A Rothbardian justification for government welfare.

[LibertarianSocialist]

So I was reading confiscation and the homestead principle by Rothbard, in which among other arguments in favor of workers cooperatives and nationalization, he gives an interesting example that could be used as justification for government welfare programs:

 

"Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal."

 

Applied to welfare, B is the owner of the wealth, A is a joint of both the state and privileged groups, in which the privileged group Aa uses its privilege to steal B's wealth which is then stolen again by the state Ab, and then demanded by a welfare recipient C. C is also B in turn, he both gives and receives. Only those who take more than they receive are bad (group A).

 

I know, involuntary taxation is bad, no one denies that. But in the absence of preventing the thief, is a third party stealing back better?

[WasatchMan]

Sounds like you would have to make the individual case that wealth was indeed stolen through the initiation of force against others.

 

It definitely isn't wrong to steal your bike back from someone who stole it from you, and if you hired someones else to steal it back for you that would be fine too.

 

You can't carte-blanche say that these people are haves and these others are have nots, therefore Robin Hood.

[Hamish]

On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation

What is the intent of C - surely this needs to come into play. If C's intent is to right a wrong by taking stolen property from the thief, then surely he would return it to B. If C isn't aware that it is stolen property, then he would offer to pay for it (unless A gives it away which I think could be equivalent to buying it for no money).

 

However the scenario as described makes it sound as if C has stolen the property from A. In which case C is as much a thief as A.

 

So either C is innocent as he believes the horse rightly belongs to A or C is a thief.

 

I don't see how "confiscation" is virtuous. What am I missing?

[AncapFTW]

If C thinks it's A's horse, then he's still a thief.   If he doesn't return it to C, he's profiting from the theft, and in possession of stolen property.  Even if it is better for C to have it than A, that doesn't make what C did right.

[Guest Gee]

So.....

 

The rape of a rapist is not rape?

[MagnumPI]

OK, I'll ask it. What are we defining as a privileged group?

[MrCapitalism]

So.....

 

The rape of a rapist is not rape?

I think the argument is that two rapes make a right.

 

 

 

LibertarianSocialist, could you define what you mean when you use the word "justification"?

[Mister Mister]

Have you seen Stef's very popular video "The Story of your Enslavement"?  He argues that the latest development in government, i.e. human ownership, i.e. tax livestock management, is to get large swaths of the population dependent on the government either through direct welfare or through public employment.  That way you create an automatic army that will horizontally attack anyone who questions or resists the ever-expanding power of the state.  There's no way we can somehow turn this power around for good.  Trying to correct all the injustices of the past with further injustices will only ever lead to endless bloodshed, like we see in Israel.  We just need to stop pointing guns at each other, rather than trying to get a hold of those guns and turn them to what we think is virtue.

The other point is, that we are talking about government money, which isn't really property in a sense, as it is the government's claim on your labor, which we are forced into using as currency.  It would be far more productive to promote the use of agorism, alternative currency, and play the "slow game" as far as spreading reason and peace through the culture inter-generationally.

[regevdl]

So I was reading confiscation and the homestead principle by Rothbard, in which among other arguments in favor of workers cooperatives and nationalization, he gives an interesting example that could be used as justification for government welfare programs:

"Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal."

 

Applied to welfare, B is the owner of the wealth, A is a joint of both the state and privileged groups, in which the privileged group Aa uses its privilege to steal B's wealth which is then stolen again by the state Ab, and then demanded by a welfare recipient C. C is also B in turn, he both gives and receives. Only those who take more than they receive are bad (group A).

 

I know, involuntary taxation is bad, no one denies that. But in the absence of preventing the thief, is a third party stealing back better?

I would first suggest to you to apply this scenario in first person, meaning...put you in the position of person A and instead of horse, it's your car and tell me if you would NOT try to go after C to get your property back or you would roll over and think he was a brave, noble individual.

 

Second, if you feel C is virtuous or noble then you do not believe in theft at all as you WANT this person to steal property and if you WANT them to steal property (and universalize that point) then it's no longer theft....rather an exchange of property which means your principle is applied to everyone abouty everything.  Welfare is money but you cannot single out one type of property to shoehorn your inconsistent principle.  It must apply to all property and to everyone.  

 

So if you think that by stealing my money and it gets into someone's hands and then to another's then that is one form of theft.  If you agree with that then it must apply to your car, your personal bank account, my house, your family's land, my neighbor's bank account, my mother's jewelry, etc.  otherwise it's not a principle, nor it is virtuous.  But most people have no problem with gvt stealing the property of money but won't accept any individual or the gvt stealing the property of the home.  If you don't pay your taxes, you will have no problem if the gvt came and kicked you out of your house, would you?  Afterall they will transfer it to someone needy, right?  No, that's why IRS come with guns because even the most hard core statists don't want their tangible property stolen from them.  

 

 

It would ONLY be virtuous if C returned the horse to the initial owner and none of this 'well...it would be better if...but if he didn't he still.." those are loophole excuses that get everything foggy and everyone justifying their douchey behavior and why crime exists in the first place because the 'good guys' subsidize bad behavior with murky, fogged out jusitifications and somehow they think by 'acknowledging' how the behavior could have been better, makes it ok.  No.  just do the BETTER behavior.  

 

C in no way knew that the property he/she was stealing was stolen property.  So either way, C was acting in his/her own self interest, not the interest of A.  It's re-stealing the property of A, nothing more, nothing less.  The property does not magically now become C's.  It's still A's property. 

 

If I steal your car and someone steals it from me, will you, the owner be cheering and waving a noble flag to the 2nd thief?  I mean you have to keep your principles consistent so, my gut tells me you will not.  you would still want your car back and if another person steals it, you would probably be in MORE panic because it's that much harder to track when it switches through many hands of faceless thieves.

[john cena]

So basically your argument is that, if I get a group of people together, and vote to make one of us go and steal from another group, we are virtuous, just not the one who stole? By that logic, murder for hire is fine, as long as you vote on who does the killing..

[LandoRamone30]

That scenario seems sketchy to me. B is the obvious victim of a crime and A is the obvious criminal. C can be a criminal too or a moral agent base on C intentions. If C happened upon A and didn't know A stole the property C was taking C would be a thief just like A is thief. If C is working with B in action against A then it would be a moral act by which B recover stolen property. I do not see how then this would mean when applied to statism that C is moral because it received property from B that was taken by A.