Relationship between crime and ethics

[lovett]

True. I have a specific basis for my line in the sand. Souron's seems arbitrary, but I'd best not assume that it is.

There is only one type of legal right that should exist, negative liberties. Freedom from restraint. Any positive freedom takes away someone else's negative freedom. So it shouldn't exist.

If there is, for instance, a "Right not to starve" there must, therefore, be a right to food. But what if you don't own any? What if other people own the food? To say they have a right to coercively take it is to deny property rights entirely. To only sometimes defend property rights without a clear basis for when you do and when you don't is arbitrary.

Your specific basis: To grant any legal rights but negative liberties is to deny property rights entirely.

This is patently false. Our own society's grant legal rights in excess of negative liberties, but they don't deny property rights entirely. Indeed, it is quite easy to see how we could bifurcate property rights. There are many ways to do this. For instance, Property rights, consist in control and income rights. Control rights are the rights to determine how one's property is used and income rights are the rights to garner income from that use; to increase one's property from that use. One can have one without the other. Alternatively, and of obvious relevance to your example, we can just say that property rights aren't unlimited. One has full property rights up until the point one's property rights cause someone to starve. And then one loses -in a temporary and restricted way- said rights.

The are many, many more ways to restrict property rights with legal rights in excess of those to negative liberty that do not entail the complete denial of property rights.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If your property rights are contingent on someone not starving, you have NO property rights because people are still starving. But this is irrelevant because the reality is if people can tell you what you can and can't do with your property, you don't really own it at all.

 

[Borachio]

I think that's very likely true. I don't think anyone does really own anything.

What does it mean to own something?

Say you "own" some big building in the middle of a city. This generally means that you have in your possession (sic) some papers saying that you do. And other people agree that these papers are valid.

What does this amount to in the end?

 

[Souron]

I don't think this is really true. GW is saying that criminal law should be aimed at stopping aggression. This is an enforcement of a particular ethical obligation; don't agress. He does not think this is the only ethical obligation. He also thinks that one ought to help those in need and so on and so forth. So he thinks that criminal law should be about enforcing some ethical obligations but not all of them.

You think that criminal law is about enforcing stringent ethical obligations. But you also think lax ethical obligations exist. You don't think criminal law is about enforcing these obligations. So you think that criminal law is about enforcing some ethical obligations, but not all of them.

So your difference resides only in what particular obligations criminal law should enforce, not in the relation between law and ethics as such.

Yeah, that much is true.

True. I have a specific basis for my line in the sand. Souron's seems arbitrary, but I'd best not assume that it is.

It's not arbitrary, but it is difficult to pin down. Still, with the lifeguard example, we agree on principles. So however we differ on how we justify our conclusion, we seem to create the same lines in the sand in many places

There is only one type of legal right that should exist, negative liberties. Freedom from restraint. Any positive freedom takes away someone else's negative freedom. So it shouldn't exist.

If there is, for instance, a "Right not to starve" there must, therefore, be a right to food. But what if you don't own any? What if other people own the food? To say they have a right to coercively take it is to deny property rights entirely. To only sometimes defend property rights without a clear basis for when you do and when you don't is arbitrary.

That's not true, to say two human rights are in conflict, and one dominates another in a narrow context does not imply that the contextually lesser right does not exist.

With regard to the right to food, I think it is reasonable, if not imperative, for a nation to put a high priority on ensuring no one starves within it's borders. That's fulfilling a basic need. That does not necessarily mean that the government should provide food directly, only that it should take responsibility and action when there are people without access to food. The right to property is important too, but in my view it is very much inferior because it does not directly touch a basic human need. That does not mean however that it's always ok to steel food. I does mean that if people in society are starving, then society should change so that does not happen. And the state is a reasonable mechanism of such change.

 

[GhostWriter16]

My argument is that one human right cannot "Dominate" another, or otherwise rights do not really exist at all. Rights are always wrong to take away, unless naturally lost (For instance, if you murder, you lose the right to your own life, if you steal, to some of your money, equal to that which you stole, exc.)

Say you and I are the only human beings in existance, and I own all the food. Either I do not have an ownership right to that food (And so my witholding it from you is criminal) or I do have an ownership right to that food, in which case for you to steal it from me is theft.

