5 ms·

Is it okay to steal from person A to give to person B if person A has > person B?

by ancap 11y ago

rmxt 11y ago
Ah, the favorite of all favorites: the "taxes (or, any government regulations involving income) are theft" argument! Following this line of thinking... is it "stealing" when schools are built, police stations are funded, or sanitation workers are paid to pick up trash? Starting from your point of view will likely not get far in a discussion that begins with "rent controls".
- ancap 11y ago
  Please explain how forcibly taking someone's money is not theft.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    It's not even remotely germane to this discussion, but the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair. It's not theft if it's consensual. Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this "theft" altogether and are in the NYC area, I know some nice places in Van Cortlandt Park where you can set up a log cabin and forget about taxes.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - ancap 11y ago
      >the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair Allow me to test this theory (that merely living in a society gives consent to what would otherwise be theft) with an analogy: You have two routes to work, route A and route B. On route A it takes you 10 minutes to get to work but you are guaranteed to be mugged. On route B, it takes you 45 minutes to get to work and you won't get mugged. If for whatever reason, perhaps you are running late and if you don't get to work on time you will be fired, you choose to take route A, are you consenting to be mugged? I certainly think not. Really, your theory is not so much about consent as much as it is about the origins of rights. It sounds like you are a believer that rights originate from society (government), which is something I would disagree with. > Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Au contraire! Most people tend to handle these kind of political topics in a very utilitarian way; "which choice is most efficient?", or if you have a horse in the race, "which will net me the most benefit?". While I agree that rent control is terrible economic policy, I want more people to approach this issue, and other political issues, in a principled manner. Rent control is theft, and it should be recognized as such.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        Welcome to toll roads. We've been doing this for 2,500 years. Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. Your analogies belie reality. These are choices made every day by millions of Americans. Very few people consider this theft. They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know where rights derive from, nor am I really interested in figuring that out in a discussion regarding rent control. I am a utilitarian, but I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term. Rent control in its current NYC might not be the answer, but, in general, housing programs ensure that all people in a relatively rich society (USA) have one of their basic needs met. People that don't have their basic needs met, whether those needs are met through their own action or through cooperation with others, tend to get violent. To be equally extreme as you: please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia.
        ancap 11y ago
        >Welcome to toll roads Perhaps you have a very different idea of what mugging involves. Generally mugging means you are physically assaulted and then your property is forcibly taken from you. >Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. You didn't answer the question. In the scenario if the person takes route A they are guaranteed to be mugged. If they take route A, for whatever reason, are they consenting to be mugged? >Your analogies belie reality You've never taken a philosophy class or participated in any thought exercises involving moral dilemmas? The purpose of the analogy is not make a perfect model of the world. It is to test your theory on consent. >They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know what a "NIMBY" game is and I'm not sure why you introduced the idea of revolting. Why bring up red herrings? >I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term It is unfortunate that you have a negative bias against free markets, but it is not surprising. Most people have false beliefs about what a "free market" is. >please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia. It's clear that you don't know what my "utopia" is? Why would police be "non-existent"? I don't have a mansion, but I guess if it's a utopia I might as well have one. And as long as it is a utopia why would there be poor? Why are you so occupied with the idea of violent revolt? Is this a non sequitur attempting to lead people to believe that a free market inevitably results in violence?
danharaj 11y ago
Loaded question much? Property is a social construct. If humans decide these are the rules of property, then they are the rules of property. If your username is indicates your position, your beliefs are outside of the mainstream and your definition of property is outside of the mainstream. If you really want to have a conversation, describe where you stand. Otherwise, the answer is that theft is not necessarily involved in the transfer of wealth from A to B and you have not established that theft is involved in this context.
- ancap 11y ago
  >Property is a social construct. If humans decide these are the rules of property, then they are the rules of property. If your username is indicates your position, your beliefs are outside of the mainstream and your definition of property is outside of the mainstream. While I'm not aware of any polls on the subject I would guess that your concept of property is what is "outside of the mainstream." >theft is not necessarily involved in the transfer of wealth from A to B and you have not established that theft is involved in this context Your wording here seems to indicate that you have a contradiction in your own view of property. If the wealth was not A's to start with, then how could it be transferred away from A and to B? If A did not own the wealth in question, why is it in his possession? Where did A get the wealth from? What does it mean that it was "transferred" to B? Does B now own the wealth? >If you really want to have a conversation, describe where you stand. Rent control is theft. The marginal difference between the market rate and the rent control rate is being stolen from the property owner.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    My personal views on property are most certainly fringe. However, I couldn't get by very well without understanding its logic as it is implemented, as other people understand it, and enforce it. If you are talking about theft legally, then clearly there is no contradiction that a transfer of wealth from A to B can occur without it being theft and without it being whatever notion of consensual exchange you hold (which I'll take for granted is compatible with the incumbent system). Taxes are legal. Judgments calling for transfer of wealth from one to another are legal. I think surely you are not saying I am contradicting myself applying the legal system as it is, are you? In the current system, rent control isn't theft because the marginal difference, by definition does not belong to the property owner. The system that enforces their property claim is the same system that defines what their claim is. Without that system, their claim is neither justified nor well defined. So let's move away from legality and law. Your original question must have been one of morality, not law. My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system. It has consequences. Its consequences are what can be judged on morality. On this count, I am heterodox. However, I understand how others think. Others, basically the entire history of property, actually, takes taxes levied and property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate. What notion of property do you have?

