A steals $100 from B and buys a camera from C with the stolen money.
Does A now own the camera? If not, who does?
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
If I stole from you would you seek compensation?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I'd say A owns the camera, but he is also liable to B for $100 which may or may not be in the form of a camera.
As Juan said, once the theft is discovered, the camera should be returned to C, and the $100 to B. A never really gained rightful possession of the camera, because the exchange with C was conducted under the fraudulent pretense that A actually owned the $100 that he/she offered. Likewise, C never really comes to own the money, because A did not have the authority to transfer ownership of the money to C. A, as the only criminal of the three, is liable for all of the damages that arise from this situation.
This reminds me of an example given by Robert Lefevre in The philosophy of Ownership, under chapter 11, Authority and Responsibility. It is too long to post here(from pages 76 to 81), I will try to paraphrase. A owns a horse, with distinct markings, and has trained it to respond to his whistle. One night B sneaks in to his ranch and steals the horse. The thief B, takes the horse far enough away that no person can recognize it. B than forges a bill of sale, and C buys it. C sells it to D, and D sells it to E. D and E purchased the horse honestly, with bills of sale. E than takes the horse back to A's ranch. A recognizing his horse whistles, and the horse does what it is trained to do. Thus establishing a relationship with the horse. A accuses E of being a thief. At this point our system of retributive justice would require E to surrender the horse to A, or suffer the consequences. But this is injust, E has done nothing wrong. He purchased the horse in good faith and has paid a good price for it. He has become attached to the animal and wants to keep it. Accusing E of being a thief is wrong in itself. E acquired the horse in a open and forthright manner, and not from a thief. E was not a receiver of stolen goods. Customarily the state would intervene and E would be forced to return the horse to D, and try to get his money back from D. Then D would have to seek out C and try to get his money. This leaves C too retrieve his money from B. B is the thief, hence he cannot be found. C can't prove B is a real person, and it is presumed C is the thief. If C can't provide an absolute alibi for himself, it is possible and likely he will go to jail for a crime committed by B. C has committed no crime. Our modern system creates the following wrongs;
Ownership entails both authority and responsibility. Retributive justice obtains retribution, but is not just. A took less care of his property than he could of done. If A properly safeguarded his corral in the first place, it is unlikely B would have succeeded. A was careless B, escaped and C, D, E, and the taxpayer gets punished. "Could anyone devise a system which is more unjust and less practical?"
"Let us assume the the system of responsible individual ownership is recognized, What are the Benefits?
LeFevre's example goes on. A could hire a detective in hopes of finding B. A could of hired a watchman, built a fence, etc. Society should not recognize the responsibility of property over the individual.
I'm sorry if that was a poorly paraphrased example, if it didn't fit in with this thread, or it captured too much space.
I just want to recommend The Philosophy of Ownership to anyone interested in property rights.
Individualism Rocks
Thank you all for your comments.
Can I correctly infer, from the majority opinion in this thread, that to own a thing does not necessarily require that thing to be in one's possession or under one's control? Can I further infer that "own X" is defined to mean "have a right to possession of and control over X" (however right is defined)?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap