NationStates Jolt Archive

A random passing thought:

Person A takes time and energy to produce an item B from raw materials lying around unused. Person C steals B. This act of theft leaves A personally injured in that he has lost expended time and energy without benefit. Does this make the act of theft a crime against a person?

Is there anything that seems wrong with this? (Other than it being extremely simple.)

Comments?

A random passing thought:

Person A takes time and energy to produce an item B from raw materials lying around unused. Person C steals B. This act of theft leaves A personally injured in that he has lost expended time and energy without benefit. Does this make the act of theft a crime against a person?

Is there anything that seems wrong with this? (Other than it being extremely simple.)

Comments?

as a first thought, lots of things have caused me to waste my time and energy for no benefit. but i wouldn't call that by itself a crime against my person.

A random passing thought:

Person A takes time and energy to produce an item B from raw materials lying around unused. Person C steals B. This act of theft leaves A personally injured in that he has lost expended time and energy without benefit. Does this make the act of theft a crime against a person?

Is there anything that seems wrong with this? (Other than it being extremely simple.)

Comments?

Yes. To the extent that the only value an object has is the value of the labor you put into it, then yes, by removing from you the object, and thereby the benefit of the labor, then yes, it is an attack on the person.

person A uses their time and energy to convert raw material into an object of greater value, using person B's production fascilities. person A adds value, person B's investment adds value, but person B keeps more of the added value and gives a lesser share to person A for his labor. person B has thus made a profit by stealing from A and its called Capitalism. has person B committed an act of violence against person A?

as a first thought, lots of things have caused me to waste my time and energy for no benefit. but i wouldn't call that by itself a crime against my person.

Yes, but what makes theft a crime is the intended act against a fellow man; taking from another merely to benefit oneself (usually).

I agree, because all things take work, and work has value. Energy and time are also resources, valuable ones, and having them stolen from you can be just as devastating as being konked on the noggin, sometimes much more so.

And I agree because I'm a fatcat materialistic capitalist and this analogy reinforces my belief system. w00t

person A uses their time and energy to convert raw material into an object of greater value, using person B's production fascilities. person A adds value, person B's investment adds value, but person B keeps more of the added value and gives a lesser share to person A for his labor. person B has thus made a profit by stealing from A and its called Capitalism. has person B committed an act of violence against person A?

Nope. Not unless A has not agreed to this arrangement.

:headbang: why must one steal that which is not his...... at what point in a persons life does he/she stop having respect and compassion towards people and fail to appreciate that with which he has been blessed.

as a first thought, lots of things have caused me to waste my time and energy for no benefit. but i wouldn't call that by itself a crime against my person.

But wasting your own time or having to submit to natural conditions is different from someone taking away that time by force or fraud, is it not?

A tree falling on A and killing him is not murder. But B shooting and killing him is.

Isn't that the basis for making theft illegal, as it amounts to an attack on a person?

Isn't that the basis for making theft illegal, as it amounts to an attack on a person?

That, and the fact that where theft is other crimes usually follow. I mean if you take my shit, I come at you with a gun, thats how it works! Unless I don't have a gun. But you know what I mean.

That, and the fact that where theft is other crimes usually follow. I mean if you take my shit, I come at you with a gun, thats how it works! Unless I don't have a gun. But you know what I mean.

Right, but the only moral claim to ownership is the time and effort invested in it. Which is why you can justify theft as being immoral; taking that object away from a person is tantamount to taking that time away, and thereby infringing upon their rights.

wait, i had a thought (don't mind me, i'm just thinking out loud. in writing. you know what i mean)

let's accept that for the most part your time and your energy are completely your own - though this may not be totally true and could probably be argued. so you expend your time and energy to get x and then somebody steals it from you. however, the time and energy you spent getting x would be gone by this point anyway even if you had used it to do something else. in a very real sense your time and energy at time y is gone now however you might have spent it. you can't get it back and you certainly couldn't somehow undo your acquisition of x to do so. so it's gone regardless, x or no x. so if somebody takes x from you, all you lost was x, because your time and energy in the past is no longer your possession in any meaningful sense.

am i making sense?

Nope. Not unless A has not agreed to this arrangement.
Consent does not necessarily change the fundimental dynamic of the relationship. a child may consent to give a bully his lunch money to prevent a physical assault. a shop own may consent to give a gangster money to protect him from other criminals and himself, but we still generally regard these relationships as a form of theft.

the worker consents to the capitalists expropriation of his added value because it is the only way he may work within the capitalists production facility. he may choose not to, but some economic consideration forced him to allow this loss of his labor value.

the disporportionate power dynamic between the capitalist and the worker forces him to consent to the theft. in the same way the unequal power dynamic between the bully and the child and the shopkeeper and the gangster force them to consent to an arrangement that would not be in their interest if it were not for the threat that inequality creates for them.

A random passing thought:

Person A takes time and energy to produce an item B from raw materials lying around unused. Person C steals B. This act of theft leaves A personally injured in that he has lost expended time and energy without benefit. Does this make the act of theft a crime against a person?

Is there anything that seems wrong with this? (Other than it being extremely simple.)

Comments?
It's fine, except that it doesn't apply to our modern world. Even when raw materials are lying around unused, they're still "owned" by somebody.

Consent does not necessarily change the fundimental dynamic of the relationship. a child may consent to give a bully his lunch money to prevent a physical assault. a shop own may consent to give a gangster money to protect him from other criminals and himself, but we still generally regard these relationships as a form of theft.

the worker consents to the capitalists expropriation of his added value because it is the only way he may work within the capitalists production facility. he may choose not to, but some economic consideration forced him to allow this loss of his labor value.

the disporportionate power dynamic between the capitalist and the worker forces him to consent to the theft. in the same way the unequal power dynamic between the bully and the child and the shopkeeper and the gangster force them to consent to an arrangement that would not be in their interest if it were not for the threat that inequality creates for them.
Well put.

