This seems to be what Murray Rothbard believes:
http://mises.org/daily/2569
If it's true, wouldn't this imply that it's wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, all other options having been exhausted (to use the cliched question)? That if you got lost on a hunting trip in Alaska and happened upon someone's empty summer cabin, that the ethical thing to do would be to freeze to death outside of it, not having permission to enter? That it would be wrong to temporarily hijack a car someone left their keys in to bring a dying accident victim to a hospital?
If so, how many real people could reasonably be expected to act like that, and if not, how is theft ever justified if property rights are the basis of all other rights?
it's never justified. If you stole from someone, even in extreme situation, the other person has all rights to demand retribution etc. Of course, for you it is better to make a crime (steal) in order to survive. It's simply your preferance. But to this other guy you simply are a thief. That's how reality works, there are no justification for a crime, but there are people with empathy and people, who can forgive and let you take their stuff if you really are in extreme situation. I hope that makes sense.
P.S. I would say, that only the victim of a crime can "justify" it in a sense I mentioned above, if he is empathetic and can forgive you. If he forgives you, that's cool. Same would be with rape victims etc.
So I would call it "subjective justification".
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
"If so, wouldn't this imply that it's wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, all other options having been exhausted (to use the cliched question)? That if you got lost on a hunting trip in Alaska and happened upon someone's empty summer cabin, that the ethical thing to do would be to freeze to death outside of it, not having permission to enter? That it would be wrong to temporarily hijack a car someone left their keys in to bring a dying accident victim to a hospital?"
Keep a couple of things in mind:
1. It is up to the victim to "press charges".
2. In the last scenario, while the victim could press charges, I think others would deplore it. In the second to last scenario, it is a maybe.
3. That it is wrong to use extreme scenarios to critique a moral/ethical philosophy. At best, you can critique its validity when applied to those scenarios.
"how is theft ever justified if property rights are the basis of all other rights?"
If you observe someone taking a watch from someone else, it may or may not be justified, depending on who is the rightful owner.
Schools are labour camps.
I told no such thing.
If you ask what I would do, of course, I value my life more than someone else's property, so I would commit a crime in that situation (probably). I mean, I would break in the cabin. Property rights are just a concepts, useful in everyday life situations, but those rights can not stop you from breaking them etc. I mean, they are not absolute or universal, like "gravity" law etc. They are simply an arbitrary line, drawn by society. Take humans away, and property rights do no exist. Morality do not exist either without humans. So yeah, I don't think it's an objective imperative, just an agreement between individuals. You can call it "moral imperative", but that is also just a conceptual thing, which without humans do not exist.
And if the victim of my crime demanded money for breaking in into his property etc, I would surely pay it afterwards.
That's my views on this controversial issue. I am sure, many would disagree with me, but maybe I just worded my answer badly.
eliotn: 1. It is up to the victim to "press charges".
I certainly agree with #3... With #1/2 we can take notice that the social action on the part of a judge or police officer is part of the equation in most cases as well. I was just writing up an example I have used before about how there is this sort of via negativa when we go beyond legal theory toward law in practice. What would be the maximum punishment appropriate if someone walks across the corner of your lawn (and doesn't substantially damage the grass or anything) while fleeing a mudslide? Well, I contend that this is technically a punishable action but only a foolish judge would hear such a case, since we expect him to then be viewed as cruel and just out to collect fees for his service, rather than what we would typically call "making the world a better place". It would be, generally speaking, not in his economic best interest.
This cabin thing is a very old and often repeated hypothetical. I'm curious if there are any similar cases under some state's case history. It seems reasonable that the person who circumstances force to break into the cabin in order to survive could be compelled to repair the broken window or whatever. What actually happens in state-land? I'm guessing the all-wise and benevolent government doesn't pay the bill, and if they do we all know they do so with stolen funds.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
OP, nice... Lifeboat Situation - MNR
"For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a "political" ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such "political ethical" questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for "Smith" - the fellow excluded by the owner from the plank or the lifeboat - to force someone else out of the lifeboat, or whether he should die heroically instead, is not our concern, and not the proper concern of a theory of political ethics.[5]"
No, it's an interesting question; what are rights? Are they 'absolute' in some sense and derived from nature, or are they just generally agreed upon codes of conduct that people adopt because they make life more enjoyable?
Personally, I agree with the original wording of the Declaration of Independence; that everyone has the rights to "life, liberty, and property." Still, I think they're in that order for a reason; we have a right to property because we have a right to enjoy our liberty, and we have a right to liberty because we have a right to enjoy our life. It's impossible to meaningfully have property without life or without liberty. That implies to me that life and liberty precede and are the basis of property rights; and that violations of property in defense of either liberty or life are not only justifiable, but imperative (as long as they're legitimate of course).
