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.
When you and your friend sneak into The Hangover, you do not create any additional costs for the theater. They were going to screen it as scheduled regardless. The benefit you two receive comes with essentially no cost (to the theater or society in general). A consequentialist would then agree with your deontological findings.
I agree with Joel’s comment, you are not adding to the cost of the theater to sit for a screening that is not full. I think there a few inconsistencies here when one follows to your logical conclusion. Should I be able to rob your house if you do not own a gun to protect yourself and property? (If you do believe that the responsibility lies in the individual, then you must see the logical necessity to be packing at all times.) Also, your argument justifies the coercive power of the state, since you cannot protect yourself if they come in with the army to take your possessions. (Not too far-fetched to believe.) Are you saying that this is a survival-of-the-fittest type of system? (I’m not sure I disagree about it either, I just think that you may not agree on the guns issue, at the very least.)
I do not at all believe that my views on the subject necessitate a permanently armed citizenry. Police exist to protect us. The right to no harm is real, so force may be used to defend it, but the biggest reason that I do not rob someone is not that he might have a gun but that the police will either kill me or track me down and I will spend the rest of my life in jail. So I suppose that is an argument for police, or the private protection agencies of the anarcho-capitalist world. Both would reduce the extent to which it would be “survival of the fittest.”
Forgive me for my skepticism of the police, but I don’t think relying upon them is a legitimate way for people to protect themselves. As someone who believes in individual responsibility, I would hardly cede my ability to protect myself to a government agency. Conceal and carry is not “survival of the fittest.” It forces people (especially criminals, who have little regard for such principles or societal expectations) to respect the “right to no harm.” It would be impossible to have police tailing everyone all the time, and conceal-and-carry is the best way to even the playing field.
But that’s the beauty of having the right. You don’t have to cede it to the police. You are free to have a gun to defend yourself if you want. But I would hardly call it “necessary.”
But not in all states, especially my home state, Illinois. (I’ve heard that more people die in Chicago from guns than Iraq, and it’s illegal to have them in Chicago.) And I’m not old enough in Missouri to conceal-and-carry. Does that mean I cannot protect myself from an attack? Where are my rights?? Does that mean that someone can mug me, because I can protect myself?
I wish that were true, my friend. As a resident of NJ, I can tell you, we certainly do not have that right. This is the case in many places run by left-leaning state governments (NJ, NY, CA, etc.) For some ridiculous reason, they think the fact that Florida’s homicide rate dropping almost 23% between 1987 and 1992 after right-to-carry laws were enacted (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomStatebyState.cfm) while the homicide rate in the country ROSE 9% (lack of new RTC laws elsewhere) is irrelevant and nonsensical. As a result, the CONSTITUTIONALLY-GRANTED right to carry a gun is non-existent in many areas such as my home state.
Check out David Codrea’s blog at http://waronguns.blogspot.com/ for further supporting arguments.
Clarify something for me. Are you for the total incorporation of the bill of rights? Because the second amendment hasn’t actually been incorporated yet. Heller ruled on a D.C. law; therefore it did not apply the second amendment to the states. There is some speculation that a Chicago case coming down the line might, but it has yet to reach the Supreme Court. So if you call it a constitutional right, you have to support total incorporation. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m just curious if you really do.
I am indeed in favor of a total incorporation. The reason for that is because the Bill of Rights reflects the greatest amount of personal freedom that is possible (excluding anarchy). I believe that most debate on the semantics of the Bill of Rights is moot, because the bill states very clearly the rights of the people. For instance, I feel that freedom of speech should not be abridged in ANY way shape or form, because that is how it is stated in the BOR. There is no semantics about whether free speech is OK as long as it is not out of hatred, violence, anger, etc…It says “freedom of speech”. I do not observe any limitations on that statement.
The same could be said about the 2nd Amendment. There is no semantics about whether the gun should be a certain caliber, style, only certain people can own them, etc…It says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s as simple as it gets, lol. The Constitution was originally thought to only be applied federally, as you said, but that was the reason the Fourteenth Amendment was written (http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html). It can also be argued that DC vs. Heller set a precedent for the rest of the country. I’m sure there will be many future 2nd amendment cases in which this case will be referred to.