Stealing food vs. Dying of Starvation

[RockyRaccoon]

To everybody that’s contributed thus far: thank you kindly, this has been a good learning experience for me.

Conza88 - These links were particularly useful. The first two links to LRC by Walter Block were particularly enlightening.

As I read more about the subject, I’m starting to better understand the problem that I’m having. I’ll try to explain it here:

Until now, I’ve been able to justify my libertarianism as a subset of my personal moral values. In other words, I hold a more complicated moral value set, but nothing in libertarianism (i.e. non-aggression principle) has of yet been in opposition to those morals. There are some things that I would consider moral that are not enforced under libertarianism and that, of course, is acceptable since I don’t want to forcefully impose my morals onto others.

The situation with stealing food from the farmers’ crops caught me off guard because that’s a situation where I wouldn’t feel immoral in taking only enough to stave off my starvation AND later reimbursing the farmer for the damage that I’ve caused (plus interest, etc.). However, doing so clearly violates the right of the farmer to his property. I’ve been reading all night and recently came across the following passage by Randy Barnett:

Unlike moral or religious theorists, a libertarian, qua libertarian, is not seeking a universal and comprehensive answer to the question of how persons ought to behave. Rather a libertarian seeks a universal answer to the question of when the use of force is justified. A libertarian, qua libertarian, does not deny that a more ambitious morality exists; they merely deny the political claim that immorality, standing alone, is an adequate justification for the use of force by one person against another.

Analogous to Walter Block’s logic, when I consider the point of view of the farmer, I agree that he has a right of self-defense to his property. And if he were to prosecute me for the food that I’ve taken, I wouldn’t resist that punishment. On the other hand, Rothbard’s principle of proportional punishment means that I have a pretty good idea about the maximum punishment that could be enforced on me (cost of crops taken, damaged, plus interest, trouble and court costs) and all of that seems perfectly acceptable in exchange for survival. I also recognize that if I was injured or killed by the farmer during my trespass that neither I nor my relatives have the right to prosecute the farmer or seek revenge. If I decide to trespass and take his crops anyway, I accept his right to defend himself and any penalties that come my way due to my prosecution. From my personal standpoint, I have wronged the farmer but am willing to compensate him as necessary and, therefore, haven’t done anything morally wrong. But I cannot enforce this morality onto the farmer in an attempt to justify my theft of his crops. After all, he is not responsible for my hunger and therefore should not be required to compensate me with his crops.

In most cases, my personal morality only “conflicted” with libertarian political philosophy in the sense that it did not allow me to forcefully impose it onto others (and since I believe that it would be immoral for me to enforce it anyway, this does not actually “conflict”). However, this is the first case where actions that I would perform (and not consider immoral under the extreme circumstances) are actually punishable under a libertarian society. I suppose I’m having trouble coming to terms with that. Of course, in the BIG picture, this one conflict under a fabricated extreme situation is MINOR compared to the incredibly large number of differences between my personal morals and the existence of government. At any rate, my adherence to libertarianism was never really in jeopardy, but my understanding of libertarianism has been adjusted accordingly.

Would anybody like to comment on libertarianism as a political philosophy as opposed to a moral philosophy? If I were to read more about this in the Mises literature section, which text(s) would you recommend?

-Michael Hall

[RockyRaccoon]

@Justin Spahr-Summers

@Seph

I would take the food and subject myself to the punishment.

In my opinion (and I could very well be wrong) libertarianism does not make a judgement about whether you ‘should’ or ‘should not’ take the food in this situation, merely that should you do so, appropriate punishment is necessary.

Seems like this post might have been overlooked. This is pretty much the same view that I hold. Of course it would make me a hypocrite to steal, and of course it would be immoral. But if it were an absolute life-or-death scenario (i.e., not just going a single day without food, but on the brink of death), I would pick life, regardless of what that makes me, because I’m primarily an egoist and thus value myself—I cannot value myself if I would willingly extinguish my life just to make a point. On the other hand, neither would I try to evade punishment for my overt act of crime.

Seph and Justin - Thanks for your honesty and your opinion. I would act similar in the case of the farmer. If my actions would result in the starvation of the person that I stole from (which one could never know for sure), I don’t think I would do it. But then again, one can never be sure unless they’re placed in the situation.

