What's wrong with stealing?

[BigRob]

I agree but that is not what's at issue here. In reality, our individual rights are supposed to be protected by law but are instead violated by other laws which supposedly create "Rights" out of thin air.

For example, John believes it's his "Right" to force Bob to pay for his health care, his housing, his food, and so much more. Numinus refers to these as "statutory rights", thinks they are perfectly legitimate, and doesn't believe they conflict with individual rights.

I, on the other hand, consider individual rights as the only legitimate kind of rights and consider many of the so called "Rights", be they statutory, civil, or some form of group "rights", are illegitimate because they violate individual rights.

I would say that such "statutory rights" are legitimate if they are correctly codified within the laws of our society....

At the same time, I would agree with you that no one has the "right" to make me pay for their health care etc..but I think where the distinction comes is that people give up some measure of their liberty to be involved in a society.

Therefore, perhaps the statutory rights are considered legitimate by the laws of a society, but not automatically the laws of nature?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson​

I think he had a point at the time, however I would be curious to see his reaction to a situation where the "tyrant" is perhaps the people that the government derives its power from?

Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things. - Wiki​

Now there is more than one school of thought concerning the source of property Rights;

Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law. - Wiki​

Numinus would fall into the first category and myself the latter.

So now, BigRob, I have but one question for you...

Which is superior, Natural Rights (Individual Rights as I refer to them) or Statutory Rights?

One of them has to take precedent.

I would say that Natural Rights take precedent, but that precedent to mean anything in a society, they must be protected under the laws of said society.

This matters because John believes his statutory rights outrank your natural rights and he's trying to rewrite the laws to make sure that when you get thrown in front of a judge, to defend your natural rights, they aren't recognized by law.

I agree it matters, and I think we need to be challenging such actions...

And BigRob I'm curious... I know your position on rebellion and succession, so at what point would you decide the laws of John to be illegitimate?

Well, I would say that while I might think a law is illegitimate, if it was passed under the established framework our society has for passing laws, then it carries legitimacy.

That said, if enough people find a law to be illegitimate, I think they are perfectly within their rights to throw out the old government and bring in a new one...which we do every two years in the election process.

 

[GenSeneca]

I would say that such "statutory rights" are legitimate if they are correctly codified within the laws of our society....

They are only legitimate if they do not violate individual rights and are applicable to all individuals. Any "rights" that apply to specific individuals or groups, but not all individuals, is an example of what I consider a legislative privilege, not a right. Such privileges are tolerable so long as they do not violate any individual rights.

At the same time, I would agree with you that no one has the "right" to make me pay for their health care etc..but I think where the distinction comes is that people give up some measure of their liberty to be involved in a society.

To be involved in society there is only one Right that must partially be surrendered to government and that is the Right to act as our own judge, jury, and executioner, our Right to Self Defense. That is the legitimate role of government, Police, Courts, and the Military, these institutions act as the protectors of our individual rights, as our agents of Self Defense.

Anyone who demands that I surrender other Rights, in part or whole, or that I must surrender greater portions of my Right of Self Defense, in order to be a member of society, is marching himself, and all who would follow, knowingly or unknowingly, headlong into despotism.

Therefore, perhaps the statutory rights are considered legitimate by the laws of a society, but not automatically the laws of nature?

Clearly Steve believes its his Right to take what he has not earned and does not deserve, so I doubt he would consider a law granting him the legal right to deprive you of your property to be an illegitimate law... I'm sure he'd be quite pleased.

I think he had a point at the time, however I would be curious to see his reaction to a situation where the "tyrant" is perhaps the people that the government derives its power from?

I believe Jefferson already answered that:

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. - Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, 1801

Well, I would say that while I might think a law is illegitimate, if it was passed under the established framework our society has for passing laws, then it carries legitimacy.

Any law that violates individual rights is an illegitimate law. Perhaps we disagree on that but I do not recognize a law as being legitimate simply because it was established through the legal framework of society, the law itself must also not violate any individual rights.

