Receiving stolen goods

Bartricks

Let's say you own a pizza. I steal a slice of your pizza. Rodney thinks I acquired the pizza slice by legitimate means and has been epistemically responsible in acquiring this belief (so, he didn't see me steal it and I've told him it is mine). I give Rodney the slice of pizza and he eats it. I then fall down dead and you discover what I did.

Does Rodney owe you some money for that pizza slice? I take it that my moral intuitions are not unusual in giving me the impression that no, Rodney does not owe you any money. Or at least, any debt Rodney owes you is not one that can be extracted from Rodney by force. You would not be entitled to take some of Rodney's things, up to the value of the pizza slice.

However, if Rodney had not consumed the pizza slice, then my moral intuitions say that Rodney should return it to you - indeed, that you are entitled to take it from him.

And if he had taken just one mouthful, then he owes you the rest of the pizza, but not the mouthful he consumed.

What, however, if Rodney had incorporated the pizza into an art work - he has, say, covered it in gold and put it on a stand. Does Rodney owe you that work of art? Well, it seems to me that Rodney does now owe you compensation for the value of the original slice. If he sold the artwork for $1,000, he owes you, say, $2, if that's what a pizza slice costs.

Another example - an artist steals some paint from you and uses that stolen paint to paint a picture that I buy (and I buy it not knowing that it was painted with stolen paint). The artist then dies and his crime comes to light. Well, it seems clear enough to my intuitions that I do not owe you the painting or some portion of the painting's value. No, if the painting is worth more than the value of the paints used to create it, then I owe you the value of those paints, that's all.

It my intuitions are to be trusted about these cases, then, it seems that if you (in an epistemically responsible way) acquire stolen goods but then do something to them that destroys their original value, you do not owe the original owner anything.

And if you do something that reduces their original value, you only owe the remaining value, not whole of the original value.

If, however, you do not diminish its value or do anything at all with or to it, then you are obliged to return it.

By contrast, if you add value to it by incorporating it into something else or transform it in a value adding way, then you owe the original owner the value of the original, but no more than that.

It seems to me that if correct, this has important implications where intergenerational justice is concerned. If my grandfather stole your land and built a house on it and now it is worth a great deal of money, then at most I owe you the value of the original, unimproved land, not some portion of the value that it has been increased by.

James Riley

no, Rodney does not owe you any money. — Bartricks

Rodney owes me the value of the slice, plus the statutory rate of interest that I could have earned had it not been stolen, had I sold it and invested the money. Rodney has to seek relief, if any from you or your estate. You can't sell what you don't own so the transaction between you and Rodney is void. It's up to you to obtain legal title, even if there is no paper. It's a legal fiction but the burden is on Rod.

if Rodney had incorporated the pizza into an art work - he has, say, covered it in gold and put it on a stand. Does Rodney owe you that work of art? — Bartricks

No. He owes the value of the slice plus interest.

I got bored reading the rest. We have courts of law. We determine value of the slice in court. We have statutory rates of interest that we use to determine "increase." Not enhancement that could have been, but normal increase due to investment.

Just remember, interest compounds up, but also down. If your grandfather steels my grandfather's labor and you go to Harvard Law school because of it, while I join a gang, do meth and spiral down, then we have statutes of limitations (SOL), or "shit out of luck" that protects you and your grandfather. It's called "white privilege." But society may (should) feel a moral obligation to make me whole. But it doesn't. There is an open conspiracy to look the other way. The privileged like to wipe the slate clean and not punish the sons for the sins of the father. That's why morality says "We are not punishing you. We are just relieving you of some of the benefits that you enjoy, the privilege that you are not entitled to, as an entitled little shit."

Compare: People get old and die and generations move on. But nations live on unless and until exterminated. The U.S. is and has been "alive" since 1776. Virtually ALL of the Indian tribes that we treated with are likewise still extant. Our own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. Indian aren't entitled to mere money at law for the increase, but they are entitled to specific performance in equity. In other words, for one example, the Lakota are entitled to the Black Hills and environs, as well as money damages. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has only awarded money which they have rejected. Give them the land. Or be dishonorable. Our choice, because, whether might makes right or not, it is the way things are. The U.S. is dishonorable.

Book273

↪Bartricks

I would maintain that, IF, the pizza were still available in it's original state, AND Rodney were to suffer no additional loss, other than said pizza, it should be returned to the original owner.

However, if Rodney were to suffer a loss from the returning of the pizza, then the original owner should be obligated to either a) Accept payment for original cost of pizza, B) accept the loss and move on, or C) Compensate Rodney for all of the lost value of the pizza beyond its original cost.

