4 ms·

What evidence are you using to claim that laws against 'stealing' are one of the basic laws of society? I assume you mean after codified laws and surely after a

by ap22213 10y ago

What evidence are you using to claim that laws against 'stealing' are one of the basic laws of society? I assume you mean after codified laws and surely after agriculture. And, probably post-enlightenment, right? But, at that point, laws are no longer 'basic laws of society' but laws of the sovereign - to maintain their power and control. And, interestingly, the soverign is the only one allowed to steal. I'm suggesting that maybe those 'laws' are no longer useful or at least may need to be modified. And, I think it's a cop-out to not try to think beyond that. But, let's go back before the king. Did people really own land then? Doubtful. Did they even have individual property rights? Probably not in the sense that we do today. Most 'property' was collective. And, people didn't own land, which was thought as sacred. In fact, behavior within families and kin groups is not much different then it was 12,0000 years ago. And, of all families and kin groups that I know, I see young children taught to share within the group. Where that breaks down is when they encounter strangers or 'invading' groups. And, only then do they rely on the laws of the state to make transactions. So, that's what I mean when I point out my neighbors' behavior. Their natural inclination is to share (at least with those of their kin group). Again, I don't think capitalism or communism are the answer. I don't know what is. I just think we can imagine something better.

aminok 10y ago
>What evidence are you using to claim that laws against 'stealing' are one of the basic laws of society? Maat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42_Negative_Confessions_.28Papyrus_of_Ani.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42_Negative_Confessions_.... >42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)[edit] >1. I have not committed sin. >2. I have not committed robbery with violence. >3. I have not stolen. >4. I have not slain men and women. >5. I have not stolen grain. Babylonian Law: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp >8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death. >9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring witnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony--both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant. Ancient Greek Law: http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/brutal-draconian-laws-ancient-greece-002344 http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/brutal-draconian-laws... >Plutarch, another ancient source for Draco, in his Life of Solon , claims that the penalty for the theft of an apple or a cabbage was death, and you could have someone made your personal slave if they owed you money. The writer also records that when Draco was asked the reason for making execution the punishment for most offences, the reply was that ‘Small ones deserve that (i.e. death), and I have no higher for the greater crimes.’ Biblical Law: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1%E2%80%9317&version=NRSV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1%E... >15 You shall not steal. And pre-agricultural societies that we have accounts of universally prohibit theft as well. For example Australian Aborigine: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=ltc http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&contex... >The process of the law was one of political negotiation that involved everyone in the community. When there was a dispute, the elders met to discuss the punishments: their word was LAW. Offences regarded as unlawful included the unauthorised killing of a person, sacrilege, incest, adultery, theft, unauthorised assault, insult and neglect of kinship obligations. Punishments could range from making compensation over an agreed period of time to having to face a squad of spearmen, with only a shield and that person's ability to protect himself. The reason laws against theft are universally found is that theft creates harmful incentives. It doesn't matter what stage of civilization we reach: the fundamental dynamics of multiple parties co-existing make theft harmful to creating economic value. This is something I would argue is self-evident. Not sure why you're so desperate to question the moral principle that theft is wrong. >I just think we can imagine something better. Moral principles are timeless. There is nothing "better" than not stealing, because it is a basic requirement for a functioning society. The only type of configuration better than 'not stealing' is 'not stealing' + doing something good. But not stealing, murdering, assaulting etc are the foundational principles that a functioning society has to build on top of.
- ap22213 10y ago
  Makes sense. So, the only fuzzy part seems to be: what is property, and I guess that's up to social norms?
  - aminok 10y ago
    Ultimately every conception of rights is subjective, but property is generally recognized as that which we acquire through First Possession (a principle observed throughout the Animal Kingdom), and Homesteading (taking unclaimed natural resources and reconfiguring them into a more valuable resource). First Possession at least has been shown in Game Theory simulations to lead to stable equilibriums, so it's not surprising that property rights are so widely observed. I think observance of the Homesteading principle naturally emerges from observance of the First Possession principle. Where it gets fuzzy, in my opinion, is property rights over natural resources like land, which derive almost all of their value from their natural form, rather than the value done to them by their original appropriator.

by ap22213 10y ago

aminok 10y ago

>What evidence are you using to claim that laws against 'stealing' are one of the basic laws of society? Maat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42_Negative_Confessions_.28Papyrus_of_Ani.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42_Negative_Confessions_.... >42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)[edit] >1. I have not committed sin. >2. I have not committed robbery with violence. >3. I have not stolen. >4. I have not slain men and women. >5. I have not stolen grain. Babylonian Law: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp >8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death. >9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring witnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony--both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant. Ancient Greek Law: http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/brutal-draconian-laws-ancient-greece-002344 http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/brutal-draconian-laws... >Plutarch, another ancient source for Draco, in his Life of Solon , claims that the penalty for the theft of an apple or a cabbage was death, and you could have someone made your personal slave if they owed you money. The writer also records that when Draco was asked the reason for making execution the punishment for most offences, the reply was that ‘Small ones deserve that (i.e. death), and I have no higher for the greater crimes.’ Biblical Law: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1%E2%80%9317&version=NRSV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1%E... >15 You shall not steal. And pre-agricultural societies that we have accounts of universally prohibit theft as well. For example Australian Aborigine: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=ltc http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&contex... >The process of the law was one of political negotiation that involved everyone in the community. When there was a dispute, the elders met to discuss the punishments: their word was LAW. Offences regarded as unlawful included the unauthorised killing of a person, sacrilege, incest, adultery, theft, unauthorised assault, insult and neglect of kinship obligations. Punishments could range from making compensation over an agreed period of time to having to face a squad of spearmen, with only a shield and that person's ability to protect himself. The reason laws against theft are universally found is that theft creates harmful incentives. It doesn't matter what stage of civilization we reach: the fundamental dynamics of multiple parties co-existing make theft harmful to creating economic value. This is something I would argue is self-evident. Not sure why you're so desperate to question the moral principle that theft is wrong. >I just think we can imagine something better. Moral principles are timeless. There is nothing "better" than not stealing, because it is a basic requirement for a functioning society. The only type of configuration better than 'not stealing' is 'not stealing' + doing something good. But not stealing, murdering, assaulting etc are the foundational principles that a functioning society has to build on top of.

ap22213 10y ago
Makes sense. So, the only fuzzy part seems to be: what is property, and I guess that's up to social norms?
- aminok 10y ago
  Ultimately every conception of rights is subjective, but property is generally recognized as that which we acquire through First Possession (a principle observed throughout the Animal Kingdom), and Homesteading (taking unclaimed natural resources and reconfiguring them into a more valuable resource). First Possession at least has been shown in Game Theory simulations to lead to stable equilibriums, so it's not surprising that property rights are so widely observed. I think observance of the Homesteading principle naturally emerges from observance of the First Possession principle. Where it gets fuzzy, in my opinion, is property rights over natural resources like land, which derive almost all of their value from their natural form, rather than the value done to them by their original appropriator.