Let me ask a related, general (open) question:

Does anybody feel uncomfortable embracing libertarianism as a political philosophy as opposed to a moral philosophy? Particularly in this type of situation where under extreme circumstances, you might engage in behavior that knowingly goes against the non-aggression principle?

[Seph]

@RockyRaccoon

Does anybody feel uncomfortable embracing libertarianism as a political philosophy as opposed to a moral philosophy? Particularly in this type of situation where under extreme circumstances, you might engage in behavior that knowingly goes against the non-aggression principle?

Name me a system where private property rights are upheld where no such lifeboat scenario is possible.

The difference is, in every system but anarcho-capitalism, the behavior taken by the thief is seen as legal behavior, in some other example. Maybe it’s the tax payed by the businessman to support the judicial system he doesn’t use. Maybe the tax payed by the farmer for the police service he doesn’t want. Maybe it’s the inability of an entrepreneur to enter the garbage collection field.

In all other systems, there must be some instance where the NAP is violated, but there is no punishment for the violators.

Also, as I’ve said, the system of libertarianism does not tell you which choice is right or wrong in your case, it merely lays out the actions which must result from each choice. You still make the choice. So I’m not sure why you’d be opposed to advocating libertarianism as a moral philosophy.

[Conza]

@RockyRaccoon

Conza88 - These links were particularly useful. The first two links to LRC by Walter Block were particularly enlightening.

Awesome. Did you get to the Radical Privatization and Other Libertarian Conundrums link? Or read the thread mentioned? We’ve basically come to the same conclusion.

@RockyRaccoon

Would anybody like to comment on libertarianism as a political philosophy as opposed to a moral philosophy? If I were to read more about this in the Mises literature section, which text(s) would you recommend?

The Human Body Shield by Walter Block (attached)

Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: children’s rights by Walter Block (Kind of related)

But yeah, if anyone does find more on the issue would be interested in reading them.

@RockyRaccoon

In most cases, my personal morality only “conflicted” with libertarian political philosophy in the sense that it did not allow me to forcefully impose it onto others (and since I believe that it would be immoral for me to enforce it anyway, this does not actually “conflict”). However, this is the first case where actions that I would perform (and not consider immoral under the extreme circumstances) are actually punishable under a libertarian society. I suppose I’m having trouble coming to terms with that.

I guess the thing to remember is that the chances of the scenario ever happening, is minuscule. I’d also argue the more ‘civilization’ we have (division of labor + private property rights) the less likely these scenarios become. i.e starvation, being stranded on an island etc.

[Paul]

@RockyRaccoon

In my opinion, this is a highly unrealistic situation. However, the imaginary situation does serve to prove a point, doesn’t it?

Does it?

@RockyRaccoon

I can’t honestly say that I would allow myself to starve rather than take what I need to survive. But choosing thus seems to destroy my entire argument that people have an inviolable right to their own property, doesn’t it?

Does it?

@RockyRaccoon

Wouldn’t he be within his rights to defend his crops through threat or use of force?

Would he? I don’t know what you believe. But if so, the previously-quoted paragraph is meaningless…

@RockyRaccoon

(1) This is an unrealistic situation whose fabrication is designed to induce an admission that one would violate their own principles.

If that’s what it’s supposed to do, it fails, unless you claim that both (a) your principles are that someone else’s property is more important to you than your life, and (b) you would steal to save your life. But (b) implies not (a)…

@RockyRaccoon

Is it correct to say that I support the right of individuals over their own bodies (without exception) and the rights of individuals over their own property, except in cases where my own life is at risk…?

Only you can say what you believe, but it doesn’t sound like you believe what you’re claiming here. If you say you “support the rights of individuals over their own property, except in cases where your own life is at risk”, that means you don’t “support the rights of individuals over their own property” when your life is at risk, which means what you’re calling “their property” isn’t, in fact, their property when your life is at risk—which would imply that they don’t have any right to defend it, or to claim you stole it if you take it, etc.; I don’t think that’s what you’re saying!

[hayekianxyz]

@RockyRaccoon

Looking for guidance on this seemingly difficult, uncomfortable conundrum…

RockyRaccoon, you seem like a nice enough guy (and it’s a great song too). I really don’t think you should do this to yourself.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@RockyRaccoon

Hi all,

Up to now, I’ve been a rights based anarcho-capitalist. However, while describing what a society free of government might look like, a fellow utilitarian libertarian asked me a question that’s been bothering me all night.

"Imagine that somehow you find yourself nearly dying of starvation.