Is it okay to steal from person A to give to person B if person A has > person B?

by ancap 11y ago

Is it okay to steal from person A to give to person B if person A has > person B?

rmxt 11y ago

Ah, the favorite of all favorites: the "taxes (or, any government regulations involving income) are theft" argument! Following this line of thinking... is it "stealing" when schools are built, police stations are funded, or sanitation workers are paid to pick up trash? Starting from your point of view will likely not get far in a discussion that begins with "rent controls".

ancap 11y ago
Please explain how forcibly taking someone's money is not theft.
- rmxt 11y ago
  It's not even remotely germane to this discussion, but the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair. It's not theft if it's consensual. Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this "theft" altogether and are in the NYC area, I know some nice places in Van Cortlandt Park where you can set up a log cabin and forget about taxes.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ancap 11y ago
    >the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair Allow me to test this theory (that merely living in a society gives consent to what would otherwise be theft) with an analogy: You have two routes to work, route A and route B. On route A it takes you 10 minutes to get to work but you are guaranteed to be mugged. On route B, it takes you 45 minutes to get to work and you won't get mugged. If for whatever reason, perhaps you are running late and if you don't get to work on time you will be fired, you choose to take route A, are you consenting to be mugged? I certainly think not. Really, your theory is not so much about consent as much as it is about the origins of rights. It sounds like you are a believer that rights originate from society (government), which is something I would disagree with. > Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Au contraire! Most people tend to handle these kind of political topics in a very utilitarian way; "which choice is most efficient?", or if you have a horse in the race, "which will net me the most benefit?". While I agree that rent control is terrible economic policy, I want more people to approach this issue, and other political issues, in a principled manner. Rent control is theft, and it should be recognized as such.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Welcome to toll roads. We've been doing this for 2,500 years. Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. Your analogies belie reality. These are choices made every day by millions of Americans. Very few people consider this theft. They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know where rights derive from, nor am I really interested in figuring that out in a discussion regarding rent control. I am a utilitarian, but I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term. Rent control in its current NYC might not be the answer, but, in general, housing programs ensure that all people in a relatively rich society (USA) have one of their basic needs met. People that don't have their basic needs met, whether those needs are met through their own action or through cooperation with others, tend to get violent. To be equally extreme as you: please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia.
      - ancap 11y ago
        >Welcome to toll roads Perhaps you have a very different idea of what mugging involves. Generally mugging means you are physically assaulted and then your property is forcibly taken from you. >Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. You didn't answer the question. In the scenario if the person takes route A they are guaranteed to be mugged. If they take route A, for whatever reason, are they consenting to be mugged? >Your analogies belie reality You've never taken a philosophy class or participated in any thought exercises involving moral dilemmas? The purpose of the analogy is not make a perfect model of the world. It is to test your theory on consent. >They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know what a "NIMBY" game is and I'm not sure why you introduced the idea of revolting. Why bring up red herrings? >I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term It is unfortunate that you have a negative bias against free markets, but it is not surprising. Most people have false beliefs about what a "free market" is. >please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia. It's clear that you don't know what my "utopia" is? Why would police be "non-existent"? I don't have a mansion, but I guess if it's a utopia I might as well have one. And as long as it is a utopia why would there be poor? Why are you so occupied with the idea of violent revolt? Is this a non sequitur attempting to lead people to believe that a free market inevitably results in violence?

danharaj 11y ago

Loaded question much? Property is a social construct. If humans decide these are the rules of property, then they are the rules of property. If your username is indicates your position, your beliefs are outside of the mainstream and your definition of property is outside of the mainstream. If you really want to have a conversation, describe where you stand. Otherwise, the answer is that theft is not necessarily involved in the transfer of wealth from A to B and you have not established that theft is involved in this context.

ancap 11y ago
>Property is a social construct. If humans decide these are the rules of property, then they are the rules of property. If your username is indicates your position, your beliefs are outside of the mainstream and your definition of property is outside of the mainstream. While I'm not aware of any polls on the subject I would guess that your concept of property is what is "outside of the mainstream." >theft is not necessarily involved in the transfer of wealth from A to B and you have not established that theft is involved in this context Your wording here seems to indicate that you have a contradiction in your own view of property. If the wealth was not A's to start with, then how could it be transferred away from A and to B? If A did not own the wealth in question, why is it in his possession? Where did A get the wealth from? What does it mean that it was "transferred" to B? Does B now own the wealth? >If you really want to have a conversation, describe where you stand. Rent control is theft. The marginal difference between the market rate and the rent control rate is being stolen from the property owner.
- danharaj 11y ago
  My personal views on property are most certainly fringe. However, I couldn't get by very well without understanding its logic as it is implemented, as other people understand it, and enforce it. If you are talking about theft legally, then clearly there is no contradiction that a transfer of wealth from A to B can occur without it being theft and without it being whatever notion of consensual exchange you hold (which I'll take for granted is compatible with the incumbent system). Taxes are legal. Judgments calling for transfer of wealth from one to another are legal. I think surely you are not saying I am contradicting myself applying the legal system as it is, are you? In the current system, rent control isn't theft because the marginal difference, by definition does not belong to the property owner. The system that enforces their property claim is the same system that defines what their claim is. Without that system, their claim is neither justified nor well defined. So let's move away from legality and law. Your original question must have been one of morality, not law. My response is that I, personally, don't think property is moral or immoral because I do not take it as a priori. It is a human system. It has consequences. Its consequences are what can be judged on morality. On this count, I am heterodox. However, I understand how others think. Others, basically the entire history of property, actually, takes taxes levied and property rights regulated by the authority that justifies them as legitimate. What notion of property do you have?