Therefore, in application to lands "taken" (a preposterous concept, everything has been "taken" from someone is you go back far enough. Should I sue England for damages from the Acadian expulsion? Perhaps England can raise a case against Italy for the Roman Occupation. Just Idiotic. But I digress) Lands taken would be worth X. Improvements on said land would be worth Y. Therefore X-Y would be the balance owing to the original "owners" (bah ha ha) of the land. If the improvements are worth less than the original land, the land and some positive balance would be returned. However, if improvements are worth more than the land (likely) then the balance would be negative, therefore the land would be returned, along with an invoice for improvements made to same.

I have seen land be uncontested by local first nations, with the affected nation claiming no interest in the designated lands (they did not want them) initially. However, once substantial improvements had been made to the land (City put in a high end subdivision), suddenly the local first nation demanded the return of their ancestral lands, lands that in previous consultation had been described as "having no value to the first nation and are of therefore no interest to same." Due process had been followed and the city retained ownership of said subdivision. Courts (yes, it went to court) found in favor of the city, and the local first nation decried the travesty of justice.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Well, I was well and truly bored by the time I got to the point where you told me how bored you were. But anyway, you didn't address anything I argued, you just stated something counterintuitive, namely that Rodney owes you the value of the pizza he consumed plus interest. Again, you'll need to do better than that if you want followers.

James Riley

Well, I was well and truly bored by the time I got to the point where you told me how bored you were. — Bartricks

Yeah, the law is like that. Notwithstanding the fact it is based upon that lively and exciting field of philosophy.

But anyway, you didn't address anything I argued, — Bartricks

Actually, I did. But like a loser in a court case, you didn't like what you heard. :lol:

you just stated something counterintuitive, namely that Rodney owes you the value of the pizza he consumed plus interest — Bartricks

Funny you should call the law counterintuitive on that one. :smirk:

Again, you'll need to do better than that if you want followers. — Bartricks

Don't follow me. Follow the law. Or don't. Your call.

Bartricks

↪Book273

I would maintain that, IF, the pizza were still available in it's original state, AND Rodney were to suffer no additional loss, other than said pizza, it should be returned to the original owner. — Book273

My intuitions agree with that - if the original item that was honestly acquired is in its original state, then it goes back to its original owner and the loss has to be born by the honest acquirer.

But if the original item is destroyed by the honest acquirer (as in the pizza eating case) or reduced in value as in the one bite case), then the loss has to be borne by the original victim.

Seems arbitrary, but in both cases we have someone who has done nothing wrong having to bear the cost due to the lack of the original wrongdoer.

And yes, I agree with this:

However, if Rodney were to suffer a loss from the returning of the pizza, then the original owner should be obligated to either a) Accept payment for original cost of pizza, B) accept the loss and move on, or C) Compensate Rodney for all of the lost value of the pizza beyond its original cost. — Book273

You say:

Therefore, in application to lands "taken" (a preposterous concept, everything has been "taken" from someone is you go back far enough. Should I sue England for damages from the Acadian expulsion? Perhaps England can raise a case against Italy for the Roman Occupation. Just Idiotic. But I digress) — Book273

Yes, I think time makes a difference - that is, the mere passage of time can make a difference to how we should behave in light of an injustice.

Lands taken would be worth X. Improvements on said land would be worth Y. Therefore X-Y would be the balance owing to the original "owners" (bah ha ha) of the land. If the improvements are worth less than the original land, the land and some positive balance would be returned. However, if improvements are worth more than the land (likely) then the balance would be negative, therefore the land would be returned, along with an invoice for improvements made to same. — Book273

I suppose that could be another way of doing it. Applying the intuitions from the pizza case, any devaluation of the land is not something the honest acquirer owes to the original party - that is, any loss is the victim's to bear. Whereas any improvement belongs to the honest acquirer. As in the 'turns the pizza slice into a work of art' case - Rodney owes the original owner $2, not $2,000 (or alternatively, the original owner gets the slice but now must compensate ROdney to the tune of $1888).

I have seen land be uncontested by local first nations, with the affected nation claiming no interest in the designated lands (they did not want them) initially. However, once substantial improvements had been made to the land (City put in a high end subdivision), suddenly the local first nation demanded the return of their ancestral lands, lands that in previous consultation had been described as "having no value to the first nation and are of therefore no interest to same." Due process had been followed and the city retained ownership of said subdivision. Courts (yes, it went to court) found in favor of the city, and the local first nation decried the travesty of justice. — Book273

Yes, it sounds as if the courts were quite right. I mean, those who might be tempted to argue it was a travesty of justice would, if they were consistent, agree that it was also a travesty of justice that the original owners did nothing with their land for so long, and thus deprived the rest of us of the benefits that might flow from its development!

tim wood

Subject to correction by the lawyer posting, it seems to me that property rights cannot be alienated by an illegal transaction against the property owner - one reason title searching is always done in real estate transactions and car titles are a big deal. As to (other) chattel, if stolen, the one in possession is either the thief, or in possession of stolen goods.

