Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

A question about the consumer.

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:59:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:47:11 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:35:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Is buying a product which you know to be stolen an act of accomplice to theft?

That's really a legal issue, and depends on how you define the crime.

Can something be a legal issue without being a political issue? What's intended by saying that?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:02:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:59:33 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:47:11 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:35:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Is buying a product which you know to be stolen an act of accomplice to theft?

That's really a legal issue, and depends on how you define the crime.

Can something be a legal issue without being a political issue? What's intended by saying that?

Meh, same sh*t at the moment. I just clicked the link. Wasn't paying attention to the specific forum.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:20:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:35:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Is buying a product which you know to be stolen an act of accomplice to theft?

It's a state law thing - generally (as in I know of no current exceptions) it's treated separately from theft itself and more in line with 'theft related but not theft itself'. Still a crime though.

http://law.justia.com...
http://www.shouselaw.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:23:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 4:20:19 AM, Puck wrote:
At 5/30/2011 3:35:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Is buying a product which you know to be stolen an act of accomplice to theft?

It's a state law thing - generally (as in I know of no current exceptions) it's treated separately from theft itself and more in line with 'theft related but not theft itself'. Still a crime though.

http://law.justia.com...
http://www.shouselaw.com...

Thank you but what I'm actually looking for is your opinion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:26:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 4:23:48 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Thank you but what I'm actually looking for is your opinion.

As in should it be classed as?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 4:33:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 4:26:45 AM, Puck wrote:
At 5/30/2011 4:23:48 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Thank you but what I'm actually looking for is your opinion.

As in should it be classed as?

Yes. I should have made that more clear.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 6:08:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 4:33:02 AM, FREEDO wrote:
As in should it be classed as?

Yes. I should have made that more clear.

No, for definitional reasons.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 6:09:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conspiracy to commit, or general intent, is something slightly different that involves planning - not so much to do with receival of stolen goods.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 8:51:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Patronizing aggressors is itself not an act of aggression. To be sure it is "yucky", but a man who sells shotguns is not aggressing against the people who may be unjustly shot.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 10:28:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not aggression, so it shouldn't be illegal--but that doesn't mean you get to keep the stuff. The original owner can still take their stuff back.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 11:38:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you know it's stolen property, then you know that you have no right to recieve it. All the worse if you pay for it.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 11:43:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The goods were never the seller's property to sell in the first place. The burden of responsibility is on the buyer to ensure his or her products are receipted and legitimate. Stolen goods are always cheaper than normal goods - otherwise, the consumer would have no incentive not to just get them brand new. The buyer should beware when goods seem too cheap to be true - that means they probably are. If legal BoP is put on the buyer, then the whole network of theft breaks down because buyers are now weighing risks instead of justifying and trying to get way with cheap deals with their hands over their eyes.
kfc
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 11:48:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You aren't an accomplice to theft, you just have no legal right to themerchandise you "purchased," because it isn't yours.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 12:06:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 10:28:59 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It's not aggression, so it shouldn't be illegal--but that doesn't mean you get to keep the stuff. The original owner can still take their stuff back.

Uh oh, I disagree.

This leads to an outrageous number of potential problems when you have a chain of transactions. Almost everything we currently own would be reclaimable by someone else according to that rule because of subsidizes and other forms of government intervention that may have interfered with our property before it ends up in our hands. I cannot possibly be asked to regurgitate the water I drank from a public fountain because everything the government owns is stolen.

More significantly, this would necessarily lead to the use of force against completely peaceful people. I don't see how the NAP can allow this. Rather, I would use this solution:

A steals $1000 dollars from B and gives it to C. B has not business with C whatsoever. However, he may claim $1000 from A. It does not matter where the specific item is, a claim is issued against an aggressor.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 12:38:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 12:06:33 PM, Grape wrote:
At 5/30/2011 10:28:59 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It's not aggression, so it shouldn't be illegal--but that doesn't mean you get to keep the stuff. The original owner can still take their stuff back.

