Theft is defined as the seizure of private property without the consent of the owner, the victim is irrelevant. Leftists always have to make this strange argument where definitions are bent to label an action one way when it happens to a group they support, and another way when it happens to one they don’t. Why can’t you just say “I believe stealing is justified if it would benefit society” instead of “it’s not stealing when we do it to you”?

>Theft is defined as the seizure of private property without the consent of the owner

This is a very contentious definition and central to the question being asked. You can't pass it off as already decided without any debate.

Two situations for your definition, you tell me whether something is stolen:

1) You sell me a Ford Pinto that you know is likely to explode in a crash due to a design defect. I sue you after I'm burned up and win. I seize your private property by court judgement. Have I stolen from you?

2) A slave takes an apple from his master's orchard without permission and eats it. Has he stolen?

Arguably, both cases are theft. We simply decide whether or not it is acceptable with the principle that force is only and always justified in response to force. See how easy it is to be consistent?

> See how easy it is to be consistent?

Consistent on the definition of "theft", yes indeed. However, it's way harder to be consistent on the definition of "theft" while you also consider theft to be inherently immoral. And that's the center of this subthread. motohagiography asked..

> How is this not literally just a threat to rob people if they don't give up their stuff, and why would anyone take it as anything less?

.. as a clear argument against the base morality of the original comment. This being seen as such hinges singularly on the fact that theft, in all forms, is inherently immoral. If you define theft as any time private property is taken, irrespective of circumstances, then you also have to concede that theft isn't always immoral.

Thus, the whole original argument would have to make not only the case that the original suggestion of wealth redistribution is theft, but that it's immoral theft. That consistent, broad definition of theft thus becomes much less useful as a qualifier.

Rightist always have to make this strange argument where private property exist outside of the threat of violence.

No private property in nature bud. The rules are what we decide they are.

You start from the premise that the property is yours, that it's belonging to you was granted via some divine right. It was granted by the state.

Edit: The only property you own is that which you can violently defend.

I don’t recall making that argument. Instead, I’ll argue that both you and I believe in private property, so this isn’t a valid point you can use against me. The only difference being that I am consistent.

You don't own anything because everything was given to you. You don't own the atoms that make you up. You don't own the air you breath.

It's all social constructs however through these constructs societies may be built, art fashioned, science discovered, tools invented. What's up for debate is the best means for which to accomplish that.

"Private property" is an inherently political term. To take an extreme case, for much of human history it was perfectly acceptable to own other people. Once you accept the abolition of slavery as morally correct, then you've accepted that property rights aren't completely inviolable in all circumstances.

Because that's not a universally held definition only "leftists" disagree with?

First, even where property rights are accepted, a well considered definition generally has a caveat is made that property can't be taken "arbitrarily" or "unlawfully" or through a "legally established public necessity" or so on. In practice, every society which has had a legal concept of private property has also simultaneously had the concept that the government could certainly seize said property under certain conditions, and this has generally been treated as legally legitimate and not illegal robbery so long as it serves some common good. If you don't have such caveats, you run into all manner of issues justifying things like:

>Eminent Domain

>Taxation

>Court ordered seizures

>Civil forfeiture

You can also just just straight up deny the right to private property exists altogether. And not even necessarily from the obvious left wing perspective, you can just say the entire realm belongs to the king, so the king taking things to redistribute as they see fit is not theft, since everything was the King's to begin with. People have even claimed that the very concept of property is a form of theft.

Beyond those arguments, the probably most crucial argument here is that the poor's private property was stolen to begin with through government corruption and unindemnified torts to end up with this status quo, and how is restoring private property to its rightful owner theft? It is the very essence of protecting the right to private property! Particularly when people are calling for this private property to be restored through legal reform or through government overthrow (legal reform through extraordinary means). Not through simple anarchistic robbing of people who exist nearby you.

As for why people don't simply roll over and say they're pro-robbery, if you robbed somebody, you are a criminal and what you possess is not your property and subject to restoration to its rightful owner. People want to go beyond robbery, they want it to be legally established that people have absolutely no legitimate right to what they currently possess. People also don't necessary want to claim that if they argue for redistribution of wealth, that they also support grandmothers being subject to purse snatching. There's many obvious reasons why people don't describe their actions as "robbery", and your entire argument mostly is based on an presumption about who truly has a legitimate right to whatever property, as well as these peoples absolute unconditional right to this property, and argues any attack on either this presumption or presumed right (which has never existed) is some sort of leftist sophistry.

This has nothing to do with legality. I simply stated that taking someone's things by force is still theft when it benefits you. I still consider all four of your examples to be theft. Like I said in the other comment, whether we consider theft to be justified depends on the situation, but whether it's theft doesn't depend on your belief that it's justified. You lack the consistency to win this argument and it shows.

If something is or isn't the crime of robbery has nothing to do with legality?

> I still consider all four of your examples to be theft

Fair enough but do you at least recognise that your position is not mainstream, which might explain why people don't simply accept it beyond simply being leftists?