SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Machan's Musings - Why Condemn Looting?

Friday
September 23, 2005

Machan's Musings - Why Condemn Looting? by Tibor R. Machan

In a civilized society, even in emergencies, people seek voluntary help, and do not force others to provide them with aid. And in a civilized legal system the same would hold. However urgent the need, however great the goal, support for it must be gained without resort to murder, assault, robbery, extortion and other types of rights violation. Just because the need is great, it doesn’t follow at all, in morality, law or politics, that someone may coerce another to alleviate it. Sadly, ours is far from such a civilized society. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (35 messages)

Friday, September 23 - 8:26am

Great Article!

"In a civilized society, even in emergencies, people seek voluntary help, and do not force others to provide them with aid."

If I am in an Emegency Situation, screw other people's property rights if I have to break a window to survive. Screw the grocery store's property rights if I break in to feed my starving family.

I agree completely that the sneaky, non-Emergency political process is the truer evil.

Friday, September 23 - 9:42am

[What Scott said!]

Ed

Friday, September 23 - 9:46am

Scott, I understand valuing your survival and that of your family over the rights of a stranger in an emergency, but I do not agree with just saying "Screw 'em." Saying, "Screw the grocery store's property rights if I break in to feed my starving family," is the sort of "the ends justify the means" thinking that Objectivism is supposed to oppose, and a violation of the trader principle. Emergency or not, you do not have the right to say "Screw 'em". If you are going to break a window and take food from a supermarket shelf, then it is your responsibility to make restutition for the property damage and theft you have done in the name of survival. If you are going to act on "Screw their property rights, it's an emergency," then what right to you have to oppose those who would break into your home and offer the same excuse for doing so?

Friday, September 23 - 9:50am

Anybody can claim to uphold a principle when times are easy. The real test comes when one is called to adhere to one's principles in times of emergency.

Friday, September 23 - 9:51am

Scott,

If I am in an Emegency Situation, screw other people's property rights if I have to break a window to survive. Screw the grocery store's property rights if I break in to feed my starving family.

To go off on a tangent here, after taking that action to survive, would you make an effort to compensate the storekeeper when you had the means to do so?

Andy

Friday, September 23 - 9:55am

Matthew,

Our posts crossed, and I see you put the same question to Scott that I did. So let me ask you this: Is the intent to make restitution sufficient when taking an emergency action, or are you guilty of an immoral act until restitution is made?

Andy

Friday, September 23 - 9:56am

Much of the looting that I saw on tv was of clothing, electronics, and non essential items. I don't know the extent to which people took food, water etc. The frenzy I saw did not seem to be about survival, but rather mass hysteria. What would I have done? I don't know, taken what I needed and mailed a check off to the owners? I dont know. Where does one draw the line?

The government is going to steal from us to throw money at the Katrina victims. This kind of looting is discussed less than that of the man in the street.

Good article Tibor.

Friday, September 23 - 10:07am

If I am in an Emegency Situation, screw other people's property rights if I have to break a window to survive

If I'm sitting on the other side of that (my) window with a shotgun, would I be justified in pulling the trigger? And, precisely how dire an emergency must it be before your rights trump mine? Does any starving man ( for example ) have a right to break into a grocery store and take what he needs to survive? Or simply to walk in and demand food from the owner?

Just curious. I want to make sure I know the rules before the next emergency.

Edit: If what you're stealing from the owner is necessary to his survival, do your rights still trump his?

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 9/23, 10:41am)

Friday, September 23 - 10:07am

Andy, if I engaged in looting I would hold myself guilty until I made restitution. Talk is cheap, and my principles demand that I actually make restitution, instead of merely 'intending' to do so.

Friday, September 23 - 10:16am

Summer, you would be entirely justified. Even in the likelihood that the man breaking in was a member of the NOPD, and he was breaking into *your* home to force you to leave and confiscate your guns.

Friday, September 23 - 10:26am

Summer, you would be entirely justified.

The implication of Scott's post is that I would not be so justified; that somehow his right to survive outweighs any/all of my rights, simply because he's in the midst of a life and death emergency. Scott, please correct me if I read you incorrectly.

If I were a grocery store owner in a situation such as the one in NO, I'd likely take what I needed for myself and family (assuming a reasonable expectation that the situation would not outlast the stock), and leave the doors open to anyone who needed supplies. But in the case of someone breaking into my home, whether it was just someone looking to steal from me or a law enforcement officer trying to confiscate my guns, I'd feel perfectly justified in using deadly force -- and would probably do so without hesitation.

How I'd feel afterward, I haven't a clue.

Friday, September 23 - 10:40am

There is no right to survival - there is a right to seek survival... so, Summer - blast away, with all of morality behind you...

Friday, September 23 - 10:51am

so, Summer - blast away, with all of morality behind you...