Uh oh, I disagree.

This leads to an outrageous number of potential problems when you have a chain of transactions. Almost everything we currently own would be reclaimable by someone else according to that rule because of subsidizes and other forms of government intervention that may have interfered with our property before it ends up in our hands. I cannot possibly be asked to regurgitate the water I drank from a public fountain because everything the government owns is stolen.

More significantly, this would necessarily lead to the use of force against completely peaceful people. I don't see how the NAP can allow this. Rather, I would use this solution:

A steals $1000 dollars from B and gives it to C. B has not business with C whatsoever. However, he may claim $1000 from A. It does not matter where the specific item is, a claim is issued against an aggressor.

That's true, it would likely be chaotic if everyone did that. Part of the solution would be when talking about money, which is completely homogeneous, say that it's absurd to try to get your specific money back. But if we're talking about a specific piece of property that's stolen from me, it remains mine by right if stolen and sold. Say my car is stolen, and while the thief is never found, I do find the car. Surely I have the right to reclaim it--it's my property.

Of course, what rights I have regarding my property and what the legal system ought to say about such matters would likely be different. If someone murders my family, I have the right to go hunt him down and kill him--but the legal system shouldn't just take my word for it, even if I am actually right. I'd be tried for murder, and would have to prove that the person I killed was really the murderer. So even if vigilante action is morally permissible, it's still a bad idea, and people will be discouraged from doing it because of the legal consequences. Same thing with stolen property--I have the right to reclaim my stuff, but legally, the person who bought the stolen car could sue me and I'd have to prove it was really my car. So it would be better to just get restitution from the thief, if possible, or sue the buyer for my stuff back before taking it back myself.

And I don't think this counts as initiating violence against peaceful people. If I try to get my car back, and the buyer tries to use force to stop me, he's initiating force, not me--if I used force, it would be to defend myself against an aggressor interfering with my right to use my property.

Again, I think the way the legal system would be set up would solve the problems you mention. No one could legally go around reclaiming property unless they could prove in court that that specific piece of property was really theirs. Anyone who couldn't would either do it anyway, and be treated as a criminal, or, more likely, not go around reclaiming property. And anyone who could prove their claim in court would just sue the buyer first, then get the property, rather than just take it, risking harm to themself and having to defend themself in court.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 6:14:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see the Libertarian consensus seems to be that it is not.

Now, lets slightly change the scenario, keeping the same idea but on a larger scale.

Is it justifiable to restrict doing business with authoritarian regimes?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 7:37:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 6:14:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I see the Libertarian consensus seems to be that it is not.

Now, lets slightly change the scenario, keeping the same idea but on a larger scale.

Is it justifiable to restrict doing business with authoritarian regimes?

That depends on what kind of business you're doing. Are you selling napalm to the U.S. Gov?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 7:49:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 6:14:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I see the Libertarian consensus seems to be that it is not.

Now, lets slightly change the scenario, keeping the same idea but on a larger scale.

Is it justifiable to restrict doing business with authoritarian regimes?

It depends on what business you are doing with them. First, what you're doing can't expand the state. Lobbying for a government subsidy for your business, for example, would be immoral. So would using state courts to sue someone for breaking an immoral law, like IP laws. But taking advantage of state handouts that already exist would be fine. Like taking a Social Security check, for example--the money is already stolen and is going to be spent anyway, refusing to take the check would just mean more spending for someone else.

Second, the business you're doing must not be immoral by itself. Something like delivering mail is fine--it's not your fault that that industry is a government monopoly, and it's a perfectly legitimate industry. Working as a concentration camp guard or DEA agent, though, would be wrong, because you'd have to be doing immoral things to do those jobs.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 3:44:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Freedo what exactly is your connection between theft and authoritarianism? Are we supposed to assume that the U.S. is perfectly legitmimate and these undefined regimes are perfectly illegitimate? I take issue with you categorization, at least until it is defined much better. Is there a specific regime you have in mind? What are their crimes and how are they relevant here?
kfc