Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?

Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?: A question posed by Natasha in this blog entry that I felt is interesting to further analyze.

Personally, I would argue that it is okay to get what you believe is rightfully yours even by stealing it. The issue is diverse, but approaching the subject from several ways lead to the conclusion that, if you think something is yours, it is up to you to take it. Lets take a look at three different case scenarios: The first is stealing out of need, the second is Robin Hood theft, and third social rebellion.

Consider a poor person who does not have the money to buy food, so he steals that food. This is probably a humanitarian case. The social system exists to protect its members, and failing to deliver the minimum required amount of protection to the most basic needs for human survival, gives the person zero incentive to abide the rules of that system. To value the social system above the lives of its members is simply unreasonable.

Robin Hood theft is a redistribution of wealth concept where the money (allegedly stolen by the people in high positions) is stolen from the wealthy and given to the poor. It is based on the simple idea that, if someone steals something, then it not rightfully theirs, which legitimizes that the original owner to steal it back. Such reasoning is widely opposed where it is claimed that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that the legitimate way is to get your goods back through legal means, by reporting to the police or through the justice system. The problem arises when the social system does not grantee retrieval of whatever is stolen, as in corrupt systems. In short, if the system fails to get your stolen rights back, Robin Hood is your friend.

Consider social contractism, in such view, property laws among other laws are based on mutual agreement of the members of a society to abide the civil laws. If we consider these contracts as opt-in contracts, where the individual is given the choice whether or not to participate in those contracts, it seems that it is natural that disagreeing parties may rebel above those laws. Since most individuals are coerced by their peers to submit to social order, regardless of their agreement to its terms, it seems reasonable that breaking those laws is a natural consequence.

Social order is created through rebellion. Not necessarily through physical and\or violent rebellion, but rebellion in its most general sense is required to form social order. (Unlike what totalitarian systems tries to convince the people, that social order is achieved through obedience, when the fact is that rebellion is what creates social order.) It is known throughout history, that any failing system is meant to be abolished through some kind of revolution. The "slaves" fought for their freedom, no-one would come to a "slave" and hand them their (rightful?) freedom, they had to take it by their own hands. Thats how things work!!