That said, if enough people find a law to be illegitimate, I think they are perfectly within their rights to throw out the old government and bring in a new one...which we do every two years in the election process.

That certainly sounds reasonable enough... Unless of course you're in the oppressed minority. Notice that individuals and government are barred from discriminating based on race, sex, national origin etc., but the one form of discrimination still allowed by law is discrimination against class - Hence the class warfare. Pitting the middle and lower classes against the upper class creates a super-majority of would-be oppressors. It's only a matter of time before the "Tax the Rich!" crowd begins demanding blood... Oh wait, some already are:

One of the reasons I do not immigrate to Europe is that someday the working class will grow tired of the exploitation by the wealthy, guillotine them, take their stolen wealth. (I stay in the hope of getting to pull the lanyard on the likes of you.)

And what most people fail to comprehend is that individual rights belong to all individuals. So in violating the individual rights of the "rich" through legislation, the mob is tearing down the same wall that protects the other classes from the same fate.

 

[numinus]

Acquire:
1. to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own: to acquire property.
2. to gain for oneself through one's actions or efforts: to acquire learning.​

So an individual has a natural right to acquire property, but no natural right to keep the property he acquires... Interesting viewpoint you have there.

Dr. Who, according to Numinus, you do have a natural right to pluck an apple from a tree but the moment you take possession of that apple, you have no natrual rights to keep or use that apple. Does that sound right to you?

Are you just trying to prolong this discussion or do you seriously fail to see the point?

You have a natural right to acquire property. The process of acquisition itself including the enjoyment (or disposition of it) is governed by law. That is what ownership amounts to, does it not?

Not sure what Locke has to do with anything but lets look;

Two Treatises of Government, Sec. 27: Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body had any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.

Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property.

It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men.

For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.​

It appears by your next statement that you radically disagree with Locke...

Eh? That is exactly what I said.

NATURE IS HELD IN COMMON.

By the social contract, it is owned by the STATE -- the state being the perfect union of its individual parts.

When you imbue something from nature with your own labor, it becomes your own. Note that the property thus produced is made up of two elements -- that which is from nature (owned in common) joined with your own labor (which the individual owns).

Since you are taking something from the common wealth, you need the permission of the state to make it your own -- HENCE THE LAW.

Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable -- YOUR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS DEPENDENT ON THE LAW -- which goes back to what cornell law was saying.

Capice?

Forget the fact that Locke said no such thing... Exactly where is that written in the US Constitution?

As I said, the idea comes from common law -- the basis of your jurisprudence. It is enough that your constitution creates the judicial branch of government to define what is legal or illegal.

Again, Dr. Who, you do have a natural right to pluck an apple from a tree - but - you have NO natural right to keep or use the literal 'fruit of your labor' because, according to Numinus, once plucked, that apple becomes property of the state. Does that sound right to you?

Now, your idea has descended into a heap of mess.

Ownership of the apple comes from ownership of the tree which ultimately comes from ownership of the land on which the tree is planted.

That land, originally, is owned by the state (owned in common), until such time an individual adversely claims the land for his own AND SUCH OWNERSHIP IS PERMITTED BY THE STATE.

If it were not an apple, but say precious minerals like oil you were taking, my point becomes even clearer. You have no natural right to these minerals. You can only have permission from the state to acquire them from nature -- and such acquisition is bound by certain laws.

Capice?

Oh and one more thing, Dr. Who cannot extricate you from the mess you have heaped upon yourself.

 

[numinus]

They are only legitimate if they do not violate individual rights and are applicable to all individuals. Any "rights" that apply to specific individuals or groups, but not all individuals, is an example of what I consider a legislative privilege, not a right. Such privileges are tolerable so long as they do not violate any individual rights.