I'd rather not be put in that situation, if it's all the same to you ;o)

But that's the disturbing thing about Scott's post; that sense of entitlement that all too many people feel under such circumstances. Yes, you have a right to seek survival (nod to Robert). But not at my expense!

Edit: spelling

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 9/23, 11:14am)

Friday, September 23 - 11:15am

..."then it is your responsibility to make restutition for the property damage and theft you have done in the name of survival"

Restitution doesnt erase the immoral act of dissing someone's property rights.

More later.

Friday, September 23 - 12:06pm

Matthew,

Andy, if I engaged in looting I would hold myself guilty until I made restitution. Talk is cheap, and my principles demand that I actually make restitution, instead of merely 'intending' to do so.

I agree talk is cheap. By intent I did not mean a rationalization. Rather I meant a genuine commitment to make restitution. However, any number of obstacles could prevent you from making that restitution. For example, what if you could never find the storekeeper after the disaster?

The reason I press this distinction is because I believe the commitment to rectify your emergency action removes the taint of immorality, not the closure of restitution. If that weren't so, you would have to refrain from taking property for your family's survival if you had serious doubts that restitution would ever be possible. For example, you take supplies without any knowledge of who owns them. Wouldn't your act still be moral so long as you did so knowing that you were going to make a real effort at restitution afterwards however slim the chances of succeeding at that might be?

After all, Objectivism is not a suicide pact.

Andy

Friday, September 23 - 12:17pm

For example, you take supplies without any knowledge of who owns them. Wouldn't your act still be moral so long as you did so knowing that you were going to make a real effort at restitution afterwards however slim the chances of succeeding at that might be?

How does the intent to make restitution make the violation of someone else's rights moral? Without knowing who owns the supplies or how vital they are (or may be) to the owner's survival, you'd be possibly jeopardizing his life. How does a mental I.O.U. justify that?

Friday, September 23 - 12:53pm

The function of principles is to make it easier to make good decisions within the contexts to which the principle applies. The principle that it is in one's interest to respect the rights of others, applies in contexts in which one stands to benefit from cooperation and trade. Outside the context in which that principle applies, the task of deciding well what course of action is in one's interest becomes much more difficult.

Even if one is outside the context of the principle of rights in an emergency, it is in one's interest is to restore the context of the principle of rights as soon as one can - and making it clear that one intends to make restitution for emergency actions is necessary to restore that context.

Friday, September 23 - 12:55pm

Summer:

"How does the intent to make restitution make the violation of someone else's rights moral? Without knowing who owns the supplies or how vital they are (or may be) to the owner's survival, you'd be possibly jeopardizing his life. How does a mental I.O.U. justify that?"

Absolutely. You beat me to it. Intending, promising or actually making restitution does not erase the violation of someone else's property rights. You can only use someone's property without violating their rights if you get their permission BEFOREHAND. We should all be crystal clear on that.

As an Objectivist, you bet your ass I am going to violate a property right by taking someone's rope to throw it to a drowning man. I will freely admit to violating the rope owner's property right. I will make restitution, if any is necessary. It is a violation nontheless.

My life or the life of another human being is more important in my hierarchy of values than someone's property right to a peice of otherwise-unused rope. THAT is how I justify taking the guy's rope. MY life is MY standard of value, #1 on the list by which all others on the list are ordered. Preserving the life of another, especially when I can do so easily, if high on my list.

Now, as to breaking your window and taking your food. Do you have the right to shoot me? Sure. But I'll shoot you right back. Your shooting is moral. But my life, as the standard of all value, dictates that it is moral for me to survive--my survival is amongst my highest priorities. I cannot live qua man unless I first survive. Now, we are going to get SOMEONE who says, that even if their child were starving, they WOULDNT steal, because stealing means they were not living their life qua man. Yeah, bullshit. Someone else will say "But if you were starving, someone with the virtue of benevolence would offer you food." And my response to that is--WHO? The people who are jumping up and down and proclaiming me wicked for choosing a human life over someone's property right in a rope? Someone guarding their food with a gun?

Your life is your own responsibility. Guard it and enrich it yourself, because you cannot and ought not rely on the benevolence of others. If it is offered, great. But to depends on it is a presription for starvation.

Friday, September 23 - 3:25pm

Scott,

When you write "my life, as the standard of all value", you are not describing Objectivism, you are advocating pragmatism.

Either that or you don't understand what a standard is and how it differs from a goal or purpose.

Friday, September 23 - 3:29pm

Scott DeSalvo, you wrote:

"Restitution doesnt erase the immoral act of dissing someone's property rights."

No, it does not. You have still done wrong, but by making restitution you have repaired the wrong. Repairing a wrong does not erase the fact that a wrong was done, any more than paying a debt erases the fact that you owed the debt in the first place.
(Edited by Matthew Graybosch
on 9/23, 3:36pm)