I do so love emotive arguments.

Now then, choosing to steal does not mean people don’t have a right to their own property any more than murdering someone would mean that. It just means you’ve violated someone’s rights. Period.

[Laughing_Man]

@Daniel

Lam, here is a response to Feser’s critiques: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-34.pdf. What is your response to this?

Very good article Daniel, thanks for the share.

[E_R_Olovetto]

Here is this Feser guy in all his glory: http://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/socialjustice.html

For example, it is, from a natural law point of view, just a straightforward objective moral fact that the availability of sound moral and religious instruction is of greater value to every single individual than is the availability of Coca Cola and Britney Spears albums. It is also, from that point of view, just a straightforward objective moral fact that pornography and drugs, say, have no value whatsoever, whether or not anyone wants to pay for them. The reason is that there are at least a great many things whose value or lack thereof follows not from what people just happen to prefer, but rather from their being either conducive to or detrimental to human flourishing, where what counts as human flourishing is an objective matter, determined by human nature.

[nhaag]

@laminustacitus

The entire Rothbardian framework upon which rights based anarcho-capitalism is built is unsound; Edward Feser has shown that it is extremely flawed: here, here, and here. Both Mises’ utilitarianism, and Hayek’s whiggism (for lack of a better term) are far sounder foundations.

Well, I read the article the first link is pointing to and I have to say so far it does not prove anything to me, lest that Rothbard’s argumentation is flawed.

What I found was a, close to an ad hominem, introduction on how bad Rohbard is as a philosopher and how easy it will be to show his medicore positions to be false. Such “starters” for a “factual” argument always make me uncomfortable. And, frankly I did not find any convincing arguments that where coping with Rothbards understanding of what a right is, but points that almost all are founded on terms not defined by Feser -such as the term right.

An example of ad hominem is here:

“I want to make it clear at the outset that my low opinion of Rothbard as a philosopher is not based on the fact that I find his arguments ultimately unpersuasive, or even on the fact that I think many of them are just flat-out bad arguments …The reason he is a bad philosopher is that he seems incapable of producing even a minimally respectable philosophical argument, by which I mean an argument that doesn’t commit any obvious fallacies or fail to address certain obvious objections.” (bold by me)

This is just bad style, or shall I say arrogance? The rest of the article revolves a lot about strawmen being build up by using the term right in a fuzzy way and the term self ownership even fuzzier.

Bottomline another unconvincing basher. Given that this was meant to be an scientific rebutal of Rothbard’s framework, I have to say it failed, unless you define scientific as the current mainstream believe-system en vogue.

[Amanojack]

In anarchy, the market will be deciding the law; principles won’t necessarily have anything to do with it.

[liberty_student]

@AJ

In anarchy, the market will be deciding the law; principles won’t necessarily have anything to do with

Lifeboat scenarios aren’t a legal challenge. They are a challenge to principles.

[scineram]

Why don’t you just read on the second link, where he refutes the defence of Rothbard in the Libertarian Papers?

[Spideynw]

@RockyRaccoon

Would you uphold your morals and die of starvation rather than take only what is necessary to sustain life?

No. Everything is about risk/reward and morals. If I stole the food, would I be condemning the other person to death? Or just a little bit of inconvenience? If I would just be causing a little bit of inconvenience, hell ya I would steal the food and face the consequences, if caught. If it was about me or the other person dying, well in that situation we are probably both screwed anyways.

But really, let’s say you steal a doughnut from a grocery store. Do you really think they are going to harass you for stealing one lousy doughnut? They may decide to not let you come back, but that is probably about it, if even that.

[wilderness]

law is principle; whether the law/principle (same thing) is true or not true it is still a proposition.

[Amanojack]

@liberty student

@AJ

In anarchy, the market will be deciding the law; principles won’t necessarily have anything to do with

Lifeboat scenarios aren’t a legal challenge. They are a challenge to principles.

Then I would say, “To each his own principles.” I think that’s a fine statement, provided we are actually allowing for the fact that the law may disagree.

[laminustacitus]

@nhaag

Given that this was meant to be an scientific rebutal of Rothbard’s framework, I have to say it failed, unless you define scientific as the current mainstream believe-system en vogue.

