As a practical matter, I doubt the value sold in such situations ever
adds up to the value lost.  And the non-pecuiary since of violation,
loss, and trouble has to get in there somewhere if we are really picky.
I don't think considering marginal utility of dollars has value in this
situation.  We aren't debating whether the thief is better off -- he is.
I'm not a lawyer either.  I played one on TV once but I didn't play a
very good one and they canceled it after the first episode ...
The situtation I described came from my recollection of Epstein's
'Takings'.  He was specifically rejecting the idea of absolute property
right found in Liberation theology and was using the idea -- that in an
emergency where my life depends upon it I'm entitled to violate your
property rights and (more) you are forbidden from using unreasonable
force to defend them (particularly if you aren't around).
Maybe I did get it all wrong, but that particular recollection is
relatively strong precisely because it gave a good reason why my
libertarian theology needed to be modified.
He was also analyzing what the common law had come up with, which might
not be the statuatory law in a particular jurisdiction.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
> Russell Turpin
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:15 PM
> To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
> Subject: RE: David Friedman: Mail Me the Money!
>
> John Hall:
> >The case against theft also acknowledges that the value to the thief
is
> >often far less than the value to the victim.  Stealing my $1,000
stereo
> and
> >then fencing it for $50 does not result in 'no loss' to the economy
> >overall. ..
>
> That depends on the value placed on it by the fellow
> who buys it from the pawn shop. And if you take
> into account the marginal utility of dollars, the
> thief may value his lucre more than his victim.
>
> >On the flip side of this, common law allows a breach of property law
in
> >precisely the type of scenarios where a net social gain is recorded
but
> >the owner's availability to make a contract was problematic. Breaking
> into
> >your isolated cabin because I'm starving, for example, is permissible
if
> I
> >later offer restitution for the damage I caused and the food I ate.
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I think this is an incorrect
> analysis of what the law allows in emergencies. I
> can break into your cabin, take your rifle, grab a
> box of your ammo, and shoot the bear that is mauling
> a poor hiker, without having committed the crimes of
> breaking and entering, theft, hunting out of season,
> and killing an endangered species, whether or not I
> later offer to pay for your window and ammunition.
> The law simply puts a higher priority on saving
> human life in emergency than on these other things.
>
> Now yes, you can turn around and sue me for
> recompense. But that is a civil issue, not a
> criminal one. Crime requires mens rea. And when I
> shot the bear, I wasn't thinking about who owned
> the bullet.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork