I’m often amazed at how the political class concocts new rights that can only be fulfilled by trampling on genuine freedoms.
In a previous post, I mocked Finland for deciding that broadband access was a human right (which presumably means Finns were being oppressed before Al Gore invented the Internet).
Another post sarcastically noted that European courts decided that free soccer broadcasts were a fundamental right (meaning Europeans were being oppressed before TV was invented).
But these two posts might lead people to think that only Europeans are stupid enough to create non-existent rights. Rest assured, this is not the case. Politicians from all part of the world are perfectly capable of making decisions that are economically foolish and morally depraved.
Consider President Evo Morales of Bolivia. His government decided to grant amnesty to people who purchased stolen cars. You may think I’m exaggerating, but here’s an excerpt from a news service report.
According to Bolivian Customs in the first ten days of the amnesty, effective until next July first, a total of 70.248 “chuto” cars (as illegal vehicles are called in Bolivia) have been presented for legalization to which another 6.000, with the wrong paperwork, must be added. …President Morales justified the legalization of contraband cars arguing that the ‘chutos’ are purchased by “poor people” who want “to improve their status” and prefer them because they are ‘cheaper’. “We all have a right to have a car” said President Morales.
In a just society, of course, there is no such thing as a “right” that can only be provided by stealing another person’s property. And that’s true even when the government is the middleman in the transaction.
[…] And let’s not forget that European courts that have ruled that there’s an entitlement to free soccer broadcasts and a right to satellite TV. About as nutty as the Finnish court that ruled there’s a right to broadband access, and as crazy as the Bolivian decision that there’s a human right to receive stolen property. […]
[…] And it’s probably worse than the Finnish court that ruled there’s a right to broadband access, though not as nutty as the Bolivian decision that there’s a human right to receive stolen property. […]
[…] And it’s probably worse than the Finnish court that ruled there’s a right to broadband access, though not as nutty as the Bolivian decision that there’s a human right to receive stolen property. […]
[…] And the Bolivian government has decided that there’s a human right to stolen property. […]
“i wonder why you think cars are so special, but not slaves in africa stolen by our founding fathers.”
An excellent point. I have personally resolved to free all of my slaves. I am working to convince all the people in America and Europe who presently own slaves to also promise to free them all. Then we can end this debate about slavery and move on to other issues. Once all the slaves are freed, that should be the end of the matter, right?
@pat, I’m so glad you are willing to put your opinions out there for others to examine. So let’s take this a step at a time. 1) You feel that “white men” stole from somebody in the past and therefore it is ok for you to steal now. 2) You feel that chutos are all stolen from “rich white men” so it is ok. 3) You feel that it is ok to blame me for something that happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
Your whole argument boils down to “it is ok to steal from those that have stuff if I do not have the same stuff.” You add to that “And if they are white men, it is even better because all white men are bad.”
Why don’t you address the topic of the article? Is it the right of *anybody* to steal from somebody else just because they covet what others have?
What happened 100 years ago is not part of this discussion. What our race is doesn’t mater. What color our skins might be isn’t a part of this discussion. The question is simple: Is it ok for me to steal from you because you have something I want?
If you can’t answer that question honestly, then you are just another coward wanting to hide behind your feelings of being wronged sometime in the past.
Because you know, I really covet the computer you used to write your response. It is so much better than the 10 year old computer I use.
WHAT ABOUT THE wealth genertaed by slavery or stolen indian land in the USA? do we have the right to our wealth? isnt africa still suffering from the slave trade and hundreds of years of european domination? we get cheap coltan for ur cell phones from the Congo dug up by desperate people under the guns of CIA warlords.
what about the treaties native american tribes which the US supreme court decided the USA could simply tear up? dont the black hills belong to the lakota by treaty? (etc etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Broken_Treaties
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/treaty/
did the mexicans sell us california with a gun pointed to their head?
yes they did.
the USA bought northern mexico like the nazis bought jewish land in germany.
and cars are changing the weather. shouldnt we stop burning oil just in case?
yall seem to only be concerned with rich people being stolen from. and dont acknowledge how much of white peoples wealth was generated by immoral behavior.
When buying a house, one of the requirements is a “title search”. This is to establish that the seller does in fact own the property and has the right to sell the property. If the title is not “clean” then no sale.
When a person buys a car, they receive title to that car. In these U.S. there are very few exceptions to the rule that unless you have the “title” to the car, it is not yours to sell.
So if @Pat went down to the local parking lot and bought a car under market price and was told “Oh, there is no title on this car.” @Pat would ether be stupid or willing to break the law to receive stolen property.
