What's wrong with stealing?

[GenSeneca]

Rights are codified in law...whether they are "created" by law or not is seemingly irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. People would like to claim they have a "Right" to Health Care, a home, a job, a paycheck, etc. and part of that "Right" requires seizing the products of your labor to pay for it.

I did not take you as someone who didn't believe you had an inherent, self evident, Right to the products of your own labor but I might have been mistaken. Just remember that even if you do not recognize such a Right for yourself, there are no shortage of people right here on this forum who are eager to claim they have a "Right" to the products of your labor.

So if you're going to argue that you have no Right to the products of your own labor, and/or, anything claimed to be a Right can become a Right simply by being codified into law, then please say so in no mistakable terms.

Who decided what rights exist, and how did they do so?

Nature decided only an individual can have Rights. Individual Rights are the only kind of Rights that exist, there is no such thing as Collective Rights, Gay Rights, Womens Rights, Union Rights etc. these are all examples of special privileges that only apply to certain individuals.

Individual Rights are necessary for an individual to survive, through his own efforts, in a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange.

Government should codify rights within the law and protect them...

It is the Protection of Rights that should be codified into law, not the Rights themselves. Hence the words, "Congress shall make no law..." That is a statement codifying the protection of a Right, not the Right itself.

If the government amended the Constitution (in theory) and legally abolished the 2nd amendment...what your response to such an action be?

No different than it is now. I am the one who has argued that ALL our Rights, including the Right to bear arms, have already been reduced to privileges subject to regulation and cessasion at the whim of government.

Society has to operate in some framework..what good are rights if not codified in law?

As stated above, it is the protection of Rights that must be codified into law. Now I ask you, what good are Rights if they can be abrogated, suppressed, regulated, and ignored by the Government who writes these Laws?

 

[BigRob]

No, it is not irrelevant. People would like to claim they have a "Right" to Health Care, a home, a job, a paycheck, etc. and part of that "Right" requires seizing the products of your labor to pay for it.

I did not take you as someone who didn't believe you had an inherent, self evident, Right to the products of your own labor but I might have been mistaken. Just remember that even if you do not recognize such a Right for yourself, there are no shortage of people right here on this forum who are eager to claim they have a "Right" to the products of your labor.

I may have explained my position in a poor manner... I agree that there are inherent rights, but I think from a practical perspective, unless those rights are codified within the law, it is tough to argue that they exist under the framework of our society.

So if you're going to argue that you have no Right to the products of your own labor, and/or, anything claimed to be a Right can become a Right simply by being codified into law, then please say so in no mistakable terms.

I would argue I do have such a right, but in the absence of a legal framework to enforce it, it would be irrelevant if I claimed to the people stealing it that they are violating my rights.

Nature decided only an individual can have Rights. Individual Rights are the only kind of Rights that exist, there is no such thing as Collective Rights, Gay Rights, Womens Rights, Union Rights etc. these are all examples of special privileges that only apply to certain individuals.

Individual Rights are necessary for an individual to survive, through his own efforts, in a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange.

I can agree with this, but again, without such a legal framework established, I don't think such a system would survive.

It is the Protection of Rights that should be codified into law, not the Rights themselves. Hence the words, "Congress shall make no law..." That is a statement codifying the protection of a Right, not the Right itself.


No different than it is now. I am the one who has argued that ALL our Rights, including the Right to bear arms, have already been reduced to privileges subject to regulation and cessasion at the whim of government.


As stated above, it is the protection of Rights that must be codified into law. Now I ask you, what good are Rights if they can be abrogated, suppressed, regulated, and ignored by the Government who writes these Laws?

I agree with that, and I agree with you... I guess what I am saying (perhaps poorly) is that without protection under the law, rights lose their meaning.

 

[numinus]

If you believe that to be true then take me up on the offer and visit my "What is a Right?" thread. It would seem a discussion on property Rights is more germane in that thread than here.

No. It is more pertinent here since a definition of property right is inseparable from the definition of theft.

Now if you wish to make the discussion on property Rights germane to this thread, you can begin by explaining to everyone why you believe there is nothing wrong with stealing, so long as it's legal.