If the one in possession acted in good faith, that merely saves him or her from prosecution, but establishes no right whatsoever. Nor can any right be attached when no original right exists. Thus if stolen paint is brushed onto a canvas creating a masterpiece, that paint and its added value go to the original owner.

But a question remains as to responsibility for lost value. In good faith I acquire a car that's stolen. It's wrecked in an accident, me driving. Do I owe the original owner anything? And under criminal or civil law? And it seems to me I owe. Somewhere along the line of the chain of possession was an act of commission or omission. I may have civil recourse back along that line, but it seems to me the original owner has a claim against all parties.

And I'm sure there's a tenet at law to cover this: no one can profit from wrong acts.

tim wood

Applying the intuitions from the pizza case, any devaluation of the land is not something the honest acquirer owes to the original party - that is, any loss is the victim's to bear. Whereas any improvement belongs to the honest acquirer. — Bartricks

That's not how it works, and if you gave it any thought you'd quickly realize it cannot work that way.

Bartricks

↪tim wood

THis is not about what the law says. This is about what the right and wrongs of the matter are.

If you honestly acquire a stolen car and then crash it, that's the same as honestly acquiring the slice of pizza and eating most of it. The original owner is entitled to the crust that remains, but not entitled to have you pay for what you ate.

Isn't that what your intuitions say about the pizza slice case? Intuitively Rodney does not owe you the cost of that pizza slice - or at least, the debt is not of a kind that force can be used to extract.

The same applies to the car.

Another scenario: imagine that you honestly acquire a stolen vehicle. Well, the original owner is entitled to it back.

Does it make any difference if it transpires that the car was stolen from outside a bar and had the original owner driven it, he was so steaming drunk he'd have crashed it and written it off? That is, do you now 'not' owe the original owner the car as had it not been stolen the car would be in a worse state than it is for having been stolen? No, you owe the original owner the car.

Bartricks

↪tim wood

Er, okay. Good argument. Such insight.

That is how it works. If you want to find out the right and wrongs of these matters, my method is the one to be adopted - that is, one thinks about relevantly analogous cases about which parties are not heavily politically or financially invested.

tim wood

This is about what the right and wrongs of the matter are. — Bartricks

And the law in this case gets it right, and you wrong. I steal your stuff and give it to my cousin Fred to sell. Fred is clueless; he's acting in good faith. But he's in possession. his problem. And your problem. And if not, we'll just steal your stuff and you'll be basically helpless. But the law figured all that out a very long time ago. So your intuition and reasoning is at about a sixth or seventh grade level: pre-teen, childish.

James Riley

Subject to correction by the lawyer posting, it seems to me that property rights cannot be alienated by an illegal transaction against the property owner - one reason title searching is always done in real estate transactions and car titles are a big deal. As to (other) chattel, if stolen, the one in possession is either the thief, or in possession of stolen goods.

If the one in possession acted in good faith, that merely saves him or her from prosecution, but establishes no right whatsoever. Nor can any right be attached when no original right exists. — tim wood

:up:

Thus if stolen paint is brushed onto a canvas creating a masterpiece, that paint and its added value go to the original owner. — tim wood

I think the original owner is entitled to the value of the paint, and interest, but not the value of the painting. If the painter is the thief, he could be liable for punitive damages that are more than the value of the paint plus interest. If they painter is an innocent purchaser for value, he'd just owe for the paint plus interest and could keep the enhanced value after sale.

There are exceptions to the general rule when the original victim had specific and known plans, and accrued known losses (like a particular investment that would have earned more than statutory interest). It's been a long time, but you are right about the general principle and Bartricks is wrong, at least by law.

But a question remains as to responsibility for lost value. In good faith I acquire a car that's stolen. It's wrecked in an accident, me driving. Do I owe the original owner anything? And under criminal or civil law? And it seems to me I owe. Somewhere along the line of the chain of possession was an act of commission or omission. I may have civil recourse back along that line, but it seems to me the original owner has a claim against all parties.

And I'm sure there's a tenet at law to cover this: no one can profit from wrong acts. — tim wood

:100:

James Riley

And the law in this case gets it right, and you wrong. I steal your stuff and give it to my cousin Fred to sell. Fred is clueless; he's acting in good faith. But he's in possession. his problem. And your problem. And if not, we'll just steal your stuff and you'll be basically helpless. But the law figured all that out a very long time ago. So your intuition and reasoning is at about a sixth or seventh grade level: pre-teen, childish. — tim wood

:100:

Bartricks

↪tim wood

Yes, excellent point - what the law says is automatically right. We do not need to discuss the ethics of any particular laws. Good point. You're good. Lawyers are the real moral philosophers. Why don't moral philosophers realize this? Really good point.

And yes, that's right Timbo, I am a child and I don't know what I am talking about and the method of using thought experiments about relevantly analogous cases is really stupid and I'm dumb and stupid and an idiot and not a professional philosopher at all. Good points. All good points and well worth making.

