Freedomain Radio

If you find a bag of money, with let's say twenty thousand dollars, and the bag contains somebody's ID or something saying whose it is, are you under any obligation to return it?  Or should you just spend the money like you won the lotto?

 I actually discussed this with someone, because there was a news article where it really happened and the finder returned the cash.  I said that I probably would not return the money if it was a cop's, or other public employee, because they have stolen more than that from me so I might as well reduce my losses.  But what if it is just some random (privately employed) guy's money?  That one I did not know the answer, because I can think of arguments either way (no positive obligations, private property, worrying about getting caught, was it stolen, counterfeit, etc.).  Any thoughts?

I'd make every effort to contact the person to see if they had lost anything recently. If it was their money I'd return it.

'Are you under any moral obligation to return it?' Hm, interesting question. I would feel morally obligated to return it because I try to operate under the moral rule of 'theft of someone else's private property is bad'.

Dave 

Depends on your legal jurisdiction.  In England & Wales, you can legally claim lost money provided you cannot trace the owner.  Finders keepers, loosers weepers.

In general I think it's a good principle.  If you find a $20 bill on the floor how do you know who it belongs to?  The moral is to keep good care of your money, if you don't want strangers claiming it.
 

If you have something of someone's that you know is lost and is not yours then from a moral standpoint I would you should return it.

The only argument that stands out for me is that I would really, really, really like to have the money...so while I say it would it be moral to return it, I hope I would have the integrity to actually do it.  But it would be so nice to just keep it! I'd feel guilty probably unless I knew the money was gained in an immoral manner...that would make me feel better. 

OK, well the chips seem to be falling on the "return it" side.   Of course I am not speaking legally what should one do, but in terms of libertarian morality.  But if returning the money is a moral obligation in the slightest, is it now false that "we have no unchosen positive obligations"?

Personally, I can see the property side of the argument, but is it still their property after it's been lost?  It was their fault in losing it, like making a stupid bet or financial deal, and finding it would be my good fortune this seems like caveat emptor.  The person I discussed with was vehemently on the "keep it" side no matter the situation.  His theory being that if you are returning it out of guilt, and not real obligation, then you are not being free.  So it is just like religion, doing stuff for God, etc.  I feel like I failed miserably arguing the selective return strategy.

I would certainly return it, that I know. After foregoing thousands of dollars by working my way through university rather than applying for a government student wage, why would I steal some poor slob's wallet?

My motive is not and would not be kindness, but pride. What I have, I have earned, and that is the best feeling I know.

RestoringGuy:

But if returning the money is a moral obligation in the slightest, is it now false that "we have no unchosen positive obligations"?

Your analysis forgets the third option: leave it there.  With that option in mind, I think we can say that there are no unchosen positive obligations in this instance.  You are not positively obliged to pick up the money, research the owner, and return it, of course.  Just like you aren't obliged to help a person who is laying on the street bleeding.  It becomes a matter of preference, rather than morality.  I would feel better if I gave the money back to someone, if it didn't take a lot of effort, because of empathy.  I remember I once dropped my paycheck on campus, and someone picked it up and did some searching on my university's website.  She found my phone number, then called me to arrange a meeting so she could give me my check.  I remember the emotional ride I took during that, and I remember the appreciation I felt that someone was willing to put a little effort in and help me.

So it's not a matter of morality, but a matter of empathy.  I think that empathy says a lot about a person's personality, and I don't think I would be great friends with someone who would spend the money in the wallet with the ID (or throw out the check).  A person isn't evil if they spend the money, just not very nice/empathetic.  Of course, all bets are off when there's no ID present and no one around to claim the cash.  Working at a convenience store, I found a twenty in a trash barrel I was cleaning once, and another twenty in the deposit area of an ATM, and pocketed them both.  Then if someone came in and said they dropped a twenty, I'd give it to them; otherwise, I'd treat myself to lunch or something.

RestoringGuy:

...... bag contains somebody's ID or something saying whose it is, are you under any obligation to return it? ......

 ....... I probably would not return the money if it was a cop's, or other public employee, because they have stolen more than that from me ......

 

 

Given the first part of the quote, I would make an effort to return the money, though under no obligation other than it would be the right thing to do.

For myself, the second part of the quote, the employment status of the one who lost the bag of money, is not relevant.

Working in the outdoor amusement biz, this issue comes up frequently, though never in the amount specified. 20K is a lot of stew, but I do have a sense of self-esteem that would probably prevent me from pocketing the cash. I returned $1200 to its rightful owner once and was given $200 as a reward for my honesty. I do not wish to ever be tempted by $20,000. I just might fail to live up to my own standards.

RestoringGuy:

If you find a bag of money, with let's say twenty thousand dollars, and the bag contains somebody's ID or something saying whose it is, are you under any obligation to return it?  Or should you just spend the money like you won the lotto?

...

But what if it is just some random (privately employed) guy's money?  That one I did not know the answer, because I can think of arguments either way (no positive obligations, private property, worrying about getting caught, was it stolen, counterfeit, etc.).  Any thoughts?

 

 

Nasikabatrachus:

"1) But for a normal-income person, how exactly is returning zero-risk 20K anything but self-defeating? 
2) If it is the "right" thing to return it, what's the metric for "right" once we totally rule out unchosen positive obligation? 
3)And if merely picking up the money means "that obligation is chosen now", we can no longer fight the statists on the theory that their laws are "chosen" because of living within borders, etc.. 
4)Who gets to pick what "chosen" means, if you don't have to be explicit? "
1) I don't really consider it a question of pragmatism. If the material outcome is the only thing you're considering, then it would be silly not to take it, but that's not what I'm working off of.
2) I'm not quite sure of what you're asking here. I suppose I would say the metric would be what's within your abilities, knowledge, and potential knowledge to do. Could you rephrase your question?
3) I don't think that follows. Statism is an imposition upon the property of others, with an emphasis on land and arbitrary lines. It's the philosophical equivalent of saying "you owe me your property if you are standing inside this circle." Also, I don't think it's so much that picking up the money means "that obligation is chosen now" as it is that one shouldn't keep the money for oneself. It doesn't mean you have to return it, even if you  pick it up, but it does mean that keeping it would be stealing it (with the previously stated qualifiers of ability, knowledge, etc.).
4) Would you say that, if you steal something from someone, you owe it to them to give it back? That's what I'm trying to say.

I really wish I could figure this one out objectively!   OK, here are my thoughts:

1)  If property matters, then material outcome matters.  Property is material.  When property ceases to be in your possession, control, and any manner of manipulation or dispute, what at that point exactly distinguishes it from non-property?  I can't figure this one out at all.  Once a person's property is left totally outside their grasp, in every conceivable way, isn't it just opinion now?  What is the litmus test to say it is property in a way that works for lost stuff?

2)  No, I mean "what is the exact objective metric in this instance to tell right from wrong?"  We have "chosen obligations", and "absolute obligations" (negative ones), like nonaggression, etc.   If the only "right" option is to return the money against my choices, or leave it there for the next person to take, then I am definitely not free.  I am being controllled by guilt, so it is just like religion.  What is the exact origin of "right", once we rule out obligations as the origin?  From what philosophical principle does this version of "right" come from?

3) Yes, statism is the imposition upon the property of others.  But the statists say it is chosen imposition -- that your obligations are your choice through voting etc.  Of course, that is nonsense, but it is no more ridiculous than saying you "choose your obligation" when you pick up a bag of money and post a "found" sign in your basement pretending to offer it to the original owner.  If I just pick it up, and say nothing about my discovery, I am not choosing anything obligation-wise.  Nothing was agreed to on my part, nor was it stolen, because whose property is it "really" when there is no free market dispute.  That was the objective test -- free markets -- right?  Therefore, if it is claimed that an act of taking the lost money is now a claim of obligation (or an immoral act to keep it for myself, etc.), that is essentially the same as statism, because the state will make the same claim about you buying land, etc. in "their" jurisdiction (ie.  "you are a thief if you don't pay taxes").  Exact parallel there.  An act on one persons part is magically claimed to be unwritten obligation or cause for rightful coercion of another.

