4 ms·

>Theft is defined as the seizure of private property without the consent of the owner This is a very contentious definition and central to the question being a

>Theft is defined as the seizure of private property without the consent of the owner This is a very contentious definition and central to the question being asked. You can't pass it off as already decided without any debate. Two situations for your definition, you tell me whether something is stolen: 1) You sell me a Ford Pinto that you know is likely to explode in a crash due to a design defect. I sue you after I'm burned up and win. I seize your private property by court judgement. Have I stolen from you? 2) A slave takes an apple from his master's orchard without permission and eats it. Has he stolen?

alphanullmeric 3y ago
Arguably, both cases are theft. We simply decide whether or not it is acceptable with the principle that force is only and always justified in response to force. See how easy it is to be consistent?
- herbstein 3y ago
  > See how easy it is to be consistent? Consistent on the definition of "theft", yes indeed. However, it's way harder to be consistent on the definition of "theft" while you also consider theft to be inherently immoral. And that's the center of this subthread. motohagiography asked.. > How is this not literally just a threat to rob people if they don't give up their stuff, and why would anyone take it as anything less? .. as a clear argument against the base morality of the original comment. This being seen as such hinges singularly on the fact that theft, in all forms, is inherently immoral. If you define theft as any time private property is taken, irrespective of circumstances, then you also have to concede that theft isn't always immoral. Thus, the whole original argument would have to make not only the case that the original suggestion of wealth redistribution is theft, but that it's immoral theft. That consistent, broad definition of theft thus becomes much less useful as a qualifier.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    That’s correct, we are arguing that “I need it more” is not a good justification to violently robbing someone, is that a problem?

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Arguably, both cases are theft. We simply decide whether or not it is acceptable with the principle that force is only and always justified in response to force. See how easy it is to be consistent?

herbstein 3y ago
> See how easy it is to be consistent? Consistent on the definition of "theft", yes indeed. However, it's way harder to be consistent on the definition of "theft" while you also consider theft to be inherently immoral. And that's the center of this subthread. motohagiography asked.. > How is this not literally just a threat to rob people if they don't give up their stuff, and why would anyone take it as anything less? .. as a clear argument against the base morality of the original comment. This being seen as such hinges singularly on the fact that theft, in all forms, is inherently immoral. If you define theft as any time private property is taken, irrespective of circumstances, then you also have to concede that theft isn't always immoral. Thus, the whole original argument would have to make not only the case that the original suggestion of wealth redistribution is theft, but that it's immoral theft. That consistent, broad definition of theft thus becomes much less useful as a qualifier.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  That’s correct, we are arguing that “I need it more” is not a good justification to violently robbing someone, is that a problem?