This. Besides I agree with property rights because it is the only one that is based on logic. Making everyone entitled to an egg is theft. You are stealing from this farmer. It's "legal" theft. If you have no money and need some good eggs from the farmer than maybe you could work out a deal with him and you could work on his farmer for an hour or two a week and he will give you a dozen eggs for that. Time and effort is worth something. You should always receieve a fair amount of money/goods/etc in exchange for your work. Unless of course you voluntarily do something of service for free. The only time I think it's fine to steal is if it's from one of those giant corporations that don't give a fuck about the consumer because they know they have the monopoly and don't have to worry about competition so they just fuck people over left and right And only care about gaining power and money.
I personally agree with the US law on this matter, I don't condone any form of theft. I don't sympathize with the thief, he has the ability I do to go and get it through skills and society can't function with people taking what others work for as far as the walmart scenario, I don't have a problem with someone taking from a corporation that massive fun fact.. they wont even go after you if they don't think you have over 25 dollars in merchandise, for fear of lawsuit.
Sometimes my friend goes into Wal-mart and swaps clearance price tags onto items that are of a higher value and then gets the new item at really cheap.
You believe Farmer Smith should get his time and money's worth, and I agree. It has been stated that he gets 200% profit from each dozen. Is that adequate compensation?
No and that's why you don't buy from him. If he's making that much profit than there has to be someone who is selling eggs for less. It's still his property so you cannot steal from him, he has the right to charge whatever he wants for them. But you dont have to buy from him. If you know all the facts you are saying, than talk to him and tell him it's totally unfair to charge that much and if he doesn't sell them for less or you'll take your business elsewhere. It is completely immoral to steal from any grassroots businesses/local businesses/individuals. Period. The absolute only time I say it's fine, again, is if it's a huge monopoly that is lobbying for regulations to put down competition. I don't know how morally sound that is, but I don't feel any sympathy for those companies though.
Why do you feel this way? Why is it wrong to steal from Farmer Smith, with no ill effect, but acceptable to steal from multi-million dollar corporations, also resulting in no harm? James doesn't think Smith's eggs are overpriced. They're free-range and organic, and he believes that $2.50 is a very reasonable price per dozen. But he can get them for free without harming anyone's prospects in the process, so why not take them?
He has the right to sell them for whatever he wants. It's his property. You cannot take someone's property without their consent. It doesn't matter if he will notice or not. No one can say, "well I am deciding that you don't need my money because you are already making enough.". It's his property. Don't touch it. In regards to Walmart or any other mega corp...I say it's ok not because of their prices or profit but because they lobby the government to rig the game in their favor and they put small businesses out of business because of their lobbying and that's where their profit comes from. I don't know how moral it is steal from that type of corporation, but I say it's ok IMO.
If James doesn't believe in property rights, he should live in a community where property rights are not acknowledged. He currently lives in a community where property rights are acknowledged, so he needs to abide by those rules when interacting with others. He cannot say "I don't believe Smith has a right to own this, so I'm going to take it." Whether you believe in property rights or not is subjective morality, but violating cultural moral norms is immoral. If James lived on a commune and everyone shared everything but he kept everything he made for himself, that would be immoral. If he lived in a capitalist society where people own things and he decided to take those things, that would be immoral. In either situation, James is violating the rules that everyone else follows for his own advantage. How is that defensible? And there is a victim in this scenario: Farmer Smith lost eggs that belonged to him. Just because he doesn't know he lost the eggs doesn't mean it wasn't wrong to take them, it just means that James got away with it.
James is a part of the community though, and his thoughts on the matter ought to hold some basis on the issue of subjective morality. James is surely not the only one in the community who thinks this way. Should the majority always rule?
When multiple incompatible opinions exist, yes, the majority should rule. That's democracy, and it's the only fair way to resolve incompatible lifestyles. James's way of life violates the rights of people like Farmer Smith. However, I don't think the two philosophies are completely incompatible. James could live his life without violating the rights of property owners if he acknowledged their belief and did not take what was considered theirs. When he decides that his personal philosophy is right and that everyone must be subject to it, even if they disagree with it, he crosses into immorality. Even if James believes that no one owns anything, he knows that Farmer Smith believes that he owns the eggs. He knows that Farmer Smith probably wouldn't want give the eggs away for free. He knows that Farmer Smith would feel his rights had been violated if he stole the eggs. And he doesn't even need the eggs. There is no excuse for James to take the eggs, regardless of how he personally feels about property. Like I said before, he wouldn't take the eggs if the farmer was watching. He knows it is morally wrong from the farmer's point of view, and he does it anyway because he wants to. The farmer's way of life does not affect James, and James's way of life doesn't have to affect the farmer, but he acts in a way that makes his lifestyle negatively impact Farmer Smith.
Everyone in this thread is doing such a good job I'm getting burnt out at work, so I may have to take some time to think about these and get back with something better, but for now I'll leave with this: Has James' actions negatively impacted Farmer Smith? If so, he would truly be a victim. However, I believe Farmer Smith has suffered no maladies. He is still making a profit and he hasn't even lost the eggs as far as he knows. He can still buy an Arizona on his way home from the Farmers Market and his chickens will lay more eggs tomorrow. The actions that James took had an impact of -$2.50 on Smith, but that is not necessarily a bad effect. Will Smith suffer the loss of the $2.50?
Yes. And stealing $2.50 worth of eggs might not be as bad as stealing $1000 worth of eggs, but there's no monetary value low enough that the act is no longer considered stealing. Even if there were, that's not James's decision to make.
I don't think he suffers the loss of the $2.50 even though he did lose it. If, say, you had a brother you didn't know about and someone killed him, your brother has been killed, but are you losing your brother? You're not losing anything because the Relationship (emphasis on that) isn't there, just like it's not for the farmer or the egg. Regardless of morality, I don't believe he is taking FROM the farmer, if anything he's stealing from some indescribable entity C, that's where the eggs preside, neither in the possession of either man until they decide, by taking the eggs he didn't steal from the farmer, he went from 0 eggs to 3 and the farmer remained at zero, until he counts his eggs, at which point he gains all the eggs.
oooo That's a good addition. Do the 12 eggs explicitly belong to the farmer before he counts them? Until he counts them, he doesn't know those twelve are there, so he hasn't claimed them specifically as his. Can something be personal property if you don't know you have it?