Lately I have been struggling with a very basic philosophical question. Are individuals obligated to respect the property rights of others? Put another way, is there any reason to not steal/kill/rampage besides the threat of retribution? Jeff’s recent post led me to write all this down, but the impetus for this inner monologue was a Saturday afternoon at the movies. Here’s what happened:
A friend and I were talking about seeing The Hangover, which she had never seen. Our plans happened to coincide with the opening of Bruno, so I suggested we purchase tickets for Bruno (they would be checking stubs, since it just came out) and then afterwards just walk into The Hangover. Thus, two movies for the price of one.
My rationale was simple: the movie theater has the burden of keeping us from being dishonest. If they were really concerned about this practice, and conceivably we could have walked from theater to theater all day, they simply have to post an attendant at each theater at all times to check stubs. Problem solved. The reason the movie theater owners do not do this is it is cost-prohibitive. They are counting on each of us to be honest, and they recognize that the policy is only necessary on a popular movie’s opening weekend.
It cannot be denied that the movie theater has the right to prevent me from stealing movies in this manner. They pay the costs of distribution, and they are entitled to determine who is allowed to see the movie. If we want a more theoretical example, let’s imagine a simple society where you only have two rights, the right to yourself (no one may kill/hurt/imprison you without your consent), and the right to your property (no one may take it without your consent).
It is generally agreed that if you have a legitimate right to something, you can defend it by force. For example, if someone is attempting to kill me, I can stop him. This is all well and good, and I have no disagreements. But in this situation, the primary reason I would have for not attempting to kill one of my fellow men would be the possible consequences of my actions. Or if we consider stealing, I would only respect his property rights so long as he was watching me. There would certainly be a dilemma if I found a valuable item unattended.
So does he carry the burden of protecting himself and his possessions? Or do I carry the burden of respecting his personal and property rights? I believe the former to be true. Property rights exist only so long as we are willing to defend them. A man that abandons his property, or abandons himself (suicide bombers, hunger strikers, etc.), is not entitled to them anymore. While the cost to society is higher in the first situation (think of all the time and energy spent on defended yourself and your property), it is precisely this reason that government comes into being.
To believe the latter would presume too much of individuals. Enforcement mechanisms work better on some than on others, but generally the fear of retribution is what drives behavior. I do not believe that a world in which this mindset dominates would be incredibly violent, as some of you might be thinking. The deterrent against theft and murder, the forfeiture of your own life or property, still exists. There is just no presumption of saintliness on the part of the individual.
