Beg, Barter, Steal or Die In Theft in Black and White (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997), George Loewenstein analyzes the economics of crime and punishment. He shows how black and white economic thinking has driven our thinking about the world around us. Loewenstein argues that both black and white think separately of the morality of actions rather than the economics of consequences. He discusses many examples, including the case of a woman who is arrested for trying to steal a TV set. She is caught by a policeman who has witnessed her crime. The TV set in question is worth $50, which she does not have and which she could not afford to pay for even if she could have bought it with the money she does have. At the police station she explains that she would like to steal the TV to provide for her children. She would in fact have stolen it whether or not she had children. What she is describing is that when she would have decided to take the TV, she was also committing herself to raising children and would be willing to pay the price of raising children and keeping a home. For this reason, her act was an expression of her love for her children. However, the arresting officer immediately concludes, as do many economists, that the woman’s motive was not moral but economic. He explains that she would not have stolen the TV had she been offered some money in exchange for it, and thus she is better off stealing it than getting money for it. For this reason, he concludes, the woman’s love for her children was based on false information. If this case had occurred in a black and white world, the mother would have been condemned as a thief and the theft would have been seen as a sign of immorality. However, the officer did not conclude this. It was assumed that economic incentives were to blame for the action and hence there was no need to consider the mother’s motives. Loewenstein concludes: “All of us are moral when it comes to some things. We care about the rules that make us moral, not about the moral rules that make us respectable. Moral rules are not the same as economic rules. Moral decisions are about what to do. Economic decisions are about what to want. And in a consumer society like ours, we are tempted to think about all the choices in economic terms. There is little that is purely moral that is left to consider at all.” He goes on to show how this confusion affects business ethics and the enforcement of the law. For example, the United States is a world leader in imposing prison terms for corporations, as well as executives. Loewenstein shows how the number of corporations going to prison has increased even as crime in general has dropped. His explanation is that we are confusing black and white thinking here, since it is economic incentives that promote crime (as they make crime more likely to occur) and economic sanctions that punish it. We should view the fact that corporations are more often going to prison as a sign that crime is increasing rather than falling. If you buy a stolen car, there is a good chance that it has been stolen by the seller. If you use a car that has been stolen, you are liable to jail, if you did not know that it was stolen. I have a car with “my” plates and some “wanna-be’s” ride around in it because they think they will get away with it. Do I really need to report these people to the police to get them out of my car? I don’t want them to get in trouble for their own actions, but what is done is done. My kids could be using a car when they don’t have a driving permit. If I got them out of it, I would get a ticket for blocking traffic. If I let it go, I will be more likely to have someone hurt or even killed in a crash and I will get a ticket anyway for blocking traffic. Does all this need to be reported to the police? Sometimes I think the police are part of the problem. *The first quote is from “The Stolen Car” (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1996). “All of us are moral when it comes to some things. We care about the rules that make us moral, not about the moral rules that make us respectable. Moral rules are not the same as economic rules. Moral decisions are about what to do. Economic decisions are about what to want. And in a consumer society like ours, we are tempted to think about all the choices in economic terms. There is little that is purely moral that is left to consider at all.” (p. 22). A thief can make you an honest person by making the crime legal. Is it wrong to steal, when the goods taken have been taken illegally? Andrea: I take it you do not think that it is right to not steal but that stealing is not a crime. I also do not think that you are an angel. Do you know how much better you could live if you had an income in addition to the one you get by being a homeowner, a citizen, a taxpayer, a voter, and maybe even a soldier? Then, you could probably afford to pay a lot more taxes. For example, here in the U.S., you might be able to qualify for food stamps or SSI and Medicaid. You might get a very cheap rent. And you probably could make it so that there would be no need to work – no need to work for that income. The government has enough money to pay everything for everybody. And the government wants to pay it all for everyone. So, the government will pay for the food, housing, education, and medical care for the lazy. Even the “rich” will have to pay higher taxes and will not have much left over to pass on to the “poor.” But, if you are willing to work, then you will have a decent income – enough to not need any of the things you have stolen from other people. How much harder does it make it for you to learn the facts if you already believe in “moral” or “natural” or “inalienable” rights? If you are so lazy that you cannot learn the facts, that would not be a moral problem. I think you may be just lazy and maybe not that smart. And that is not a moral problem – it’s a personal problem. If you were smart, and not just a bully but also not lazy, you could be an asset to the community. For example, you might be willing to run for office in a political party that advocates higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor. But that is against your natural rights. You might say that you should be able to be free from your natural rights if you are lazy. Andrea: Do you believe in personal freedom? If yes, then you should acknowledge the fact that this is just plain good news. It is great news! So, I think that many people will not appreciate how good this news is. One reason people do not like the fact that the government wants to take care of the poor by taxing the rich is because it makes them vulnerable. For example, the rich may not want to work, so a big problem with a welfare state is that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” Another problem is that if you go to work in order to support yourself and your family, you will be at the mercy of the companies and the government to make sure you can have the job and that they have things for you to do. If you think I am going to attack your right to work, then you should know that I would not even be happy if my government took all my money. I do not like the government. I like my freedom. As a result, if I had the opportunity to have the government do things for me, like building a military, then I would be like them. And if you work for the government, then you are just a government spy. I like it better when people are left to make their own choices, just as long as they do not cause too much trouble. But, the right to choose is not a natural right. There is no one who can be charged with causing too much trouble or with any other moral offense – not even the parents of the children who live in poverty. So, you should do what you want and not worry that you might be violating your rights or the rights of the poor. They already are violating their rights. Just be sure to not do anything that might upset the people that will have to pay for you. If I did not like to have the government take care of me and I did not like to have people living next door who are too lazy to even have jobs, then I would probably be just like you. It is a shame that someone as smart and as educated as you is trying to make things difficult for the rest of us by pretending that theft is moral. And then the rest of us can learn something from your “crimes.” The thing that the government has done with the government has not helped anybody. Sure, it has created a large number of jobs. However, the government needs to take care of you better than you need to take care of you, in order to be able to have a society in which we do not need so much government and all of its regulations. Of course, I do not want the government to provide things for me, but I do want the government to provide ways for