I don't disagree with you that "Society should change so that people don't starve" but I think it is immoral to use force to extract food from its owners to give to other people. As I said, I'm not a utilitarian and so I consider a right thing being attained by wrongful means to still be wrong.

 

[Souron]

My argument is that one human right cannot "Dominate" another, or otherwise rights do not really exist at all. Rights are always wrong to take away, unless naturally lost (For instance, if you murder, you lose the right to your own life, if you steal, to some of your money, equal to that which you stole, exc.)

Rights can be in conflict. Shouting "Fire" in a theater is exercising free speech, but it endangers other's right to life.

I also want to reiterate my disagree that a thief owes exactly the amount he stole. That would amount to saying it's ok to steal as long as you pay it back later. That a consensual loan has the same obligations as theft.

Say you and I are the only human beings in existance, and I own all the food. Either I do not have an ownership right to that food (And so my witholding it from you is criminal) or I do have an ownership right to that food, in which case for you to steal it from me is theft.

You should not feel insecure and worry that your property may be taken from you. Ergo you have a right to security in your property in sufficient degree to meet that need. Also, you have some right to the benifit of your labor in making the food, if applicable. But people should not starve either. Ideally in a situation like this we would come to a compromise that does not make you feel insecure, and you are compensated for your work, but I don't starve. If such a compromise is not reached however, I would go steal your food. It's not wholly out of selfishness either; I consider the need for food to be more imperative than the need for security in one's belongings.

If the two of us were to codify a set of laws for ourselves, I would want those laws to reflect the values of the situation above, and not place your need for security in your belongings above my need for food. That's ethical.

I don't disagree with you that "Society should change so that people don't starve" but I think it is immoral to use force to extract food from its owners to give to other people. As I said, I'm not a utilitarian and so I consider a right thing being attained by wrongful means to still be wrong.

Force is a last resort of course, but it is reasonable for a group to impose rules on its members, and if those rules are violated to have whatever penalties the group deems reasonable. For a nation, voluntary participation in the group is tempered by the impracticality of leaving the group, but it nonetheless maintains some authority to use force on its members.

 

[lovett]

If your property rights are contingent on someone not starving, you have NO property rights because people are still starving. But this is irrelevant because the reality is if people can tell you what you can and can't do with your property, you don't really own it at all.

What rubbish.

Fine, restrict the set of starving people who matter to those who are within one's polity who fit certain conditions (such as; are not culpable for their current situation). Or, say that one's property right's are restricted if and only if a certain percentage of those within one's polity are starving. Neither case involves a denial of property rights. Rather, they involve a limitation of those rights. I simply can't believe that you couldn't have thought of these possibilities yourself. They're obvious.

The upshot of that is -equally obviously- that someone (e.g. some government) can restrict how one uses something one owns without denying that one 'really owns it at all'. We do this all the time. Your conception of property right is quite frankly absurd. It is absurd because you have no rationale for it whatsoever. You think property rights are entirely unlimited (i.e. limited only by other property rights). You think that any abrogation of these unlimited property rights means the abolition of the idea of property rights in its entirety. In your words, if 'people can [restrict what you can do] with your property you don't really have property rights at all'.

This is, and I am being blunt, ridiculous. In our current society's we don't have no property rights at all, but we obviously limit property rights in a way you think heinous. Limited property rights evidently don't entail the complete lack of property rights you think they do. We evidently can limit property rights without destroying them.

Perhaps you will respond to this with the claim that we do not actually have property rights in our current societies. That only what you identify as property rights count as such rights. In that case, I strongly advise you to give us at least some reason to take your characterization seriously; at least some grounding for the absolute and unlimited property rights you think are owed to us.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What rubbish.

From your mouth almost quote-worthy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If the state can take what you own on a whim and not be prosecuted for theft, you don't really own anything.

For the state to take money from affluent person A to give to starving person B sounds good, but it ultimately makes the state, not person A or person B, the owner.

C'mon, theft is wrong. This is like basic stuff. But most people disagree with it, even while nobody would ever admit to said disagreement.

 

[Souron]

If the state can take what you own on a whim and not be prosecuted for theft, you don't really own anything.