Simple. Because the law defines theft in the same way it defines your right to property. This is so because the right to property is NOT an inalienable right -- it is a statutory right.

Capice?

Going back to my earlier example, lets say I'm granted the legal "Right" to steal all of your property - the house, the furniture, the car, everything you possess. Explain to everyone why you would not see this legalized theft as a violation of your Rights.

Legalized theft is a contradiction. Your example is lame.

I can think of only one instance that is remotely similar to your example -- when the government exercises its right to eminent domain. You can argue all you want but it is not theft.

Natural Rights are the only kind of Rights that exist. So called "Rights" that are contingent upon government or law of any kind are not rights at all, they are privileges.

If you disagree, then please visit my "What is a Right?" thread and explain to everyone the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

If you feel that civil rights are not rights and are in fact, privileges, then you need to call it the privilege to property. You gain privilege to real property only when there is a legal instrument that transfers ownership of it to you -- either sale, donation, inheritance, accretion or adverse possession. Proof of this ownership resides in a positive title.

All that is dependent on the law.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right to property since property, by its nature, IS ALIENABLE.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree with that, and I agree with you... I guess what I am saying (perhaps poorly) is that without protection under the law, rights lose their meaning.

That is precisely why the declaration states, "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." and our Constitution goes on to secure those rights by creating a government in which the, "Congress shall make no law..." which infringes upon or otherwise violates those rights.

To hear Numinus tell it... Rights do not exist in the absence of Laws and the role of government is to create Rights through Law rather than protect Rights through Law.

 

[GenSeneca]

No. It is more pertinent here since a definition of property right is inseparable from the definition of theft.

I'm still waiting for you to adequately define a "Right" and differentiate a Right from a Privilege. Until then, lets look at the definition of "Theft";

Theft: The act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.​

It would seem to me that even if it were legal for me to deprive you of all your property, it would still be wrongful for me to do so and therefore qualify as theft.

Simple. Because the law defines theft in the same way it defines your right to property. This is so because the right to property is NOT an inalienable right -- it is a statutory right.

Do you really believe that simply making it legal for me to deprive you of all your property is not wrongful?

Legalized theft is a contradiction. Your example is lame.

I have just shown that wrongfully depriving you of your property could be made legal but it would still qualify as theft.

I can think of only one instance that is remotely similar to your example -- when the government exercises its right to eminent domain. You can argue all you want but it is not theft.

In cases of eminent domain, the government is required to compensate the property owner. Thieves do not compensate their victims for the property they have stolen.

If you feel that civil rights are not rights and are in fact, privileges, then you need to call it the privilege to property.

Actually I believe it is you who should refer to it as the "privilege of property" since you do not believe it to be a self evident, inalienable Right.

And please, avoid further use of the Equivocation fallacy by referring to Land as Land rather than conflating it with all other forms of Property. When I say that man has an inalienable right to property, I'm referring to the products of his labor, not a plot of land.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right to property since property, by its nature, IS ALIENABLE.

Does an individual have the Right to keep the products of his labor? If you bother to answer that question please bear in mind that a privilege is contingent on laws while a Right is not.

 

[numinus]

That is precisely why the declaration states, "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." and our Constitution goes on to secure those rights by creating a government in which the, "Congress shall make no law..." which infringes upon or otherwise violates those rights.

To hear Numinus tell it... Rights do not exist in the absence of Laws and the role of government is to create Rights through Law rather than protect Rights through Law.

I said no such thing.

Go back to the social contract.

People give up their perfect liberty and collectively invest it in the state. In return, the state protects those liberties that are necessary for the peaceable existence of the individual with the common force.

Among an individual's perfect liberty are certain inalienable rights that cannot be ceded to any external power -- like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are recognized by the state as something that is inseparable from the human person.

Property, on the other hand, is not such a right. It is legally sold, transfered, donated and adversely claimed one against another. That is the purpose of property -- a means to one's pursuit of happiness. No constitutional analyst worth his or her law degree would agree with your nonsense.

