This is a rather extreme example of “theft” I’ve encountered in a discussion about whether a property owner is responsible for another’s use of their property.
Let’s say you have a light in your driveway that is on a motion detector. Let’s also say that anyone walking by on the street sets the light off. Now, if I’m walking down the street, and your light comes on, and I use it to check my watch, am I stealing?
Now let’s say I know your light comes on if I wave my hand in the street. What if I sit there for hours waving my hand and using your light to read a book? I am racking up your electric bill, but am I stealing?
My gut feeling is that this is technically stealing in both cases, but it’s such an extreme example that it’s hard justifying the use of that word (at least in the watch example). A further complication seems to be that the person in this example is making use of the property owner’s resources without trespassing on the property owner’s land.
The overall point of discussion basically boils down to “Is a property owner responsible for securing their property (say a wi-fi network, a gun, vehicle, etc) to prevent abuse by those without permission?” My position is that they are not liable or responsible, and they are a victim of either trespass or theft in these cases. Am I wrong?
I’d say in this case, it’s not theft because the owner has set it up to project off their property, and to be activated by a person not infringing upon their peoperty in any way. To take your mentioning of a car, to call your example stealing would be like calling it car theft if the motion sensor, instead of activating a light, activated the persons car which then proceded to drive off.
Anyway, it’s a bit of a non-issue, because I highly doubt anyone is going to front a private court complaining about their neighbour stealing the light from their driveway light.
That’s not stealing. You set up the light that way. Change the settings on the light or move it somewhere else if you find that there are unintended consequences to how you set up the light on your property. If the person on the street had somehow prevented you from changing the setting on your own light, that would be aggression.
Okay, so let’s look at another type of example and identify the difference.
If the property owner has a wi-fi network and does not secure it, is it theft (or trespassing) for someone without permission to make use of the property (wi-fi)?
What if their use has no measurable impact on the owner? (As the watch-checking example.)
What if the use (or abuse) does impact the property owner by hurting the owner’s network performance, or by running up their bill for bandwidth over-use charges?
What is the difference (if any) between the wi-fi example vs. the light example?
The reason being, you’re in the street. Not on his property. (Although yes, tragedy of the commons, the street should be public and then you or the owner could try persuade that property owner to set down some rules, to resolve the dilemma) Alternatively, the light owner could adjust the motion detector so it only goes off when someone comes onto his property, there by solving the issue.
You venture onto his land without permission, boom - trespassing.
The only reason it is a complication is you are trying to make it fit your preconceived notions of what you think it should be, i.e theft. When it’s not.
I don’t believe wi-fi, gun or a vehicle is analogous. They’re not positive externalities.
They are offering it to the public then, and it’s not theft. The owner doesn’t want to do that? Then he needs to secure it. Hell, just making one shitty basic password counts as securing.
“Positive externalities”? Crap I had to look that one up. Maybe that’s the difference I’m looking for.
So then, wouldn’t wi-fi be a positive externality if it wasn’t secured (neighbors benefit as well as the owner), but not so if “some attempt” was made to secure it?
And if the wi-fi network is not secured, but someone without permission takes advantage of it running up the bandwidth usage (to the point that the owner is charged extra for going over a limit), slowing the network down, is this the owner’s fault? So the owner is to blame here?
I keep going back to wi-fi because that was the original topic of conversation.
Well if he is doing it from his home then I do not see a problem. It is not his fault your wi-fi is invading his house. It would be like a radio station complaining over people receiving and listening to their broadcasting.
Doing it from public property is IMO kind of low though.
This may be helpful. And the Rothbard source mentioned within, “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics.”
Well the neighbors may not consider it a benefit. They may not have a computer and maybe they think that it is negative i.e the microwaves that are being transmitted to their home and bodies. Radiation. lol. They may consider it as an act of physical aggression. They would have to prove they are being negatively affected etc. Solutions could be sort, i.e the owner of the wifi reduces it’s range, or the neighbours install lead walls etc. Whatever.
Say you buy a beautiful object, a gold statue. People who look at it, enjoy it’s beauty. Most individuals consider it a positive externality. They were not part of the transaction, but they get a benefit from it.
Then, as it is your property - you choose to cover it up. (Secure it) No more positive externalities.
Did someone steal your wifi? lol. I’m not fully versed, or knowledgeable about wi-fi to understand the interactions that take place at more than a basic level. Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware… i.e beaware that the device you just installed is sending and recieving signals, wireless, to a large area - the consumption is linked to your account, downloads cost you money, or may slow down your service.
Anyone stupid enough to understand that and not put on a password or secure it.. yes, it is the owners fault and yes, they are to blame.
So it appears my initial instinct was wrong. With the specific wi-fi example, these networks can also interfere with one another so I can see how it may not always be a positive externality (depending on who you ask).
I’m trying to square this up with a general principle useful for evaluating specific cases like this.