4)  Yes, sure you should give back stuff that you stole.  But the problem here is that we don't have a definition of "stolen" except the anarchic one.  We are talking about "found" stuff.  By stealing, to me that implies you took stuff by force or fraud (an anarchist definition), not mere discovery of something physically discarded on a roadside.  We do not ask a thief "is this stolen?" as the litmus test of whether it's stolen.  We look for broken glass, a bolt-cutters, etc., or at least somebody who says "it was right here on my property and now it's gone".   How deep into space or out-to-sea exactly does your property have to be before fair-game kicks in?  If it is never, the statists still win because of Columbus landed, etc. and the government control never can subside.  It is still "their stuff" by say-so alone.

I say all of this, because I still deep-down feel that returning the money is right.  But I just can't prove it whatsoever.  So if I can't figure this out, I guess I have lost and anarchocapitalism is not for me.  There are either too many holes, or I just can't get it.

here are my thoughts on the matter:

the principle being portrayed by keeping the money is essentially,
"if somebody loses their private property, i have the right to claim it."

first of all, we support property rights axiomatically,
so, though it's not a complete contradiction, it is a bit puzzling that one would be so much in favor of property rights,
and then take somebody's property.

second of all, one may make the argument that once it is 'lost', it is no longer the original owner's private property.
there's some problems that arise from this:

you have to make a clear distinction between what can be considered 'lost' and 'not lost'.
is there a time limit the owner has to reclaim his things?
is there a space limit, ie if he's fifty feet away, is it now moral to take it?

also, is there any sort of rules considering who's property the money was left on?
if it was left on a bench, does it rightfully now belong to the owner of the bench?

AESTHETE:

here are my thoughts on the matter:

the principle being portrayed by keeping the money is essentially,
"if somebody loses their private property, i have the right to claim it."

first of all, we support property rights axiomatically,
so, though it's not a complete contradiction, it is a bit puzzling that one would be so much in favor of property rights,
and then take somebody's property.

second of all, one may make the argument that once it is 'lost', it is no longer the original owner's private property.
there's some problems that arise from this:

you have to make a clear distinction between what can be considered 'lost' and 'not lost'.
is there a time limit the owner has to reclaim his things?
is there a space limit, ie if he's fifty feet away, is it now moral to take it?

also, is there any sort of rules considering who's property the money was left on?
if it was left on a bench, does it rightfully now belong to the owner of the bench?

Axiomatically, it is not a contradiction if property is defined with regard to who is claiming it now, instead of who used to.  The finder is claiming the property, whereas the loser is not currently doing so.  That can change with time, of course, and I do not expect the loser is universally out-of-luck later on. The deductive conclusion that the finder does not have "property rights" (because of contradiction) seems to fall apart when you consider that the loser was totally careless and uninvolved, and the finder is acting possessively.  That is a behavioral distinction which does not cause the finder to fall into the paradox that a thief does, because only the thief is asserting rights that were acted against (rightful possession).

It seems objective to require the loser at least dispute the transfer of property, just as we would require of an owner who was stolen from.  Not with a time or space limit, but anytime and anywhere seems to be one possible option.  Obviously if the guy has a hidden camera aimed at it, or a GPS tracker in the bag, and shows up an my house asking for it, I clearly see every obligation to hand it over.  Dispute was raised, property rights asserted, and therefore we must respect them.  Just like empiricism, an experiment is needed to see the results.  Launching the dispute seems to be a necessary component, instead of just saying "what is" and expecting reality to follow.

You can say a lot about finding stuff on 3rd party private property, like whose is it?  The landowner's, the finder's, or the loser's?  Sure this can get complex.  Can you spread 10 cubic yards of dirt on somebody's front lawn, and say "it's my land, I have the receipt for the land?".  The exact location of the stuff disputed seems pretty irrelevant.  How it was taken seems more relevant, in my opinion.  I could be wrong on all of this.  Let me know your thoughts.

"Axiomatically, it is not a contradiction if property is defined with regard to who is claiming it now, instead of who used to."

care to expound on this?
i see quite a bit of pit falls,
and they're pretty obvious,
so i'll leave it to you to correct them.