Posted on 03/01/2003 9:15:31 PM PST by Megalomaniac
In Defense of Pilfering
by Christopher Westley
[Posted February 26, 2003]
Stealing is wrong. It makes private property less secure and requires the diversion of otherwise productive resources to the uses necessary to reduce stealing in the future. Stealing appropriates the fruits of someone else's labor without his permission.
Nonetheless, those who are in the news for pilfering the shuttle debris that rained down on Texas and Louisiana earlier this month are getting a bad rap. In the weeks following the tragic ending of the space shuttle Columbia and the deaths of seven crew members, several individuals have been caught collecting the space garbage that littered their property, possibly impeding NASA's effort to investigate this latest government failure.
Several opportunists attempted to offer pieces of the shuttle for auction on eBay. Indeed, by two o'clock on the day of the shuttle crash, an item billed as "Columbia Space Shuttle Debris" listed there with an opening bid of $10,000.
Needless to say, many opinion-makers are shocked by such seemingly boorish behavior. "These people aren't the underbelly of society," wrote The Press of Atlantic City (where much of the underbelly of society seem to live). "They're lower than that."
The Miami Herald's Carl Hiaasen noted that several individuals retrieved and then offered for sale the debris with full knowledge that they may be contaminated with potentially fatal chemicals and that prosecution can result in 10-year jail terms and $250,000 fines. Hiaasen considers these people the "chronically clueless"—so uniquely stupid, in fact, that science may benefit by studying their brains.
But to quote a famous Alabama philosopher, stupid is as stupid does. Such pilfering may be completely compatible with an ethic of liberty, and for the state to impose such harsh penalties on this activity may actually make the recovery process all the more difficult.
The argument against the pilfering is straightforward: Columbia is government property. Therefore, the government has the right to retrieve it, and its citizens have the responsibility to aid the government in this effort. Such an argument is loosely connected to a property rights theory. The pilferers are taking control of property that is not theirs.
However, there are several of problems with this argument. To say that Columbia is government property, or to say that anything is government property, is to say that it was built by the use of coerced capital. Taxation itself is a form of theft—both theft and taxes are examples of involuntary trade—so while NASA held legal title to Columbia, its very existence was made possible by resources appropriated by the threat of force.
This fact places the government's property right claim to the shuttle in a different light than one's property right claim to his car, assuming that the latter was appropriated through voluntary trade. Indeed, the pilferers might legitimately claim that they were recovering wealth that had previously been taken from them in the form of taxation.
In any event, pilferers are under no strict obligation to return debris that fell on their private property. While the government can retrieve shuttle remains on public lands in any way it sees fit, it cannot violate the rights of property owners simply because they were unfortunate enough to wake up one morning and find government property on their land.
Mistakes happen. Parties accidentally encroach on the property of others all the time. But there are established common law relationships that sort out the consequences that assure that the rights of affected parties are respected. The government's actions following the shuttle disaster illustrate what it thinks about such arrangements.
An example may illustrate. Assume a car accident on your street results in a damaged automobile being left on your front lawn. You would suffer legal damage if you appropriated the car for yourself or damaged it in any way, although you would also have protections insuring the vehicle's removal in a reasonable amount of time and compensation for any damage it might have done to your property. Civilized people would be appalled if the owner sent messages threatening violence if you tampered with the vehicle in any way.
Civility is not exactly one of the hallmarks of the modern state. Its harsh penalties being imposed on pilferers may ensure that NASA retrieves less shuttle debris than it otherwise would. Surely by now there has been much shuttle debris that has been appropriated by individuals that will never be found out of fear of strict consequences from being caught with it. The penalty itself causes such debris' value in extra-legal markets to increase. Pieces that could fetch higher prices would more likely be hoarded to compensate the added cost of being caught.
NASA search efforts would have been much better served if it encouraged private individuals to collect as much shuttle debris as possible to sell on the market. This strategy would have created an incentive for those with possible knowledge of debris locations to come forward with it. Millions of dollars would have been saved while today's excoriated pilferers would instead be praised for providing a helpful service.
Instead, the government blunders on, forcing its will however it wants. Overzealous? Don't worry. The lawyers will fix it later. This latest episode of government failure shows once again how accustomed society has become to the lower standards associated with government action.
Any doubters of this statement should ask themselves: How long would it take for lawyers to contact potential victims of fallen debris following a similar tragedy that occurred to a private defense contractor? I don't know. But we can assume it would be faster than it takes to get an auction posted to eBay.
These people should be treated as looters at a natural disaster or riot should be, but unfortunately no longer are.
So9
What I am thinking cannot be printed.
mailto:cawestley@email.msn.com
Spoken like a true libertarian!
Sheesh!
Spoken like a true libertarian!
Naw, a libertarian wouldn't want to outlaw either... >:*3
Seriously, though, I do think that trying to impose severe penalties for possession will encourage people who have acquired such items ill-advisedly to destroy them rather than risking exposing themselves to severe penalties. To be sure, it's really not good for people to hoard the stuff either, but given a choice between keeping something which cannot be sold and must be surrendered to the government on demand, versus having the government take it away free of charge, I think many people would opt for the latter.
Penalties for sale only result in not getting caught doing it, if possession is still legal.
The risk is 10 times higher and prohibitive if penalties are assessed for both possession and sale.
This has to rank among the worst, most pathetic, self-serving pieces of tripe I have ever read in my life. All told, this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at moral equivocation in the name of larceny and avarice.
To suggest that NASA would recover more shuttle debris if it allowed pilfering is analogous to suggesting that banks would recover more stolen loot if they did not prosecute bank robbers.
Putting aside all arguments on government property alone, the case can well be made on why pilfering of shuttle debris is not only immoral, but an extreme hindrance to determining the cause of the Columbia disaster.
First off, citizens should not move the debris because data on its precise point of landing and original orientation on landing is forever lost. That data is crucial to determining what broke off and when.
Secondly, citizens should not come in contact with the debris because of various hazardous materials that were present on the shuttle. We are talking about lead, asbestos, medicinal radiological matter, an assortment of heavy metals, and -- in some cases -- saturation of cosmic radiation.
Third, and most importantly, citizens should not -- even if only out of respect for the dead -- attempt to profit off a national tragedy. The sheer immorality of such conduct is not only un-American, it is completely barbaric.
Suffice it to say that I count myself among the fortunate that the author of this piece of immoral rubbish does not stand among those that I call 'friend.' Were such the case, I would be sorely required to reassess the sort of life that I lead.
-Jay
In theory, the author may be right. In practice, the author is an idiot. Then again, 10 years ago, I might well have thought the same thing....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.