This is why it's acceptable to put a violent person in prison for example; because the rights of others to life precede his right to liberty. That's why slavery is illegitimate; because the rights of people to liberty categorically precede rights to property which violate the liberty of others. The question about property rights as opposed to rights to life or liberty to me is a bit like the question, 'is a private in the army required to obey the orders of a major in the army?' The answer is clearly yes. But is a private in the army required to obey the orders of a major if they conflict with those of a corporal or a general? No, in fact he's required to disregard and break the orders of the major. The general and corporal are life and liberty, the major is property. Hijacking an empty car to bring a dying person to a hospital when no other transportation is available seems to me to be the most moral option. If no one would claim otherwise it would seem that the Rothbardian conception of rights is seriously flawed...
I have no problem with capitalism or markets, but I think the idolization of them turns a lot of people off to libertarianism. The government programs first up for criticism should be the ones which in no way safeguard life, liberty or property, while the ones that claim to, but do not, should be criticised on those grounds rather than on grounds of theft . To criticize a government program which claims to safeguard life or liberty by claiming theft is to begin from a very weak rhetorical position in my opinion. Better to criticize on the basis of efficacy.
Hijacking an empty car to bring a dying person to a hospital when no other transportation is available seems to me to be the most moral option. If no one would claim otherwise it would seem that the Rothbardian conception of rights is seriously flawed...
I can't repeat this in every single thread that comes up. You are conflating the "ethical-aesthetical" with the "moral-legal" and hopefully that makes sense to you related to how people use those words vs. what people's actions are or mean.
You aren't saying that this good samaritan shouldn't also have to pay for the damages relating to stealing the car right?
"You aren't saying that this good samaritan shouldn't also have to pay for the damages relating to stealing the car right?"
If he can, he should. Ideally, the accident victim would pay, if able, since they were the beneficiary of the use of the car. But I'd also say that if the car-owner refused to allow use of his car to transport the dying person for no pressing reason, and the dying person subsequently succumbed due to lack of medical care, the car owner could reasonably be held liable for negligent homicide.
"If it's true, wouldn't this imply that it's wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, all other options having been exhausted (to use the cliched question)?" Yes, it would be a crime. But the punishment would probably be minimal. "That if you got lost on a hunting trip in Alaska and happened upon someone's empty summer cabin, that the ethical thing to do would be to freeze to death outside of it, not having permission to enter?" If I owned the cabin, and that was the situation, I would be OK with the person breaking into it, with the expectation of course that I would be compensated. As such, I would break into it if it were me and worry about the consequences later. "That it would be wrong to temporarily hijack a car someone left their keys in to bring a dying accident victim to a hospital?" Yes, it would be a crime. But I would guess most people would forgive such a crime. Even shooting someone in self defense is still a crime. But most people would forgive the victim for shooting the aggressor. "If so, how many real people could reasonably be expected to act like that, and if not, how is theft ever justified if property rights are the basis of all other rights?" Justice is based on what both parties feel would be just compensation. Just like government courts recognize there are different reasons for killing another, and as such different punishments, I would guess the market courts would feel the same way.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
MakiU:If you ask what I would do, of course, I value my life more than someone else's property, so I would commit a crime in that situation (probably). I mean, I would break in the cabin. Property rights are just a concepts, useful in everyday life situations, but those rights can not stop you from breaking them etc. I mean, they are not absolute or universal, like "gravity" law etc.
Right, they are oaken laws like Newton's first law of motion and ceteris paribus. NR are not iron laws because human nature, thus, human society is an open-ended system due to the aggregrate of individuals that make it up have volition.
MakiU:They are simply an arbitrary line, drawn by society. Take humans away, and property rights do no exist. Morality do not exist either without humans. So yeah, I don't think it's an objective imperative, just an agreement between individuals. You can call it "moral imperative", but that is also just a conceptual thing, which without humans do not exist. And if the victim of my crime demanded money for breaking in into his property etc, I would surely pay it afterwards.
I wouldn't have worded everything that way, but I intellectually grasp what you mean and agree. I've argued pretty much the same thing on this same topic probably over a year ago. Your two posts previous to my posting this were good Maki.
Drace, why dont you read some things first. Before you start asking moronic questions
On what magical premise is the private property a natural right?
There is nothing magical about Self Ownership.
Were kings, landlords, and nobles then justified in owning all the land?
Did they homestead it?
Was slavery then justified?
Did slaves own their own bodies?