James Riley

es, excellent point - what the law says is automatically right. We do not need to discuss the ethics of any particular laws. Good point. You're good. Lawyers are the real moral philosophers. Why don't moral philosophers realize this? Really good point. — Bartricks

Buyer beware. :smile:

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Do you have anything philosophical to contribute?

tim wood

↪Bartricks

Try reading this. It's short enough and instructive. Melville, Moby Dick, chap. 89.

Bartricks

↪tim wood

No. Try thinking about my examples. It's called thought experimenting. Or just 'thinking' for short. It's how you gain ethical insight into controversial issues.

Or you could just decide that I am wrong about everything and work from there - see how that goes.

Bartricks

↪tim wood

More great points. You're on fire today! Do you have anything at all philosophical to say about the arguments made in the OP? Or are you just Bartricks baiting?

James Riley

Do you have anything philosophical to contribute? — Bartricks

You'd be surprised at how much the law (both statutory and common) has found it's moral underpinnings in thousands of years of philosophy. You wouldn't believe how all the various degrees and elements of crimes, mens rea, etc. and civil considerations regarding damages, etc. are really just legal efforts to address the nuances of individual cases that have arisen repeatedly over the course of time. Attorney's, representing both sides (some of them brilliant philosophers), and judges (same) after deep philosophical consideration, came up with what we call "precedent." Then there is statutory law that came about through a messier, dumber, but nonetheless, judicially reviewed process.

Perfect? NO. But I was making philosophical contributions. You just didn't agree with them. I suspect that you don't like the fact that you can't reset and clean a slate as long as you didn't know. Even though justice places the burden upon you to know. You would like to forget the original victim and "tough shit to him." You would like to be able to launder the goods by ignorance. But that is not how the law works, at least before the SOL.

Bartricks work in a bar, but not before the bar.

tim wood

↪Bartricks

I can and do appreciate the attempt to contribute a thread. But as presented there's no open philosophic content. Law comes down to the details and the details and what they mean matter. But if you want to "try" some particular law as anti-philosophic, argue the case as if in a moot court. Start with the issue, "Whether X, or not." One sentence usually best, usually with "whether." Then the rule of law. Then your argument. Then your summary and conclusion.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Oh gosh, I never realized that. Golly. So, philosophical reflection on the nature of ethics has informed the law. Wow. I see. Cor, thanks for that insight. That's really important.

And I engaged in some of that philosophical reflection, did I not, in the OP - and then you ignored it.

Bartricks

↪tim wood

Really- you think the OP has no philosophical content. Okay. Well, you know better than stupid old me and my silly thought experiments - you're right, they've got no role to play in ethical theorizing. Once more, you show a foolish professional philosopher the error of his ways - thanks Tim!!!

James Riley

And I engaged in some of that philosophical reflection, did I not, in the OP - and then you ignored it. — Bartricks

I didn't ignore your post. I disagreed with it. You didn't like that. Just because your moral intuitions are wrong doesn't mean I ignored them when I disagreed with them.

tim wood

↪Bartricks

Content and evidence of comprehension and understanding that would credit a seventh-grader, but not an adult representing himself as any kind of thinker. But of course you have refused out-of-hand to look at a short text I referenced, and refused to engage on a form of argument. Pretty clearly your agenda isn't to be found in your words. May I ask what it is?

Bartricks

↪tim wood

Still no philosophical points. Just more baiting.

Do you know what the most reproduced article in philosophy is?

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Oo, excellent point. Yes, that's how philosophy works. No arguments - we just wait for James's pronouncements.

Benkei

Just because your moral intuitions are wrong doesn't mean I ignored them when I disagreed with them. — James Riley

Then please explain why Dutch law protects the buyer of stolen goods if he acted in good faith (barring goods registered in public register). Good faith would be he wasn't aware and was, given the circumstances, not required to be aware the goods were stolen.

And legality and ethics aren't as related as you make it out to be. Laws are about economics more than about ethics.

tim wood

↪Bartricks

Google tells me, "“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1935), by Walter Benjamin." Is that it? The article proceeds "is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d’art.[1] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin’s essay presents a theory of art that is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” in a mass-culture society.[2]"

By all means connect this to your OP; that might be interesting. And, after a thirty-second look at the paper itself, it does not look to me easy to understand.

tim wood

Then please explain why Dutch law protects the buyer of stolen goods if he acted in good faith (barring goods registered in public register). — Benkei

In what way? I'm surprised if Dutch law allows the buyer of stolen goods to keep them, for example. Does the buyer acquire some interest that is protected? What would that be?

Benkei

↪tim wood

He acquired ownership as long as he can demonstrate good faith in his acquisition. The original owner is left with a claim on the thief.

Receiving stolen goods

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions