GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE BUS!!![:P]
First of all, you are changing the question. We are just talking about stealing, not attacking. Second of all, I am not saying it is perfectly legal, if that is what you are asking. I am saying it is a very petty crime, to steal some food. To attack someone is not so petty.
I don’t think he does. Also:
"Let us pursue more deeply our argument that mere promises or expectations should not be enforceable. The basic reason is that the only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of man, alienable by man. All physical property owned by a person is alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily.
Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so." - Property rights and theory of contracts
"The individual man, in introspecting the fact of his own consciousness, also discovers the primordial natural fact of his freedom: his freedom to choose, his freedom to use or not use his reason about any given subject. In short, the natural fact of his “free will.” He also discovers the natural fact of his mind’s command over his body and its actions: that is, of his natural ownership over his self.
Crusoe, then, owns his body; his mind is free to adopt whatever ends it wishes, and to exercise his reason in order to discover what ends he should choose, and to learn the recipes for employing the means at hand to attain them." - Ethics of Liberty
I think its pretty clear the distinction. You can sell off, or lose parts of your body. Yet you still control that which is attached, via your free will. No?
No. I don’t like the path you started down either. Who decides what is petty?
Mises, from his utilitistic perspective, constantly wrote that economics can comment only about the objective nexus between means and ends and therefore cannot comment about subjective preferences which concerns which end one desires to pursue.
An arbitrator and the victim of the crime. But I think it is pretty well accepted that stealing some food is a petty crime. I don’t know about you, but if someone stole my lunch out of the refrigerator, I would not spend a lot of time and money trying to track down the culprit. And even if I did find out who it was, I would not be very interested in making a big deal out of it.
Right, so you as the thief, have no idea if the crime you positively commit, is going to be petty or not.
Not if it was a special meal for my child with special nutritional requirements. Not if it was bought with the last of my money, and so on and so forth.
Fine, but you the thief, don’t decide if it is petty. Your conception of acceptable or not is irrelevant.
Two things.
-
Free food anytime at Spidey’s house! All you can eat!
-
This is what Byzantine talks about, when he talks about libertarians rationalizing the avoidance of responsibility. The answer to the lifeboat, is that even if you know the costs, you do not violate property, because if you are willing to pay the costs to violate property, then property rights turns into who has the most wealth, not making voluntary exchanges. The one check on power in a free society, is that it can only be used voluntarily, not coercively. People here are making an argument that coercion is acceptable if you will pay restitution. Apply a reductio, and all sorts of disgusting outcomes become “legitimate”.
Umm…you left out the punishment part. That’s kind of crucial.
No one has said it’s OK to eat.
Should you choose to do eat, punishment must accompany this choice. The two are inseparable. You may choose to eat and be punished, or choose to not eat, and not be punished.
Correct, in terms of the victim. I could steal some food from someone, and he or she might flip out and kill me. I would guess most people would find that to be excessive retribution. That is the risk the thief takes.
Wrong in terms of the arbitrator. Both the victim and the criminal get to decide on an arbitrator, if one is needed. And I would guess that in a free society, most arbitrators would find stealing some food to be a petty crime. As such, most people would know that an arbitrator would rule stealing some food would be a petty crime.
True. But your example seems pretty far-fetched.
Actually, yes, in a free society, the thief does have input as to whether or not it is petty. Both the victim and the criminal get to choose the arbitrator, if they decide an arbitrator is needed to resolve the dispute.
What is your point?
I am not making that argument. I am making the argument that in a free society, the only reality is dispute resolution. I am definitely not making any kind of argument that coercion is just. However, I do understand there are different levels of coercion, and that the greater the level, the greater the punishment/restitution will be meted out.
i agree.
and i never understood why a person can’t figure out if they do eat and their punishment is to work enough time to pay back the food they ate and any other time damages related to cost that may have occurred is basically paying back the person they stole from. it was wrong to begin with and therefore working to pay it back is simply paying back what is justly due.
I don’t see what’s so farfetched about that. I know plenty of people who live paycheck to paycheck in my area and every sandwich they buy- they REALLY need to eat it.
If you have to steal food, you aren’t going to be able to afford an arbiter, and no PDA is going to have you as a client, if you create violations for them to defend you over.
It’s not. And you as a thief, are going to have less than perfect knowledge about the circumstances of the theft. That is why if some asshole decided to steal small amount of food from me, I would probably leave some poisoned food lying around, and cure the problem that way. Cheaper than going to court, and I am completely within my property rights to poison my own food.
Sure you do. All the time.
Nonsense. Right and wrong don’t change if there are no witnesses. You are constantly making arguments for violations, as long as they can go unpunished. It’s not libertarian in spirit, and it is no different than the state violating your rights under their laws.
You’re the sort that gives libertarians a bad name, because you make excuses for, and look for loopholes to, shirk responsibility for your own actions.
What, or else they will die if they miss one meal? Come on now. It is not that bad, yet.
If it’s not that bad, then why did the person have to steal in the first place?
yes. instead of being constructive, it is destructive. here’s a name for 'em: loopholers
it’s not like any one of us are kenny and can come back in another episode next week.[:P]
Have you heard of lawyers doing pro-bono work?
I thought we were talking about stealing food once, not continually.
And I never said it did.
No I am not. I am just saying, if I harm another, and I do not get caught, I am not going to be punished. That is it. I am also saying if I harm another, and the other person decides to not seek justice or restitution, then I am not going to get punished. Please do not read more into what I am saying, than what I am saying.
I think you are just misreading what I am saying. Right and wrong are determined by the victim and the coercer. Each case is unique. Or do you think killing someone is always wrong?
I never said he or she had to steal.
Quit making straw men.
Oh that’s rich. So first you steal, then you plan to defend yourself with charity.
Does it change if you do it more than once?
I think aggression against person and property are always wrong. Libertarians don’t adhere to the “Non-Killing Principle”. They follow the Non-Aggression Principle. You know this.
No, I think I am reading what you are saying. And exposing how unlibertarian it is.