 

[numinus]

I'm still waiting for you to adequately define a "Right" and differentiate a Right from a Privilege. Until then, lets look at the definition of "Theft";

I gave you the wiki definition, did I not? The distinction between natural rights and civil rights (which you wrongly claimed as privileges) is very clear.

Theft: The act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.​

It would seem to me that even if it were legal for me to deprive you of all your property, it would still be wrongful for me to do so and therefore qualify as theft.

Nonsense.

'Wrongful taking' as opposed to 'legally taking'. If you do not pay your taxes, your property will be seized by the government and the government will be correct in doing so. If you incur civil damages against another individual, your property will be seized (with the help of a court order and a sheriff) as compensation -- whether actual or punitive and it would be legal and correct.

You do not have an inalienable right to your property. Your ownership of it is dependent on the law.

Do you really believe that simply making it legal for me to deprive you of all your property is not wrongful?

That is correct -- no one may be deprived of property without due process of law.

Remember the old lady who accidentally scalded herself with coffee by mcdonald's and later sued the latter for millions of dollars in punitive damages?

Personally, I think it was wrong but I couldn't possibly claim it was theft on the part of the old lady, can I?

I have just shown that wrongfully depriving you of your property could be made legal but it would still qualify as theft.

No, it would not. If it were legal, then it wouldn't be theft.

In cases of eminent domain, the government is required to compensate the property owner. Thieves do not compensate their victims for the property they have stolen.

What nonsense.

The government tells you exactly how much your property is and the mode of payment advantageous to the government. That's what 'just compensation' amounts to. Where is your alleged 'inalienable' right to property now against eminent domain, eh?

Actually I believe it is you who should refer to it as the "privilege of property" since you do not believe it to be a self evident, inalienable Right.

No. You are the one denying civil rights -- claiming that such a thing is a privilege.

Privileges are licenses -- entirely different from natural rights and civil rights.

And please, avoid further use of the Equivocation fallacy by referring to Land as Land rather than conflating it with all other forms of Property. When I say that man has an inalienable right to property, I'm referring to the products of his labor, not a plot of land.

LOL.

Now you are talking about personal properties. Real properties couldn't possibly be a 'product of his labor', now, could it?

Either way, private property, whether real or personal, is ALIENABLE for the simple reason that it can be exchanged.

Your ideas are scattered all over the place.

Does an individual have the Right to keep the products of his labor?

Of course -- except those that are illegal.

That is how locke defined private property -- that which you take from nature and imbue with your own labor.

However, if you direct your labor to producing, say dangerous drugs or management of an illegal gambling operation, or prostitution, then clearly, you are not entitled to the products of your labor.

Again, what the law defines.

If you bother to answer that question please bear in mind that a privilege is contingent on laws while a Right is not.

Get this through your thick skull -- there are two distinct kinds of rights -- NATURAL AND STATUTORY.

A statutory right -- like the right to suffrage -- is different from a privilege -- like a driving or business license.

The premise of your entire argument is WRONG.

 

[numinus]

No, it is not irrelevant. People would like to claim they have a "Right" to Health Care, a home, a job, a paycheck, etc. and part of that "Right" requires seizing the products of your labor to pay for it.

I did not take you as someone who didn't believe you had an inherent, self evident, Right to the products of your own labor but I might have been mistaken. Just remember that even if you do not recognize such a Right for yourself, there are no shortage of people right here on this forum who are eager to claim they have a "Right" to the products of your labor.

So if you're going to argue that you have no Right to the products of your own labor, and/or, anything claimed to be a Right can become a Right simply by being codified into law, then please say so in no mistakable terms.

You are patently wrong.

Private property, as defined by locke, is what you TAKE FROM NATURE and imbue with your labor.

You have an inalienable right to your own labor (that being intrinsic to the pursuit of happiness) but you do not have an inalienable right to the products thereof, merely a statutory right.

What you take from nature is owned by the state -- being the sovereign power over its territorial boundaries. You need the operation of law to claim parts of that territory (and the resources therein) as your own. That is why a positive title is said to be an ADVERSE CLAIM AGAINST THE REST OF THE WORLD.

