Recently, a thought-provoking discussion featured in the New York Times and expanded upon in The Atlantic stirred considerable debate. During the conversation, streamer Hasan Piker suggested he might consider stealing a car if there were no consequences involved. Author Jia Tolentino also casually mentioned her experience of shoplifting lemons from Whole Foods. While minor thefts are not uncommon, this exchange gained traction due to the assertive rationale behind the comments.
Piker referenced the well-known anti-piracy campaign, which employed moral sentiments—rather than logical arguments—to discourage taking physical property. The message of the campaign, encapsulated in the phrase “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car,” assumed a shared moral agreement in 2004 that physical property should be respected. In essence, the widespread belief was that “property is theft” was not a common viewpoint among Americans.
In his book, The Property Species, Professor Bart Wilson posits that property is more than a mere legal concept; it is a social convention firmly established within human interactions. People cultivate shared definitions of “mine” and “yours,” which allows for cooperation beyond small groups. Thus, the characterization of theft as “not a big deal” carries significant moral and economic implications, eroding mutual expectations that make trade feasible.
Markets thrive not only on pricing but also on trust that individual boundaries will be respected. This principle has roots in economic theory, as Adam Smith highlighted the importance of justice alongside his concept of the market’s invisible hand. For efficient resource allocation to take place, individuals must honor others’ property.
In a recent paper co-authored with Bart Wilson titled “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car: Moral Intuition for Intellectual Property,” we explored public perceptions regarding different types of goods. As elaborated in my article “Everyone Take Copies,” participants in laboratory settings readily identified the act of taking physical property as “stealing,” deeming it unacceptable in their immediate social circles. After all, no one enjoys having their possessions taken; the innate concept of “mine” is universal.
Many people adhere to rules out of a sense of obligation, a principle that, once lost, can be difficult to reclaim. Russ Roberts echoed this sentiment years ago in his EconLog column about Napster and the ethics of downloading. He noted:
“We know that the threat of being caught and punished isn’t the only reason that people pay legally for something rather than stealing it. There are costs of theft other than monetary costs. Some people feel guilty taking something for nothing. Culture and norms can be used to encourage socially beneficial behavior. After all, people leave tips even in restaurants and in taxis where repeat visits cannot explain such generosity. People choose not to litter even on a deserted mountain trail.”
Rule-following often stems from internalized norms rather than external enforcement, making the casual erosion of these values a significant concern.
What would Piker envision for a society where the “microlooting” he advocates occurs on a widespread scale? The uncertainty surrounding property rights can lead to tangible consequences, such as increased prices to offset losses or the closure of stores in areas plagued by crime. These repercussions often disproportionately affect already vulnerable populations.
Once social norms begin to decline, restoring them poses a formidable challenge, both in local communities and on a national scale. The adverse effects are evident in countries with inadequate property systems; nations with weak property rights face significant hurdles in attracting investment and fostering economic growth. The struggle to reverse such declines is not merely theoretical, as demonstrated by the efforts of countries attempting to rebuild their institutions over decades. Colombia exemplifies this situation. As Omar Hernandez points out in his examination of the country’s reforms, establishing reliable property institutions is a lengthy and complicated endeavor.
Hernandez states, “Although Colombia has implemented reforms to improve the investment environment and strengthen respect for property, the path to more robust and reliable protection remains long.”
Hernandez and many development economists aim to transition societies toward a state of stronger property rights, with reduced tolerance for theft.
“For Colombia to move toward a freer and more prosperous system, it is crucial to strengthen the institutions responsible for protecting these rights and to promote transparency in the titling and restitution processes. Only with a solid framework of property rights can the legal certainty needed to incentivize investment and economic development be guaranteed.”
In conclusion, the attitudes toward theft and property rights significantly impact the fabric of society. As discussions surrounding these issues evolve, it becomes essential to recognize the implications they hold for trust, cooperation, and economic stability. Upholding these norms is vital not just for maintaining individual rights but for fostering prosperous communities where individuals can thrive.