To be involved in society there is only one Right that must partially be surrendered to government and that is the Right to act as our own judge, jury, and executioner, our Right to Self Defense. That is the legitimate role of government, Police, Courts, and the Military, these institutions act as the protectors of our individual rights, as our agents of Self Defense.

Anyone who demands that I surrender other Rights, in part or whole, or that I must surrender greater portions of my Right of Self Defense, in order to be a member of society, is marching himself, and all who would follow, knowingly or unknowingly, headlong into despotism.

Clearly Steve believes its his Right to take what he has not earned and does not deserve, so I doubt he would consider a law granting him the legal right to deprive you of your property to be an illegitimate law... I'm sure he'd be quite pleased.


I believe Jefferson already answered that:

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. - Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, 1801


Any law that violates individual rights is an illegitimate law. Perhaps we disagree on that but I do not recognize a law as being legitimate simply because it was established through the legal framework of society, the law itself must also not violate any individual rights.


That certainly sounds reasonable enough... Unless of course you're in the oppressed minority. Notice that individuals and government are barred from discriminating based on race, sex, national origin etc., but the one form of discrimination still allowed by law is discrimination against class - Hence the class warfare. Pitting the middle and lower classes against the upper class creates a super-majority of would-be oppressors. It's only a matter of time before the "Tax the Rich!" crowd begins demanding blood... Oh wait, some already are:



And what most people fail to comprehend is that individual rights belong to all individuals. So in violating the individual rights of the "rich" through legislation, the mob is tearing down the same wall that protects the other classes from the same fate.

The terms of the social contract is clear -- an individual SURRENDERS his entire will in favor of the state. In return, the state protects those rights that are NECESSARY for the peaceable enjoyment of one's existence using the powers of the common force.

These rights thus defined, are said to be NATURAL since they are necessary for your existence. As such, they are INALIENABLE, meaning THEY CANNOT BE CEDED IN FAVOR OF ANYONE OUTSIDE OF ONE'S SELF.

Look at it closely:

Your life cannot be owned by another, hence your right to it is said to be inalienable.

Your liberty cannot be enjoyed by another, hence your right to it is said to be inalienable.

Your thoughts and the expression thereof cannot be exercised by another, hence your right to them is said to be inalienable.

Your pursuit of your own happiness cannot be undertaken by another, hence your right to them is said to be inalienable.

HOWEVER:

Your private property is defined, acquired, enjoyed and disposed on a regularly ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW--HENCE YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO THEM.

 

[Dr.Who]

The terms of the social contract is clear -- an individual SURRENDERS his entire will in favor of the state. In return, the state protects those rights that are NECESSARY for the peaceable enjoyment of one's existence using the powers of the common force.
.

Entire?

I am short on time but the only answer that deserves at the moment is BS!

When wslavery was being debated those in favor said that the slave was incapable of surviving on is own and needed a beneficent whip. Your state that assumes control of the citizense entire will sounds an awful lot like a beneficent whip.

 

[numinus]

Entire?

I am short on time but the only answer that deserves at the moment is BS!

When wslavery was being debated those in favor said that the slave was incapable of surviving on is own and needed a beneficent whip. Your state that assumes control of the citizense entire will sounds an awful lot like a beneficent whip.

Correct -- entire.

He then gets back those liberties which are necessary for his peaceable existence. It is, after all, a contract. He gives up something and gets something better in return.

What he possessed from the state of nature is a perfect liberty that is not secure. What he gets from the political association is an imperfect liberty that is defended with the common force. This imperfect liberty is called freedom -- the will to abide by the same set of laws everyone prescribe for themselves.

I'm sorry but I'm not the one who concocted the social contract theory. I am merely stating what it is.

 

[steveox]

Just an exercise in rationalization. He steals because he is a thief.

No,,, I steal cause to make up the cost i pay the tax. Like if Sales tax cost you 60 cents you steal a pen and sell it on E BAY.

 

[numinus]

No,,, I steal cause to make up the cost i pay the tax. Like if Sales tax cost you 60 cents you steal a pen and sell it on E BAY.

