On the most recent show, a question was asked about the idea that the non-aggression principle and property rights, based on Cecelia’s declarations of self-ownership and the incredibly revolutionary idea that theft is wrong. I personally am not sure that I actually *do* own myself, but I’m more certain that I can’t point to anyone else who does own me. However, I do take responsibility for myself–if not on account of self-ownership, at least on account of passing the time efficiently as a trustworthy steward. Perhaps one there there’ll be an upgrade to ‘good and faithful servant,’ but any parking space will be fine with me. Regardless, it’s a distinction that I’m not certain of and which in the end doesn’t affect that I agree that theft and aggression against others (without the qualifier of self-defense) are wrong.
The question submitted boiled down to “but what if, failing persuasion, the theft was necessary for for the life of the thief?” Without whatever she stole she would die. From what I remember the general consensus was that the theft would still be wrong, although understandable; and I tried to rant that even in some stateless society, people would still be charitable and expect others to be so, because a stateless society will not solve everything.
And now it seems we have the answer that statism in its current form provides to that same question. Whether a stateless society or even a civilized statist one, $2 worth of candy stolen, with a confession after practically getting away with the theft, would merit…what? Compare it to how much the employee at the store makes hourly…fifteen, maybe 20 minutes of labor would make up for it? Consolidate all the trash to the dumpster, clean the restrooms and if there’s still time left over, sweep the entrance.
on a search for an answer of their own.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
What is the distinction between self-defence and self-preservation? Why would the self-preserver be asked to surrender their own life to the ideal of non-violence, but not the self-defender?
Off the top of my head (and…you’re getting what you pay for, here)
Self-defense would mean in response to violence inflicted on someone. I’m being physically attacked, I fight back.
“Why would the self-preserver be asked to surrender their own life to the ideal of non-violence, but not the self-defender?”
The thief (I don’t see why the terms originally used must be changed) isn’t asked to *do* anything, but like everyone else, is expected to behave decently. What is wrong with behaving decently, or of expecting acceptable behavior from others?
And again, as myself, Cecelia and Julia said, the original situation would be understandable. I personally would expect that others would be charitable without the “metaphorical” gun in their face (despite such currently, there’re still charities, both as the virtue and as small grass-roots institutions), and there was little disagreement from C&J.