The fact that 70,000 people showed up to legalize their chutos tells you that they KNEW they were buying stolen property. At what point does the buyer become innocent of the crime of purchasing stolen property? At the point where the seller “proves” that they have the right to sell that property. I.e. presenting false/forged title papers.
At the point those forged/false title papers are shown to the government, the buyer can lose the property, but is now the “victim” of a crime and the seller should be prosecuted for that crime as well.
Hey Pat, where do you live? I could go on a shopping spree, taking your property and obviously you would not mind. I will sell it and tell you that I did so, then what will you do?
@Pam M. YOU obvioulsy went to public school. The AFRICANS enslaved their own and then sold them FIRST. The AFRICANS and ALL of the Middle East are STILL enslaving their own today. TODAY…Muslim Women are calling for the kid napping of Western GIRLS so that Muslim men can have sex slaves and servants. As far as nothern Mexico. GIVE CALIFORNIA to mexico and call it a day!
[…] A “Right” to Stolen Property? A Great Day for Human Rights! […]
I don’t think Europeans or Americans enslaved many people at all. The vast majority of slaves were bought from the locals. Indeed tribes would round up their rivals, enslave them and sell them to the white folk.
Africans are just as much to blame as Americans and Europeans are.
These are the same idiots who believe the planet Earth has the same rights as humans.
Pat, you completely missed the point of the article. The point was that President Morales decided that everyone has a right to a car, and that cars are not privileges. It has nothing to do with that.
And if you buy a stolen good but did not know it was stolen, you aren’t liable. And the slavery thing, we already had that discussion and slave owners were in the wrong.
Pat M: The descendants of people whose property was stolen by Nazis 70 years ago are able to recover that property, even from buyers who had no idea of its questionable provenance. That’s because a buyer (with certain exceptions for negotiable instruments) never acquires better title than his seller. (After a certain number of years, statutes of limitations may make the right of the true owner unenforceable. Those statutes, however, can be tolled when the wrongful possessor of the property has, by concealing the fact of his possession, may it impossible for the true owner to vindicate his right by legal process, which is why lawsuits for recovery of Nazi-looted property are often not time-barred.)
In response to Pat M., what about the right to property that the individual who’s property was stolen retains? As long as he/she acquired that property (in this case, a car) legally, he/she has a right to protection of that property, both by him/herself and from the government. Yet that right was violated when the property (car) was stolen from him/her arbitrarily by the thief. If the government has located the stolen item, even if it has been sold to an innocent buyer who was ignorant of the original theft, the government has a responsibility to retrieve the money paid for the stolen item by the innocent buyer, give it back to the innocent buyer, and give back the stolen property to the original owner, punishing the original thief who committed the original theft in the process if possible. There is no right to stolen property.
Also, northern Mexico was not “stolen” from Mexico by the United States. It was purchased at the price of $15 million dollars (of 1848 value, of course) as part of the Treaty of Hidalgo ending the war Mexican-American War, hardly a traditional sense of “conquest,” let alone “theft.”
Even then, there is no such thing as a right to “provision” when it comes to material possessions and physical property, because “provision” means this material/physical property has to be perpetually in existence, with no end, and this can’t even be possible because there is no guarantee of a perpetual existence of any physical material, not even by nature. So if nature doesn’t guarantee a perpetual existence and plentiful supply of some form of physical item, meaning nature doesn’t deem “provision” of property a right, how could the laws and governments of man do so? I think it was settled long ago by John Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, Blackstone, Paine and the other American Founding Fathers that the laws of man are bound by the laws of nature. Thus, there is no such thing as a right to “provision” of material possessions/items; there is only a right to “acquisition” of available material possessions and property on the part of the individual. Only this could be a right, and thus guaranteed protection by the government, which can’t prevent you from using your natural talents and abilities to “acquire” available property and material possessions in a legal manner.
[…] Links 6/23/11 var addthis_product = 'wpp-261'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":false};Bolivians have a “right” to stolen cars […]
so you are saying, if i own something that was once stolen, i have to give it back. even if i knew nothing of the theft.
how many hands does the stolen thing have to pass thru till i am innocent? till i have to return the stolen thing?
what if the thing was stolen 160 years ago like the northern half of mexico?
walls defend our conquest. or is conquest not theft? what if the car was stolen with the force of arms like norther mexico was? is it ok then?
i wonder why you think cars are so special, but not slaves in africa stolen by our founding fathers. do we owe africa for all the USA and europeans stole from africa?
maybe you think the wealth in the white part of th world has nothing to do with past immoral behaviours?
Something tells me most of these cars were not the property of Bolivians before the theft!