And even if, for arguments sake, that it is entirely your labor that is the subject of private property, the remuneration for services rendered (the product of your own labor) is still subject to statutory law. If you were engaged in an illegal trade, then the fruits of that trade is subject to seizure by the government.

CLEARLY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Nature decided only an individual can have Rights. Individual Rights are the only kind of Rights that exist, there is no such thing as Collective Rights, Gay Rights, Womens Rights, Union Rights etc. these are all examples of special privileges that only apply to certain individuals.

Nonsense. The rights of women, children and the elderly are explicitly defined in the universal declaration of human rights. They are special rights, clearly, but inalienable rights none the less.

Individual Rights are necessary for an individual to survive, through his own efforts, in a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange.

Correct. No one is arguing otherwise.

What you got altogether wrong is your absurd idea that private property is an inalienable right.

Remember, an inalienable right is something that an individual cannot rationally cede to a power outside himself. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are such rights.

Ownership of property, on the other hand, is ceded from one person to another everyday in the course of economic activity. That, in itself, PROVES THAT YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ALIENABLE.

It is the Protection of Rights that should be codified into law, not the Rights themselves. Hence the words, "Congress shall make no law..." That is a statement codifying the protection of a Right, not the Right itself.

Correct, as far as inalienable rights are concerned. The state may not alienate these rights simply because they are INALIENABLE to begin with.

I have already mentioned numerous instances when the law may prohibit you of certain acts and seize the products thereof.

No different than it is now. I am the one who has argued that ALL our Rights, including the Right to bear arms, have already been reduced to privileges subject to regulation and cessasion at the whim of government.

Nonsense. States may promulgate statutes as long as they do not deprive anyone of the inalienable rights already mentioned.

As stated above, it is the protection of Rights that must be codified into law. Now I ask you, what good are Rights if they can be abrogated, suppressed, regulated, and ignored by the Government who writes these Laws?

Sigh.

This is an extreme view. The purpose of the political association and its laws is to strike a balance between an individual's liberties and the practical necessities of the common good.

If it is only the individual's right that is at stake here, then that individual might as well live in the mountains of equatorial congo or some such place where he may indulge his personal liberties to his heart's content. There would be no room for the political association in such a case.

 

[GenSeneca]

Among an individual's perfect liberty are certain inalienable rights that cannot be ceded to any external power -- like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are recognized by the state as something that is inseparable from the human person.

[A] man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. ​

- James Madison, 1792

Property, on the other hand, is not such a right. It is legally sold, transfered, donated and adversely claimed one against another. That is the purpose of property -- a means to one's pursuit of happiness.

Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance
US Supreme Court 1795

Opinion of the Court by Justice William Paterson.

[After quoting the 1st, 8th, and 11th articles of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, and the 9th and 46th section of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Paterson writes:]

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring…property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. ​

No constitutional analyst worth his or her law degree would agree with your nonsense.

You're adorable.

 

[BigRob]

That is precisely why the declaration states, "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." and our Constitution goes on to secure those rights by creating a government in which the, "Congress shall make no law..." which infringes upon or otherwise violates those rights.

To hear Numinus tell it... Rights do not exist in the absence of Laws and the role of government is to create Rights through Law rather than protect Rights through Law.

I agree, but at the same time, without a political framework in place which codifies such rights, ultimately what good are they? You can in theory have all of these rights, but if they are not recognized and protected under the law, then it does not mean all that much ultimately.

If you went to court and argued you had a natural right to x, but it was not recognized under the laws of society, then your case is over before it started.

Additionally, I am not sure I would agree property rights are necessarily inalienable, such as the right to life would be, for many reasons numinus has spelled out.

 

[BigRob]

[A] man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. ​

- James Madison, 1792

Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance
US Supreme Court 1795

Opinion of the Court by Justice William Paterson.

[After quoting the 1st, 8th, and 11th articles of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, and the 9th and 46th section of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Paterson writes:]

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring…property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the
social compact, and, by the late constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. ​

You're adorable.

