If you take a wallet from a dead body, Is it still theft?
Log in to join in Reading is open to everyone. Replying needs an account.
If you take a wallet from a dead body, Is it still theft?
Log in to join in Reading is open to everyone. Replying needs an account.
37 comments
Every dead person has heirs.
What if that person didn't have any heirs.
There are always heirs, if no children then siblings, if no siblings then cousins. There is always someone
What if they all abandoned this person.
That has no meaning. The authorities will look for the heirs until they find someone. If really no one is found, which happened during the llWW, for example, because many Jews were killed with entire families, everything passes to the state. But those were extreme times. In the normal case, something like that doesn't happen.
I am pretty sure you have better things to do than replying in detail to my thought experiments. You sound sincere. I am just discussing stupid thoughts.
I like thought experiments, they keep my mind alert. 😉
This is why I hate governments. They get to steal everything in broad daylight.
I wrote to you that the authorities are looking for heirs first. Only when there is no one, it is handed over to the state. It's not the government that does that. That is done by local authorities, city or municipality.
Those are all forms of governments right? But what if the wallet is empty. Is it still theft?
That is the question of definition According to Wikipedia "Theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." If no ways can be found, the rightful owner is the state. Therefore, there is no theft. After death, the deceased person is no longer the owner of the wallet.l, therefore he can no longer be stolen from. In the past, however, it was different. The ancient pharaohs or other rulers took their mobile property (sometimes also servants, soldiers and slaves) to the grave because they remained the owners even after death.
> If no ways can be found, the rightful owner is the state. Therefore, there is no theft. This is what the state says. Why can't I make a different set of rules and take it for me?
If everyone set up their own set of rules, anarchy would reign. For example, I would make a rule that your property is mine and then what? I could take your wallet and it wouldn't be theft.
It won't be theft according to him but it will be theft according to me. So who wins the fight can take it. Don't you think that kind of world will be far more interesting and exciting?
Such a world already existed. Ist called "Survival of the fittest". It still exists in the animal kingdom. This life is perhaps more interesting, but cruel, dangerous and usually very short. I don't want to live like this. I think most people don't either.
Yea I agree many people want a long boring life. There should be a different set of rules for those who prefer exciting life. I think that is what everything boils down to. Different people have different risk tolerance. I am so thankful we did this thought experiment.
I'm glad you enjoyed the thought experiment. There is already the possibility to live the dangerous and lawless life. In North America, people move to the wild north. Life there is hard. The summers are short, the winters cold. The laws don't reach that far. They can do what they want. Some people choose that.
Thanks. I didn't really know that. I prefer temperate climates like Brazil and Thailand.
Brazil and Thailand are not temperate, they are tropical zones. In Brazil, there are still Indian tribes in Amazonas who live this kind of life. Not any more in Thailand. The people were just put on display for tourists. I saw it myself many years ago, but I don't know if they still do it.
Yea I meant tropical. what kind of life do you mean?
Wild life. Without government. Without laws. The rules are determined by the tribal elder. If someone does not want to live by the rules, they are cast out and usually die quickly because they cannot stand alone against wild animals
That is still a belief system. I don't want to go back there but I want to go forward where everyone in the group acknowledges that everyone's needs and preferences are different. The goal is to make an environment for different small interoperating groups with their own rules and laws that make individuality flourish rather than getting suppressed.
That is a beautiful vision. But what if someone in your society does not submit? What if he says I don't want to live by the rules? There must always be someone who makes sure that the rules are followed. Otherwise anarchy will arise. And the warlords terrorise the population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord
In this society in the case of the wallet of a dead person with no heirs. The guy who found it got lucky and he gets to keep it. Simple.
That's your rule, but what if someone says: the money has to be divided between all of us? It's also easy.
Which is aggression that has to be dealt with by counter aggression. Those who have money have more access to force than those who don't have it.
And what if everyone in society perceives your behaviour as aggression? Do you also have to resist with counter-aggression, or leave the community and start your own?
Fight or flight. Depends on the particular situation.
Then we are back to survival of the fittest. There has already been everything. We are going around in circles.
I guess that cycle is going to come back when civilization falls apart because of mismanagement.
I don't think so. Don't like my rules? Fork away and form your own society. Aggression is a big no-no, Aggression will be dealt with counter agression. Also, I don't believe humans have to be part of a group. There are plenty of people living in the wild all by themselves. I am planning on experiencing it myself.
>Don't like my rules? Fork away and form your own society. It has happened all the time in human history. The first humans split up and gradually different peoples emerged, colonising the entire earth. There is no more room for new forks. The earth is completely divided. Only in the most inaccessible areas is such a preferable one tolerated, because no one wants to live there.
Forking doesn't have to depend on geography. It is just a change in mindset. One family can have people with many different mindsets/societies.
But you have to live somewhere. You need a place, a house. If you want to fork, you have to put the house where the laws don't apply, where you don't like them. In today's world, there is only one way to do that - ship on the ocean.
Again there is no need to run away. You are thinking in the paradigm of force or command and control. When you accept two individuals can choose to live as they please. There is no need for separate places. It like polygamy and monogamy can exist within a same family.
As long as they tolerate each other, yes. But often it is not the case.
Tolerance still means you completely accepted other's choices. There is no need to tolerate once everyone accepts that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ouDk2Mayw