For the state to take money from affluent person A to give to starving person B sounds good, but it ultimately makes the state, not person A or person B, the owner.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with a state like that. If it resolves this moral dilemma, yeah give the state ownership of all food so that it can stop world hunger. Totally worth it! Assuming it works, of course.

C'mon, theft is wrong. This is like basic stuff. But most people disagree with it, even while nobody would ever admit to said disagreement.

Theft is wrong because it makes people insecure in there belongings and takes away what they work for. But denying people food is wrong because people need food. That's more basic. So why should property rights trump the right to food? And returning to the relationship of ethics and crime, why should property rights be an enumerated right, but not food?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Rights can be in conflict. Shouting "Fire" in a theater is exercising free speech, but it endangers other's right to life.

I usually don't challenge this point when it gets brought up because the concept (That freedom of speech is not a 100% license, although my personal restrictions would be even more lax than the US status quo, let alone the Canadian/Western European laws) but theoretically this is because the theater is owned and the owner of that theater has a vested interest in not having people die on his property. And as its his property, he has a right to control what is said there. Now, some restrictions (Like the ability to shout "Fire!") would be implicit and assumed, unless the owner specifically said "You can shout fire in this theater" while other restrictions, such as restrictions on saying "Obama sucks!" would not have any reasons to be assumed and so would have to be specifically communicated. But in theory, if I wanted to allow people to shout fire in my theater, I should be allowed to, provided I post signage warning people that this is allowed (This would be incredibly stupid, and would never happen, but is relevant to my point, that the reason "Fire in a crowded theater!" should be disallowed is not because the government should be allowed to restrict your speech, but because the property owner did.

I also want to reiterate my disagree that a thief owes exactly the amount he stole. That would amount to saying it's ok to steal as long as you pay it back later. That a consensual loan has the same obligations as theft.

Exactly the amount stolen, of his own money. So if I stole a dollar, I'd have to give back the original dollar, plus an additional dollar of my own. Of course, the guilty party should also pay court costs.

You should not feel insecure and worry that your property may be taken from you. Ergo you have a right to security in your property in sufficient degree to meet that need. Also, you have some right to the benifit of your labor in making the food, if applicable. But people should not starve either. Ideally in a situation like this we would come to a compromise that does not make you feel insecure, and you are compensated for your work, but I don't starve. If such a compromise is not reached however, I would go steal your food. It's not wholly out of selfishness either; I consider the need for food to be more imperative than the need for security in one's belongings.

This is an incredibly simplified scenario, but I don't really blame you for stealing food here. I probably would too. But I'd still be a crook for doing so.

If the two of us were to codify a set of laws for ourselves, I would want those laws to reflect the values of the situation above, and not place your need for security in your belongings above my need for food. That's ethical.

No it isn't, since it essentially codifies theft.

Force is a last resort of course, but it is reasonable for a group to impose rules on its members, and if those rules are violated to have whatever penalties the group deems reasonable. For a nation, voluntary participation in the group is tempered by the impracticality of leaving the group, but it nonetheless maintains some authority to use force on its members.

Only when they use force first, IMO. And to ensure that it an exist in order to stop aggression, yes. But not to forcefully transfer property for its own sake.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with a state like that. If it resolves this moral dilemma, yeah give the state ownership of all food so that it can stop world hunger. Totally worth it! Assuming it works, of course.

Extremely unethical and it would lead to even more starvation.

Theft is wrong because it makes people insecure in there belongings and takes away what they work for. But denying people food is wrong because people need food. That's more basic. So why should property rights trump the right to food? And returning to the relationship of ethics and crime, why should property rights be an enumerated right, but not food?

This is admittedly more complex when it comes to land, but when it comes to something that is produced (Whether food, houses, exc.) its quite simple. I created it. Ergo, its mine. I have no legal obligation to share with you. If I voluntarily traded something for it, its still mine since the person who created it owned it, and traded it.

 

[Truronian]

If the state can take what you own on a whim and not be prosecuted for theft, you don't really own anything.

For the state to take money from affluent person A to give to starving person B sounds good, but it ultimately makes the state, not person A or person B, the owner.

C'mon, theft is wrong. This is like basic stuff. But most people disagree with it, even while nobody would ever admit to said disagreement.

What exactly do you mean by the state in this context? What does it mean for the state to own something?

 

[Souron]

I usually don't challenge this point when it gets brought up because the concept (That freedom of speech is not a 100% license, although my personal restrictions would be even more lax than the US status quo, let alone the Canadian/Western European laws) but theoretically this is because the theater is owned and the owner of that theater has a vested interest in not having people die on his property. And as its his property, he has a right to control what is said there. Now, some restrictions (Like the ability to shout "Fire!") would be implicit and assumed, unless the owner specifically said "You can shout fire in this theater" while other restrictions, such as restrictions on saying "Obama sucks!" would not have any reasons to be assumed and so would have to be specifically communicated. But in theory, if I wanted to allow people to shout fire in my theater, I should be allowed to, provided I post signage warning people that this is allowed (This would be incredibly stupid, and would never happen, but is relevant to my point, that the reason "Fire in a crowded theater!" should be disallowed is not because the government should be allowed to restrict your speech, but because the property owner did.

Interesting. I'll try to find a better example of where there can be a very clear conflict.

Exactly the amount stolen, of his own money. So if I stole a dollar, I'd have to give back the original dollar, plus an additional dollar of my own. Of course, the guilty party should also pay court costs.

So it's 100% interest due when the trial is over. But this approach still makes theft a transaction, as if it's ok to steal. Now that's an interesting idea, but is that really what you mean to suggest?

This is an incredibly simplified scenario, but I don't really blame you for stealing food here. I probably would too. But I'd still be a crook for doing so.

No it isn't, since it essentially codifies theft.

I argue that it's ethical to steal food in this case, though compensation should still be provided. The law should allow for that, or provide an alternate system for resolving the problem.

Only when they use force first, IMO. And to ensure that it an exist in order to stop aggression, yes.

That's impractical.

Extremely unethical and it would lead to even more starvation.

Why is it unethical?

This is admittedly more complex when it comes to land, but when it comes to something that is produced (Whether food, houses, exc.) its quite simple. I created it. Ergo, its mine. I have no legal obligation to share with you. If I voluntarily traded something for it, its still mine since the person who created it owned it, and traded it.

I agree that you have some right to the product of your labor, but disagree that that right trumps society's imperative to feed it's citizens.

 

[lovett]

If the state can take what you own on a whim and not be prosecuted for theft, you don't really own anything.

For the state to take money from affluent person A to give to starving person B sounds good, but it ultimately makes the state, not person A or person B, the owner.

I am not suggesting the state be able to 'take what you own on a whim'. I am suggesting the state be able to take what you own under certain conditions. One of these conditions could be 'If people are starving the state can take food from those with plenty and redistribute it to those with little'. This is how the state operates now. And that does not 'entirely destroy' property rights.

You have repeatedly asserted it must destroy such rights, despite that being patently false. And it is patently false in that we can give millions of actual examples of it not being true. Either do something, anything to substantiate this assertion or admit that it isn't the case that any limitation of property rights destroys such rights.

 

[Flying Pig]

For the state to take money from affluent person A to give to starving person B sounds good, but it ultimately makes the state, not person A or person B, the owner.

No it doesn't. In the same way, the bank doesn't own my money, even though it lends some of it out to people on a daily basis.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Interesting. I'll try to find a better example of where there can be a very clear conflict.

It wasn't a bad example, it just doesn't fit my radical libertarianism Although its worth mentioning that SCOTUS invented "Fire in a crowded theater" to defend the incarceration of people who criticized World War I, and I don't know about you, but I think that both arresting people for criticizing World War I, and World War I itself, were unjust.

So it's 100% interest due when the trial is over. But this approach still makes theft a transaction, as if it's ok to steal. Now that's an interesting idea, but is that really what you mean to suggest?

Its not OK, I'm just arguing for the proper punishment for a person who does steal. Its kind of like "Eye for an eye" thinking, although I don't always think eye for an eye is the best idea (Sometimes its just flat out cruel, or otherwise useless.) In this case, however, I think its fairly simple. If I steal 100 dollars from you, I should be required to allow you to take 100 dollars from me, in addition to you getting back what you obviously owned in the first place.

