4 ms·

Am I missing some sarcasm here? Legalising stealing is basically abolishing property rights.

avar 10y ago
You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time. Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many, especially the rich, if you ran the risk of being stolen from directly maybe you'd have a stake in increasing wealth equality. Or maybe you'd just hire private security. It might actually be a better system, or it might not, who knows?
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Unless you're suggesting everyone be allowed to steal, you're going to spend as much effort (if not more) working out which thefts were legitimate as you are working out who is allowed welfare. Not to mention you're replacing a predictable system with ad hoc chaos. (Maybe insurance can smooth it a little, but then that's just further overhead.) >Or maybe you'd just hire private security. Private security is largely toothless if they can't hand people over to the police. Even if they throw you out, you can just come back the next day and try again.
gnaritas 10y ago
And just out of curiosity, how far exactly do you think property rights should go? Is your right to own something more important than another persons right to life? Property rights are a social construct granted to you by society at large, they don't have to be and are not absolute.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Oh I absolutely agree. Indeed, I often make a point of arguing against libertarians who try to take property rights as a moral prior, and I'm highly amused that so many people are now making the same argument against me... But if we're going to limit property rights, we should do so systematically by redistribution, not by allowing ad hoc violations. Predictability is the most important economic benefit of the rule of law.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    OK, just curious what your view was, I don't disagree.
vidarh 10y ago
No jurisdiction on earth enforce property rights as absolute and inviolable. There are tons of exceptions everywhere, because every society on earth recognizes that there are situations where the needs of individuals or society as a whole are more important than individual property rights. This is just one more exception. Further, it is an exception based on a principle that has historical roots that pre-dates every modern legal system. It is totally unsurprising that some of them have codified principles that can be used in this manner. Especially given that e.g. the principle of necessity in many jurisdictions can be used to justify far worse abrogations of property right than petty theft.

avar 10y ago

You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time. Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many, especially the rich, if you ran the risk of being stolen from directly maybe you'd have a stake in increasing wealth equality. Or maybe you'd just hire private security. It might actually be a better system, or it might not, who knows?

aninhumer 10y ago
>You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Unless you're suggesting everyone be allowed to steal, you're going to spend as much effort (if not more) working out which thefts were legitimate as you are working out who is allowed welfare. Not to mention you're replacing a predictable system with ad hoc chaos. (Maybe insurance can smooth it a little, but then that's just further overhead.) >Or maybe you'd just hire private security. Private security is largely toothless if they can't hand people over to the police. Even if they throw you out, you can just come back the next day and try again.

gnaritas 10y ago

And just out of curiosity, how far exactly do you think property rights should go? Is your right to own something more important than another persons right to life? Property rights are a social construct granted to you by society at large, they don't have to be and are not absolute.

aninhumer 10y ago
Oh I absolutely agree. Indeed, I often make a point of arguing against libertarians who try to take property rights as a moral prior, and I'm highly amused that so many people are now making the same argument against me... But if we're going to limit property rights, we should do so systematically by redistribution, not by allowing ad hoc violations. Predictability is the most important economic benefit of the rule of law.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  OK, just curious what your view was, I don't disagree.

vidarh 10y ago

No jurisdiction on earth enforce property rights as absolute and inviolable. There are tons of exceptions everywhere, because every society on earth recognizes that there are situations where the needs of individuals or society as a whole are more important than individual property rights. This is just one more exception. Further, it is an exception based on a principle that has historical roots that pre-dates every modern legal system. It is totally unsurprising that some of them have codified principles that can be used in this manner. Especially given that e.g. the principle of necessity in many jurisdictions can be used to justify far worse abrogations of property right than petty theft.