Well put.
too bad this puppet is supposed to be a nazi, and therefore is way out of character

too bad this puppet is supposed to be a nazi, and therefore is way out of character

and it all comes crashing down around you

and it all comes crashing down around you
my cryptotrotskyist heart sometimes shines through.

;)

wait, i had a thought (don't mind me, i'm just thinking out loud. in writing. you know what i mean)

Yep. That's waht the OP was. :D

let's accept that for the most part your time and your energy are completely your own - though this may not be totally true and could probably be argued. so you expend your time and energy to get x and then somebody steals it from you. however, the time and energy you spent getting x would be gone by this point anyway even if you had used it to do something else. in a very real sense your time and energy at time y is gone now however you might have spent it. you can't get it back and you certainly couldn't somehow undo your acquisition of x to do so. so it's gone regardless, x or no x. so if somebody takes x from you, all you lost was x, because your time and energy in the past is no longer your possession in any meaningful sense.

am i making sense?

The time and energy is gone, yes. But The same can be said of other crimes of violence. If A kills B, B is dead regardless. Does this mean A is not guilty of a crime?

Consent does not necessarily change the fundimental dynamic of the relationship. a child may consent to give a bully his lunch money to prevent a physical assault. a shop own may consent to give a gangster money to protect him from other criminals and himself, but we still generally regard these relationships as a form of theft.

the worker consents to the capitalists expropriation of his added value because it is the only way he may work within the capitalists production facility. he may choose not to, but some economic consideration forced him to allow this loss of his labor value.

the disporportionate power dynamic between the capitalist and the worker forces him to consent to the theft. in the same way the unequal power dynamic between the bully and the child and the shopkeeper and the gangster force them to consent to an arrangement that would not be in their interest if it were not for the threat that inequality creates for them.

Consent is the key. The examples of the bully or the gangster involve the use of force on the part of the actors. The does not involk the use of force. He invokes natural economic conditions such as supply and demand.

It's fine, except that it doesn't apply to our modern world. Even when raw materials are lying around unused, they're still "owned" by somebody.

There are unused, unclaimed raw materials lying around. For example, the vast part of the worlds oceans, Antarctica, and outer-space all remain unclaimed. And there are vast recources just lying around to be had in these areas.

There are unused, unclaimed raw materials lying around. For example, the vast part of the worlds oceans, Antarctica, and outer-space all remain unclaimed. And there are vast recources just lying around to be had in these areas.
Perhaps outer space is unclaimed, however there is a man who claims to own the solar system, and sells people plots of land. So it won't be very long before those other places are claimed as well. Furthermore, I don't believe that all claims are legitimate ones, such as my example with the man and the solar system.

Perhaps outer space is unclaimed, however there is a man who claims to own the solar system, and sells people plots of land. So it won't be very long before those other places are claimed as well. Furthermore, I don't believe that all claims are legitimate ones, such as my example with the man and the solar system.

But does any legal system recognise his claim?

The time and energy is gone, yes. But The same can be said of other crimes of violence. If A kills B, B is dead regardless. Does this mean A is not guilty of a crime?

well, the theft is still real, just like the murder is still real. but it is a theft of the rightfully held object - not of the time and energy, which no longer are in existence and cannot be gotten back anyways. likewise, the crime of murdering somebody is a crime committed against the murdered person. it isn't a theft from the person's parents, even though they put all that time and energy into creating and raising that person.

which makes me think that maybe what i'm saying amounts to saying that no matter what you do with your time and energy, once you do it it becomes somehow alienated from you, it is no longer yours. what you created with your time and energy may (or may not, in the case of children) still be legitimately yours, but you lose all claim to that time and energy once it is spent just because of the way the universe works.

But does any legal system recognise his claim?
So then a claim is valid provided a legal system recognizes it as such?

Do you really have so low of a moral standard that you have to explain to yourself why stealing is wrong???

well, the theft is still real, just like the murder is still real. but it is a theft of the rightfully held object - not of the time and energy, which no longer are in existence and cannot be gotten back anyways. likewise, the crime of murdering somebody is a crime committed against the murdered person. it isn't a theft from the person's parents, even though they put all that time and energy into creating and raising that person.

which makes me think that maybe what i'm saying amounts to saying that no matter what you do with your time and energy, once you do it it becomes somehow alienated from you, it is no longer yours. what you created with your time and energy may (or may not, in the case of children) still be legitimately yours, but you lose all claim to that time and energy once it is spent just because of the way the universe works.

Hmm, but they are taking the value of that time and labor from you.

In otherwords, if you are drinking scotch and watching the history channel you are getting the immediate benefit of the time expended (assuming you like scotch and the history channel). However if you defer that activity to do something productive, like make something out of raw materials, you are defering the immediate benefit of the time (by not doing your favorite thing) to accrue a future benefit. Say the possesion of a table you spent all day making. If someone steals the table, you have now effectively "wasted" the day because you did not spend it drinking scotch and watching the history channel, but screwed around building a table you no longer have.

Of course by this measure, people who enjoy their jobs are cheating.

And additionally theft is not a crime against the person per se. Which is why Larceny != robbery.

So then a claim is valid provided a legal system recognizes it as such?

To the degree that the legal system is recognised a valid agreement by members of society. If it isn't, then some other valid form of claim will need to be agreed upon.

To the degree that the legal system is recognised a valid agreement by members of society. If it isn't, then some other valid form of claim will need to be agreed upon.
Fair enough, provided that the legal system is consistent in its rulings.