It was a blog about “Rothbard as a Philosopher”, of course it is going to be an appraisal of Rothbard as a person so complaining about ad hominems in such a piece is a moot point. Nevertheless, Feser proves that the Rothbardian concept of self-ownership is thoroughly unsound, and all that Rothbardians can argue against his critique is that self-ownership is nothing but an axiom; however, if an axiom is unsound, any system built upon it will also be.

@E. R. Olovetto

Here is this Feser guy in all his glory: http://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/socialjustice.html

For example, it is, from a natural law point of view, just a straightforward objective moral fact that the availability of sound moral and religious instruction is of greater value to every single individual than is the availability of Coca Cola and Britney Spears albums. It is also, from that point of view, just a straightforward objective moral fact that pornography and drugs, say, have no value whatsoever, whether or not anyone wants to pay for them. The reason is that there are at least a great many things whose value or lack thereof follows not from what people just happen to prefer, but rather from their being either conducive to or detrimental to human flourishing, where what counts as human flourishing is an objective matter, determined by human nature.

Could you possibly put your quotations of Feser in quotes, or are you content with such a sloppy format? Furthermore, attack Feser as much as you want, but his attacks against Rothbard’s moral philosophy is a demolition of it.

RockyRacoon, I suggest that you read the section from Mises’ Theory, and History on the idea of justice that I quoted on the first page. It shows how justice is not a matter of principles, but rather how it is about the fact that the ultimate measure of justice is “conduciveness to the preservation of social cooperation.” There is no justice on a lifeboat because there is no social cooperation; in fact, it is only when there is a society that the one can speak about the existence of justice, and “just” practices.

[Conza]

@Spideynw

But really, let’s say you steal a doughnut from a grocery store. Do you really think they are going to harass you for stealing one lousy doughnut? They may decide to not let you come back, but that is probably about it, if even that.

More than likely that is true with the current system, since it is so costly to go to court / hire specialists (lawyers) etc. In a free market system the costs would plummet, as is what happens when there is no government imposed monopoly.

Granted, I don’t even think there would be a real need for lawyers (specialists) anymore, not to the extent that there is now anyway. All that retarded government legislation, 30,000 word documents gone. Though I guess there may be other market imposed regulations, i.e stockmarket owner sets the rules, accounting standards etc.

[Spideynw]

@Conza88

More than likely that is true with the current system, since it is so costly to go to court

It would not matter. I can get a doughnut for $.25. If one makes $10 an hour, that is only about 2 minutes worth of time. To spend an hour, or $10, to get compensation for $.25 worth of product is just not worth it! Not only that, but if you normally buy goods from them, and just steal $.25 worth of product every once in a while, it just is not going to matter to them. People eat grapes all the time, and you are not supposed to. But they let the customers do it, because otherwise, they would probably not sell as many grapes. Again, it is about risk/reward.

[nhaag]

@laminustacitus

It was a blog about “Rothbard as a Philosopher”, of course it is going to be an appraisal of Rothbard as a person so complaining about ad hominems in such a piece is a moot point. Nevertheless, Feser proves that the Rothbardian concept of self-ownership is thoroughly unsound, and all that Rothbardians can argue against his critique is that self-ownership is nothing but an axiom; however, if an axiom is unsound, any system built upon it will also be.

I read the rebutal and the answer to it as well, still I can’t see a proof. Reading through the blog comments I found an interesting remark though:

[August 25, 2009 11:25 AM ](http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-revisited.html?showComment=1251224732505#c4699098516317321628)[](http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=8954608646904080796&postID=4699098516317321628)

[](http://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224) [Edward Feser](http://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224) said...

“…Briefly, from a classical natural law POV, what rights fundamentaly are is safegaurds to our ability to realize the ends set for us by nature, the realization of which constitutes the good for us. Our ultimate end as rational animals, to which everything else is subordinate, is to know God, who alone can satisfy our desire as thinking creatures for an understanding of why things are as they are, and our desire as willing creatures for the good…”

And that points me to belive I wasn’t that wrong with argueing that different definitions about what rights are where used.

I do not think that rights in the libertarian sense are safeguards -set by whom?- to realize our ends set for us by nature. This is a theological definition of the term rights, that does not even remotely touch the libertarian “least common denominater” that rights are rules that are accepted by humans to prevent or minimize conflicts that arise when a scarce resource is requested by more than one human being.

Even if I tend to belive that the ultimate goal of human beings is to know God, it is in no way a proper basis for a general definition of what rights are.

But hey, I am no licensed philosopher so I might be totally wrong on that.