Quote:
Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas  Let's use your example, then. What if the thief steals from someone who has accumulated his wealth with unethical business practices? And then, what if our thief is a Robin Hood sort of fellow, and instead of asserting ownership over what he steals, he gives what he steals to the needy? |
Let me first address Robin Hood, what he actually did compared to what most claim he did.
Robin hood took money by force from the tax collectors and their beneficiaries and returned the money to the people from who it had been originally taken. Ownership entails the right to defend property with force if necessary, and likewise to use force in recovery of stolen goods. Such rights can be delegated to other people. By returning money to those who were the original owners, taking only a large enough cut to stay in operation, Robin Hood was acting morally.
If Robin Hood had merely robbed from the rich to provide for the poor, then such an act would have been immoral.
As for the business with unethical practices, only money gained by force or fraud could be taken by force, and only for the purpose of returning it to it's owners. To use or dispose of it in any other way would be immoral and create a liability to the owners of the property.
Ownership includes the ability to give something away, so even stealing to give to the poor would necessitate the thief to claim ownership over the stolen property. (You can't give away something you don't claim ownership to)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas That's a difficult argument to make. What of those systems which have thrived which do not recognize property rights? Feudalism did not fail before being implemented, instead it thrived all over the world for centuries. |
Feudal lords did recognize property rights to a small degree (and to a great degree among themselves), but it is clear that humans lifted themselves out of poverty once they gained more universal recognition of their property rights and the emergence of a middle class.