More on theft, morality and law

[gusl]

What about things which get stolen over and over again? Can we say they have a rightful owner? This is the case for a large fraction of the bicycles in Amsterdam.

If your grandfather stole something which you ended up inheriting, and then his grandson knocks on your door and asks for it back, do you owe it to him?

What about this story:

... Are individual rights to land on the basis of "might is right" acceptable? In a nation which is lawfully at peace within its borders such an idea is unthinkable. One is reminded of the Irishman who, found trespassing and ordered off the land by the owner, asked: 'How did you get this land that you claim it to be yours?' The landowner replied: 'My forefathers fought for it and that established my family's right to it.' 'Very well then,' said the Irishman, removing his coat, I'll fight you for it now!' ...

I just want to tease those moral absolutists (mostly objectivists) among you.

Comments

.

[rinku.livejournal.com]

i'd say that just because it's impossible to trace doesn't mean that no one owns it. the laws that apply would work similarly to the 'lost and found' thing, or the thing where fortunes are held under people's names who did not have an heir (unclaimed fortunes -- there are actually quite a few of them). personally i'd say: if ownership cannot be decidedly determined, destroy it (if it's a physical object) or put it in the public domain (if it's an information object). if it's land, that's another story, since land can't really be owned in the direct sense.

[pbrane.livejournal.com]

Land ownership is crap.

My jury's still out on other forms of property.

Re: .

[easwaran.livejournal.com]

Why should something be destroyed just because no one can rightfully claim to own it? Should every physical object in the universe have an owner in order to continue existing? What if the Mona Lisa came into this status as a result of its owner dying with no specification of who would get anything and with no heirs?

And who should do the "holding" for objects whose owners are nowhere to be found? How long should they be held? Most likely, the object can be of some benefit to society if someone (anyone) is allowed to at least use it, or basically act as if they own it, and waiting for the "rightful" owner just gets in the way of that.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Land anarchy isn't that great either, because of the tragedy of the commons: if there is no ownership, then the investment is individual while the benefit is public. The result is that no one sows, and everyone tries to reap (tragedy). As far as I know, property rights is the best solution for that.

[pbrane.livejournal.com]

But those are only two ends of the spectrum. If there's some form of state, there could be regulations that you get land use rights as long as you're taking care of the land and improving it - much the same way you effectively get "slave use rights" for your children, as long as you're a fit parent.

There's just no need for ownership of such a permanent thing as land.

Re: .

[rinku.livejournal.com]

no, natural physical objects can't be owned, only human-created objects can.