I think what is important to note is that the Supreme Court Justice is citing an established legal framework to arrive at the opinion he does. Ie the law has said there is such a right, so there is.

 

[numinus]

[A] man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. ​

- James Madison, 1792

Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance
US Supreme Court 1795

Opinion of the Court by Justice William Paterson.

[After quoting the 1st, 8th, and 11th articles of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, and the 9th and 46th section of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Paterson writes:]

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring…property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. ​

You're adorable.

What nonsense!

You have a natural right 'to acquire...property'. You do not have a natural right to property. In much the same way, you have a natural right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. You do not have a natural right to happiness, whatever that happiness may be.

And just to end this pointless debate:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/alienable

An interest in property is alienable if it may be conveyed by one individual to another individual. In general, and by common law, private property is alienable. The classical restraint on alienation was the fee tail, which required its owner to pass the property (usually land) to his heirs. A more familiar restraint is that on human organs.

Now, if you wish to further argue your nonsense, kindly take it up with cornell law school.

 

[numinus]

I think what is important to note is that the Supreme Court Justice is citing an established legal framework to arrive at the opinion he does. Ie the law has said there is such a right, so there is.

There is a right to property. The question is whether such a right is natural (inalienable) or statutory (alienable).

Clearly, it is statutory.

One DOES NOT have a natural right to private property. What one has is a natural right to the ACQUISITION of property which derives from the natural right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Dr.Who]

Additionally, I am not sure I would agree property rights are necessarily inalienable, such as the right to life would be, for many reasons numinus has spelled out.

Yet it is fairly well understood that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" was intended by many Founders and the Declaration to include property and more.

The courts have applied such happiness to marriage, work and a host of other pursuits.

"The US Supreme Court did belatedly discover the “pursuit of happiness” when interpreting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In the 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska, there was a challenge to a state law prohibiting the teaching of foreign language to elementary and middle school children. Speaking for the court, Justice McReynolds stated that the liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment includes not only freedom from restraint, but also, the right to work, to raise a family and, “generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

And just for fun lets not forget that the purpose of work is to acquire property, like when one picks an apple, to use Locke's example.

 

[numinus]

Yet it is fairly well understood that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" was intended by many Founders and the Declaration to include property and more.

The courts have applied such happiness to marriage, work and a host of other pursuits.

"The US Supreme Court did belatedly discover the “pursuit of happiness” when interpreting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In the 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska, there was a challenge to a state law prohibiting the teaching of foreign language to elementary and middle school children. Speaking for the court, Justice McReynolds stated that the liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment includes not only freedom from restraint, but also, the right to work, to raise a family and, “generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

And just for fun lets not forget that the purpose of work is to acquire property, like when one picks an apple, to use Locke's example.

Private property, in the classical sense, is what you take from nature and imbue with your own labor. As far as the resources (renewable or non-renewable) of nature is concerned, it is based on land -- whether above it, on it or below it. Land existed long before you were born and will exist long after you're dead. It is, for all practical intents and purposes, indestructible -- hence real property. That is why ownership of property, whether private or public is necessarily related to the ownership of land.

Land ownership is originally invested in the state. The operating principle here is the regalian doctrine -- he who is sovereign over the land owns it. The state, by virtue of the social contract, is sovereign over its own territory.

In my country, we have the torrens system of titles. Ordinary people acquire private ownership of land through homesteads and free patents. The idea here is that in cases of land deemed 'alienable and disposable' (land suitable for residence and agriculture), one may apply for title to the public land if he were in continuous and adverse possession of the land for some prescriptive period, have made improvements on it and have paid the necessary real property taxes for it and some other legal forms to this effect -- in short, he takes what is in nature and imbues it with his own labor. The system implies that an individual's private ownership of land exists at the sufferance of the state. And even then, the state reserves the right of eminent domain (the word itself implies sovereignty and ownership).

As to the nature of one's labors, although it is clearly the property of the individual, it is, by no means, inalienable for the simple reason that it is exchanged for value.

All this, if I am not mistaken, is derived from common law.