Imagine if instead, the punishment for stealing is a year in prison, that just implies that its OK to steal if you are willing to "Pay interest" by going to prison. There's really no difference in the line of thinking. The only difference is that my benefit is primarily focused on benefiting the victim, while "Tough on crime" people mainly want to punish the perpetrator*, and liberals mainly want to rehabilitate the victim.


*I accept prison for violent crimes, but this out of desire for the public safety, not specifically to punish. I tend to oppose excessively providing luxuries in prison because taxpayers should not have to pay for them, not because of the punishment factor involved (So if prisoners paid for things like cable TVs, exc. themselves I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but we shouldn't have to pay for it). Even while a prisoner is being imprisoned for a violent crime for this reason, he should still have to work to compensate the victim.
I argue that it's ethical to steal food in this case, though compensation should still be provided. The law should allow for that, or provide an alternate system for resolving the problem.

That's impractical.

Why is it unethical?


I agree that you have some right to the product of your labor, but disagree that that right trumps society's imperative to feed it's citizens.[/QUOTE]

I am not suggesting the state be able to 'take what you own on a whim'. I am suggesting the state be able to take what you own under certain conditions. One of these conditions could be 'If people are starving the state can take food from those with plenty and redistribute it to those with little'. This is how the state operates now. And that does not 'entirely destroy' property rights.

You have repeatedly asserted it must destroy such rights, despite that being patently false. And it is patently false in that we can give millions of actual examples of it not being true. Either do something, anything to substantiate this assertion or admit that it isn't the case that any limitation of property rights destroys such rights.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned this entire line of reasoning is just justifying a system of institutional theft.

No it doesn't. In the same way, the bank doesn't own my money, even though it lends some of it out to people on a daily basis.

Which you volunteer to when you give the money out to the bank. The government isn't voluntary.

 

[lovett]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned this entire line of reasoning is just justifying a system of institutional theft.

I don't think you understand me. I know what you think Ghostwriter. I am asking you to justify this position. Re-asserting it, as you have so far done three times in this thread, is not the same as justification.

Let me be explicit. I am asking you to justify the proposition:

"...the reality is if people can tell you what you can and can't do with your property, you don't really own it at all".

You have so far singularly failed to do so.

 

[Souron]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned this entire line of reasoning is just justifying a system of institutional theft.

You have a moral imperative to ensure nobody in your society starves. Why do property rights trump that?

Which you volunteer to when you give the money out to the bank. The government isn't voluntary.

I view the government as "somewhat" voluntary. So it has some of the powers of an opt-in institution, but not all of them.

 

[Flying Pig]

Which you volunteer to when you give the money out to the bank. The government isn't voluntary.

On the contrary; you have every right to leave the country. There are even quite a few areas recognised as free in perpetuity from the claims of governments.

You have a moral imperative to ensure nobody in your society starves. Why do property rights trump that?

Oh, that's dangerous. Government must fundamentally be individualistic - that is, it hinges on the belief that the good of the many is not carte blanche to infringe upon the rights of the few. Governments have a moral imperative to ensure that nobody in their society starves as long as this is compatible with recognising the fundamental rights of everyone in their society. To use an extreme example, the government would not be justified in requisitioning my dog and taking it down the local homeless shelter to make Tesco Value burgers for the hungry, except possibly in a time of extreme mass starvation.

 

[Souron]

Oh, that's dangerous. Government must fundamentally be individualistic - that is, it hinges on the belief that the good of the many is not carte blanche to infringe upon the rights of the few. Governments have a moral imperative to ensure that nobody in their society starves as long as this is compatible with recognising the fundamental rights of everyone in their society. To use an extreme example, the government would not be justified in requisitioning my dog and taking it down the local homeless shelter to make Tesco Value burgers for the hungry, except possibly in a time of extreme mass starvation.

I agree with these principles, but GhostWriter16 is arguing that property rights always trump the right to food. Even in cases of mass starvation.

It would be unethical for the government to round up cats and dogs when it could be buying canned tuna, but it is within the just authority of the government to use eminent domain to combat hunger if necessary.