do it?" and if you find nothing speaking against it, do it. Rather, you ask yourself, "What do I want to achieve?" and when you have answered that, you ask "How do I achieve it?" in other words, "What virtues do I need to practice in order to achieve it?"

The key Objectivist virtues are rationality, honesty, integrity, independence, justice, productivity, and pride. Justice demands that you treat each man you encounter the way he deserves. Note the words "you encounter" : Justice does not require you to be a sort of God or global policeman who investigates every person in every corner of the world and prosecutes them if necessary. The virtue of justice does not mean that you have to punish every thief. It does not even mean you have to punish every thief that robs you. It means that you must not treat thieves as if they were respectable people. As far as thieves and other villains are concerned, the virtue of justice is not a positive command but a negative proscription: it forbids you to sanction evil.

So justice does NOT say you should actively punish Theft-by-Vote Charlie. It simply says you SHOULD NOT give him your stamp of approval.