I decided to make a side thread from IP debate (on Political Theory) thread where one interesting topic arose…
So here is the situation and I would like to know what is the correct libertarian way to solve it:
Person A has a car.
Person B is a thief
Person C is some random guy who knows nothing about the other two.
So B steals car from A. Then B sells this car to C (who doesn’t see anything wrong, because he is not aware, that he is buying stolen car, bla bla bla). Now the interesting part. Suppose A sees C driving with his car.
Is it ok for A to take that car (use force/not use force) from the C?
It is not like he is “stealing back” from a thief (we all know it is OK and not unlibertarian to take what is yours from a thief), but he is now “stealing” from a person C, who thinks this car is now his own.
How to solve it? I am kinda on a fence, though, I would guess, that A has no right to use force against C, but he has right to “steal” his car back. Just because C payed some money to a thief it doesn’t make C a rightful owner of a car.
Is my reasoning ok? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Person A still, presumably, has title to the car. The sale between B and C would’ve necessarily been suspicious because of a lack of documentation.
I’d say Person A can use as much force as is necessary to dispossess Person C from his car, since it’s very difficult to see how Person C would not have guessed that something ‘fishy’ was going on in the first place with the sale of the car.
I wouldn’t advocate you breaking down the windows and hauling C out of the car, though.
What if the thief forged the documentation in such a way that it would have been extremely difficult for the potential buyer to have guessed that there was something ‘fishy’ about the transaction. It happens very often that people buy cars in good faith only to be stopped later by the police and told they are driving a stolen vehicle.
The fairest way to deal with the issue would be to reinstate the car to the rightful (original) owner and then seize property from the thief to compensate the buyer. If the thief doesn’t possess enough legitimate property to repay the buyer, he is indebted to him until he pays off the debt plus interest.
I think in this case it would always be better to try and reason with the buyer. For example, first off show him the actual title to the car and try to get third parties to vouch for his ownership of it (like who he bought the car from in the first place and get the police to vouch that he actually HAD a car stolen from him). If, and I think this is rather improbable, after every nonviolent attempt to get the buyer to return the car, I agree it would be legitimate to steal the car back (but not hurt the guy).
Well, obviously the best way to approach this is in a civilized manner.
Unless you come running at the guy with a sword or something, it’s unlikely he’s going to perceive you as hostile. So you approach him (C) politely, like you would any other conversation. You then bring up the topic. Obviously, he’s gonna be a little taken aback at first. However, if he’s reasonable, he will listen to your arguments and look at your evidence. If nothing else, if he is reasonable, he will agree to have things verified (as long as you handle things reasonably yourself).
There are two other scenarios if he acts unreasonably
He acts unreasonably out of distrust/disbelief. Obviously, having made an investment in the vehicle, he’s not going to be keen to the idea of having wasted money. This is a somewhat likely scenario. He rejects your claims not because of ill will or apathy, but out of defensiveness. The proper response here would be to subject him to the legal actions such as that of a PDA. If his sense catches up with him, he won’t risk subjecting himself to losses, and will instead help go after the thief (and hopefully recover his money).
He claims ownership of the car despite acknowledging your ownership and the obvious theft of the car. In this case, even though working through your PDA is still likely the safer and more reliable alternative, if it’s a case where he’s going to attempt to ‘get away’ with the car, you have no info on him, etc, you are perfectly right to use force to defend your property.
All I have to do is change the terminology, and the point still remains valid; “the descendants of the rightful owners of property in land now called 'Columbia.”
I would say that is somewhat correct. For instance, if the state seized private property that was properly homesteaded and then granted it to a corporation,then yes, I suppose it would be legitimate to try and take it back.
Of course, I don’t actually know any of the particulars of this case in Columbia.
Also, I personally wouldn’t bother to try taking it back. If the state seized it, then the state will defend it, and that means bloodshed.
How to solve it? I am kinda on a fence, though, I would guess, that A has no right to use force against C, but he has right to “steal” his car back. Just because C payed some money to a thief it doesn’t make C a rightful owner of a car.
Is my reasoning ok? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I think you have it slightly backwards. C has no rights to the car whatsoever. Ideally, A would simply drive away, and no harm, other than the harm inflicted by B, would come to C. If, however, C uses force to prevent A from doing so, C becomes the agressor. A is certainly justified in the use of defensive force.
Thanks for the answer, JackCuyler. Still not sure if I am convinced. Will think about it, because it is quite new mind problem to me which appeared only today.
Thanks for the answer, JackCuyler. Still not sure if I am convinced. Will think about it, because it is quite new mind problem to me which appeared only today.
A bit more to think about. Change it up a bit:
A’s car is sitting in a Walmart parking lot and has not been stolen. It’s right where he left it. When A is finished shopping and attempts to put his purchases in the car and drive away, C uses force in an attempt to prevent A from doing so. Is A justified in using force to defend himself, get in the car safely and get the heck out of there? If so, how is this any different than our previous example? Does the payment to the thief B alter the property rights of A and C? If so, how?
I was previously thinking this way: Only B is to blame for what he has done to A, so A is only entitled to recieving damages from B, not from C, who is a third party and is entitled to “his property” (he payed money).. but I now see, that this property wasn’t legitimate B’s property in a first place, so you have to be correct.
Your guess is not just on a fence, but is incoherent. “Use force” and “steal back” are the same thing. A either has the right or he doesn’t. According to Rothbard (and I agree), he certainly DOES have this right:
[quote=“Rothbard: [Justice and Property Rights: The Failure of Egalitarianism]
(http://mises.org/daily/4047)”]Suppose, for example, that Smith steals a car from Jones and sells it to Robinson. When the car is apprehended, then Robinson, though he purchased it in good faith from Smith, has no title better than Smith’s which was nil and, therefore, he must yield up the car to Jones without compensation. (He has been defrauded by Smith and must try to extract compensation out of Smith, not out of the victim Jones.)
[/quote]
If C does not yield the car to A, then from A’s point of view, B and C have, together, stolen his car from him. As soon as he realises it is a stolen car, C must relinquish it, and then persue damages from B for the crime of fraud. B is indebted to both A and C.