How do you define it? So often TSB is a discussion of specific political incidents, that I thought a discussion that goes back to the basics might be worthwhile. Maybe not. We'll see.

I figured I'd start with a hypothetical question relating to Nozick, being something of a libertarian philosopher, since this is TSB:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Quote :

"Robert Nozick's influential critique of Rawls argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds: 1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and 2. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud). "

If you make it, you own it. If both sides freely agree to the transfer, you own it. Theft, force, and fraud are notable exceptions to the transfer being free, making the ownership unjust.

Is there a number of steps removed, after a transfer involving theft, at which the ownership is no longer unjust?

Say, some guy breaks into your house and steals your new TV. Their owning it is obviously unjust. Then they sell it out of the back of a van somewhere to someone who probably knows that a nice TV for a great price out of the back of a van wasn't acquired legally. Later that person sells it at a yard sale. Shortly thereafter the buyer from the yard sale gives it to their kid when they go off to college. The kid then finds on the TV, maybe etched on the back somewhere, a phone number and calls it putting them in touch with the original owner who had put it on there just in case, and the original owner asks for it back 6 months after the original incident.

Who justly owns that TV? And if it is the kid rather than the original owner, who after the original ower was the first justice owner of the TV?

1/13/2011 1:30:17 AM

I tried something similar in 2009:

message_topic.aspx?topic=571108

I hope this version works out better.

---

In your hypothetical there, the only just owner of the television is the person from whom it was originally stolen. Everyone after that is owed something, but the person who owes them is the thief.

1/13/2011 1:44:53 AM

Great minds...

1/13/2011 4:53:12 AM

Quote :

"Is there a number of steps removed, after a transfer involving theft, at which the ownership is no longer unjust?"

Not transfers, time. Ownership becomes just after the statute of limitations has run out. Whether it has changed hands once or a hundred times, if the three years are up then you cannot sue for your TV back and have a court enforce it to you.

Theft is bad, but so are insecure property rights.

1/13/2011 9:02:59 AM

Maybe legally, but "statute of limitations" doesn't mean anything to me regarding theft. Things which are mine are mine until either I die (at which point they transfer ownership to my estate) or I willingly assign ownership to someone else.

Now, someone buying stolen goods without the knowledge that they're stolen aren't at fault unless they learn that they were stolen and have the capability to return them to their rightful owner but don't.

1/13/2011 9:17:46 AM

Quote :

"Things which are mine are mine until either I die (at which point they transfer ownership to my estate) or I willingly assign ownership to someone else. "

You're just increasing the statute of limitations to cover the entire length of your life. Which is reasonable enough. The trickier questions arise from property disputes (and other grievances) that span multiple lifetimes. Is it relevant whether or not archaeologists discover concrete evidence that Jewish ancestry predates that of the Palestinians in Israel? Should white Americans today be made to repay black Americans for crimes committed 150 years ago? When will it be OK for Germans to tell Jewish jokes again?

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 9:32 AM. Reason : ]

1/13/2011 9:25:19 AM

Quote :

"In your hypothetical there, the only just owner of the television is the person from whom it was originally stolen."

Assuming the thief not readily contactable... are you saying the kid should give it back to the original owner?

1/13/2011 2:00:51 PM

One of the fellas I live with bought a stolen GPS from somebody on the street, and just a few days ago someone broke into his car and stole it on the same street. That's supply and demand for ya

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 2:17:58 PM

Quote :

"Assuming the thief not readily contactable... are you saying the kid should give it back to the original owner?"

If he's aware of the original owner and has the capability to, yes. If he cannot get it back to the owner with his best attempts, then no big deal, morally speaking.

And then obviously the previous "owner" owes him some money, along the chain back to the thief.

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 2:44:28 PM

Quote :

"That's supply and demand for ya"

No, that's Pittsburgh for ya

1/13/2011 4:12:28 PM

There's no such thing as justice. There's law, but no justice.

1/14/2011 12:20:09 AM

Is it justice, or just us?

1/14/2011 1:56:19 AM

Quote :

"Maybe legally, but "statute of limitations" doesn't mean anything to me regarding theft"

The right to property means the right to have men with guns, employed by the state, to show up and reclaim your property. This means the rule needs to be quick, easy, and understandable. 3 years may be arbitrary, but it is easy to argue in court.

1/14/2011 9:47:58 AM

I see The Man has gotten to you, too.

1/14/2011 10:22:07 AM