When does stealing become legitimate?

[Scott]

When can forcefully confiscating property be considered to not be stealing?

Individuals don't have the right to take property of others against their will, but when they organize and call themselfs 'the government' few limits to their power seem to exist. Where does this (moral) right to 'steal' (amongst a slew of others) come from?

Some sort of agreement with government citizens are presumed to have made simply by being born in xyz, but none of us have ever actually signed a physical contract with our respective government. The truth of the matter is that we're obliged to honor this so-called agreement, that can be changed unilaterally at any given moment, whether or not we agree with it. However, the defining characteristic of an agreement is that two or more parties have come to a mutual arrangement, which is not (necessarily) the case here.

Let's take it from here on then, shall we?

[Mr Cool]

The police forcefully confiscate property hundreds of times, daily, and it isn't stealing. Cars, houses, other items that become evidence, etc.

And...that's about as much as I can say on the issue, I guess.

[Toxic]

You can take away something if they commit a crime and it is related to the crime. You can take something if they owe a legal debt to someone else and refuse to pay. You can take something through eminent domain as long as you compensate them.

Those are the only legitimate reasons I can think of.

[Cov3rt]

You can take away something if they commit a crime and it is related to the crime. You can take something if they owe a legal debt to someone else and refuse to pay. You can take something through eminent domain as long as you compensate them.

Those are the only legitimate reasons I can think of.

But what necessarily makes those reasons right?

What if someone runs over someone and kills them? The car is still technically theirs, why do they lose their right to it?

As for the debt, their property isn't necessarily related (maybe if they used what they borrowed to buy it).

Emiment domain I am completely against. Not necessarily from the definition of it, just because there is so much abuse of it.

[Scott]

The police forcefully confiscate property hundreds of times, daily, and it isn't stealing. Cars, houses, other items that become evidence, etc.

And...that's about as much as I can say on the issue, I guess.

The police work under a government mandate and thus, as with taxation, it is commonly accepted to be legitimate.

However, the most important and obvious distinction that needs to be made is that the police confiscates stolen goods. Thus the people that possessed those goods did not own them to begin with and thus they can't be considered to be stolen from them either.

[IceCold]

I love these philosophical questions.

That is a good point, about the government.

Really the way I tend to view stealing is the way Immanuel Kant described it. His general view of determining an actions morality, was, first and foremost, to determine if there can exist a world, purely in the realm of thought, where everyone does the action.

This is when you realize that it is not possible for everyone to steal. If everyone stole, then you lose the concept of personal property. Since stealing by definition is taking someone elses personal property, this is self defeating and impossible. So thats why Kant said that stealing was immoral ALWAYS.

But coming back to what you spoke about, it is verrry interesting to think about what gives the government the right to steal. By the argument I just gave, it should be wrong. But its complicated.

Then theres the other sides that can say: A) Personal property in and of itself is a corrupt system that should be eliminated anyway, and B) In some cases, if your need is greater than someone elses it can be justified.