I admire a man of conscience. I really do. However, you ought to steal only government property and not some poor sucker who pays the government whatever it is that you pay yourself.

Maybe you could steal pens in city hall or the white house. Or better yet, have your accountant identify exactly how much is 'stolen' from you and deduct it from what you consider as legitimate taxes (if such a thing even exists in your mind).

As for sales tax, you are only assessed that if you buy something (it is inclusive of the sale price). So, you might as well make your own personal stuff and grow and cook your own food.

Better yet, just so your government can never steal anything that you think belongs to you, you could try living in the jungles of equatorial congo and do as the bonobos do.

 

[counterfiat]

you may think your stealing form the corporation.. but i assure you they will not eat the losses if they don't have too, and walmart is a store that doesn't have too they can afford to raise prices to compensate

stealing it is proven does raise the prices of all consumer goods we purchase

More than $13 billion worth of goods are stolen from retailers each year in the US. that equates to roughly 43 dollars out of your pocket annually.

but in addition to this is the cost of security which is even more than the actual value of items stolen

and again is the lost opportunity cost, that lost profit or increased price of goods means some employer somewhere wont be able to hire another employee,

it is evidenced by the especially devastating effects on African American communities where in some areas grocery stores wont even open because so much is stolen they cant make a profit and deprives the neighborhoods of fresh foods and jobs.

i know this problem first hand in my store

i had to pay 1200 dollars to have a security system installed and pay a monthly fee for it because of people stealing my books, i actually had to fire an employee for letting in his friend to steel, and now not only did he also loose his job because of stealing but he and his friend now have criminal records for stealing and may have lost hundreds of thousands in lost revenue if they cant get a quality job out of college because of that.

you think i am going to eat that loss? nope i will cut wages if i have to i cannot cut my margins any or one mistake or one big robbery and im out of business, also another cost is inventory insurance and insurance rates

you probably pay extra for your vehicle insurance to cover theft, and the list goes on...

in total after all is said and done stealing and theft probably costs the average American close to a 500 or more a year once you tally up every economic cost, even down to the cost of incarceration and provides probably less than 100 dolalrs in benefit annually for the criminals out of that, so when you steal that 20 dollar cd you've just robbed America of 100 dollars of lost revenue

 

[numinus]

you may think your stealing form the corporation.. but i assure you they will not eat the losses if they don't have too, and walmart is a store that doesn't have too they can afford to raise prices to compensate

stealing it is proven does raise the prices of all consumer goods we purchase

More than $13 billion worth of goods are stolen from retailers each year in the US. that equates to roughly 43 dollars out of your pocket annually.

but in addition to this is the cost of security which is even more than the actual value of items stolen

and again is the lost opportunity cost, that lost profit or increased price of goods means some employer somewhere wont be able to hire another employee,

it is evidenced by the especially devastating effects on African American communities where in some areas grocery stores wont even open because so much is stolen they cant make a profit and deprives the neighborhoods of fresh foods and jobs.

i know this problem first hand in my store

i had to pay 1200 dollars to have a security system installed and pay a monthly fee for it because of people stealing my books, i actually had to fire an employee for letting in his friend to steel, and now not only did he also loose his job because of stealing but he and his friend now have criminal records for stealing and may have lost hundreds of thousands in lost revenue if they cant get a quality job out of college because of that.

you think i am going to eat that loss? nope i will cut wages if i have to i cannot cut my margins any or one mistake or one big robbery and im out of business, also another cost is inventory insurance and insurance rates

you probably pay extra for your vehicle insurance to cover theft, and the list goes on...

in total after all is said and done stealing and theft probably costs the average American close to a 500 or more a year once you tally up every economic cost, even down to the cost of incarceration and provides probably less than 100 dolalrs in benefit annually for the criminals out of that, so when you steal that 20 dollar cd you've just robbed America of 100 dollars of lost revenue

Very well said.