Whats wrong with stealing if the existing distribution of property an wealth is unjust?

Question

First I would like to say that I am pleased with the level of response and I hope more people will continue to share thier opinion.
The above question is jurisprudential, it had to do with what Professor H.L.A Hart mentioned about the uncertainty which would happen if all a legal system has is a set of rules on what not to do which he called the primary rules,there will be inevitably be arguements about exactly what the rules required in specific cases.....for example ,does the the rulle against murder extend to euthanasia? or to abortion? Does the rule against fraud extend to non-disclosure of relevant facts in concluding an agreement? in a society without such a strong moral consensus,these disputes will extend beyond questions of how the rules are interpreted and would reach issue of what rules should be observed in the first place i.e "WHATS WRONG WITH STEALING"...this proves professor hart right by saying we need a set of rules wich we all agree on called the rule of RECOGNITIO

Answer 1

Who says that it is unjust? You?

You have two choices.

You can live in a country like the U.S., where you may start with little, but have the opportunity to earn and accumulate wealth. (2/3 of those in the lowest income quintile today will retire in the highest income quintile).

Or you can live in a Socialist country, where everyone has the same amount, very little.

Answer 2

You're not in a socialist country. This country was not meant to be one where if someone works hard and makes a lot of money, the government steps in and redistributes the wealth. The free market and hard work should determine the wealth distribution if the tax system is fair to all. Unfortunately our tax system has a life of its own. It is time to retire it. Most Americans don't even know how much they pay in taxes. When asked some will even say "I didn't pay anything, in fact I got a refund". The fact is they still paid. And with the withholding tax they were giving the government an interest free loan out of every paycheck. Then they were probably borrowing money at a high rate of interest to get from paycheck to paycheck. That is a nontax tax.

We do have options however, without resorting to stealing. Support the Fair Tax(H.R25/S.1025). It will eliminate the income tax and many other taxes that are embedded in the prices of goods and services(the gasoline tax for one). It calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment and eliminates the IRS.
Take a look at it and if you support it tell your Congressmen.

Answer 3

Ah, is this a legal or ethical question?

I would argue that regardless of the injustice of the economic system, it is not up to you to "correct" that injustice by taking personally for yourself from another individual. It is your responsibility to change the system.
Even under some sort of utilitarian ethic, your thievery does not create the greatest good. First, it deprives another of the possessions you get -- ethically neutral. Second, it undermines the social order, creating chaos, causing society to become less trusting, less productive, and less closed. A negative. Third, it creates a society where once you have acquierd this wealth, someone else can take it away from you just as easily -- an ultimate negative.

It does not seem to fit into the civil disobediance models of Ghandi or King, since what you are doing is an ultimately selfish act for social change (compared to civil disobediance, which constitutes selfless acts for social change).

So, besides the fact it's illegal (a Kantian categorical imperative, perhaps), it's morally corrupt and would basically be doomed to failure.

Answer 4

Firstly, I think you have to have a nation of laws, not men.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with a court convicting someone of theft, declaring that the property in question is stolen and deposing of it according to law.

To broaden the second point, suppose a court decided that the nation's reserves were meant to be divided evenly among the population according to a law passed by the legislature. It could then be theoretically possible to re-distribute in a more just fashion without it being called 'stealing'.

So the answer to your question I think is that it is good to obey the laws, and if you violate them prepare to pay the penalty, because we want to be a nation of laws, not men. Change the law, make the distribution of wealth just, and then you should be happy.

Of course, that supposes that the people have a say in the making of the laws, that you live in a democracy and so on.

Answer 5

One thing you have from birth to death is your integrity. And what is more valuable than your own opinion of your self? Stealing is a reflection of the state of your integrity. Who cares if you have a bunch of "stuff" if you damage your integrity gaining it? Notice I didn't say lose your integrity - because it's still going with you from birth to death. It's all yours, and you can polish to a high state of impeccability or you can whack it with a hammer. Kind of like whacking your own thumb with a hammer - painful and stupid! Since it's all yours, you are free in any moment to change the way you take care of your integrity.

Your question suggests that you don't view the Ten Commandments or other religious precepts as a sufficient guideline in this matter. But the fact that you're asking the question also suggests that you're looking for a guideline that you CAN internalize. So I'm suggesting that your own integrity is that polestar. And the other hint that you can use for internal guidance is justification. If you can see that your question contains a justification, that's your best clue that your mind is leading you into trouble.

Answer 6

I suppose from a moral point of view, you have to ask what would happen if everyone did it ? Clearly if we all stole from others the world would be in an even worse mess than it is now.

In the real world things are rather more grey. I see nothing wrong with stealing from huge companies who make billions in profits by squeezing suppliers (and ultimately the workers) on a regular basis. Their so called business practices are responsible for much of the poverty and inequality in the world and it's getting worse.

Answer 7

You ARE on a mission this evening, aren't you?

Have you recently been caught commiting theft or burglary, by any chance...?

It's lawfully wrong. Ulterior motive is of no defence, so that if you were to claim that as some kind of defence during a trial, it could never be held as such as it is of no concern to the matter of the crime of theft that the distribution of wealth is morally unjust.

If it were to be admissible, all hell would break loose. How on earth would "just" distribution be defined? It would be an absolute nightmare and society would cease to function.

Answer 8

Because then you have anarchy. Anarchy does nothing to better the lives of the majority of folks and actually makes it worse. Also attitude. You also assume that the distribution of property is unjust. Someone who worked hard all their life and developed an invention that was sorely needed by many and became rich: isn't he entitled to his property?

Inheritance taxes and estate taxes seek to redistribute property by preventing large owners from having a monopoly to pass on to only their heirs. That's why the Republicans are all wrong in trying to eliminate it, since those heavy taxes are what prevents these monopolies. We'll just end up in a feudal system again (as we already have in some areas).

Answer 9

Because that is not what our country is about. An even distribution of property would remove all reason to work hard and reach for goals. why would it matter if the lazy piece of crap down the street is entitled to what you worked so hard for? Sure, there are flaws in the system, but this is a democracy, and it's a hell of alot more fair than a socialist system where all are supposedly "equal".

Answer 10

Unjust in your eyes is not an excuse for breaking the current law of the land. If you are not as wealthy as somone else do something about it, legally. Campaign for law changes, work to make yourself richer, invent or whatever. Just remember that if the boot gets on the other foot, those less well off than you will want you to pay for their suffering.

Sympathy from us... zero.