Just How Stupid Can Stupid Be?

[BrokenPaw]

I stole a dollar from fistful

Don't worry - he has a whole fistful of them.  He'll never miss just one 

Why do you think I picked him as my victim in the first place? 

[Brad Johnson]

AFAIK, you can't buy a lottery ticket with a credit card in California.

Same here in Texas.  I don't know if it's a state thing or a merchant's decision, but any place I've seen selling Lotto Texas tickets it's cash or nuthin'.

Brad

[Tallpine]

I don't know if it's a state thing or a merchant's decision, but any place I've seen selling Lotto Texas tickets it's cash or nuthin'.

What is probably the deal is that the merchant makes little or nothing on the sale of the lotto tickets - they are just something to draw business into the store.  But on a credit card sale, the merchant has to pay a fee - IOW the store only gets 9x.x% of the rung-up sale value credited to their bank acct from the cc company.

It was the same deal with hunting/fishing licenses at a place where I used to work.

[Perd Hapley]

The transaction is now complete and legitimate.

No.  Do you have a better source than the judge's ruling, which states the lottery ticket was purchased with a stolen credit card?  The judge knows more of the details than we do.  If it wasn't purchased with stolen funds, the whole discussion is moot.  Anyhoo, the transaction was clearly not legitimate, (by US or libertarian law) as the ticket was purchased with stolen funds.  The lotto commission was scammed out of the winning ticket, so they get it back.  The "chance to win the prize" was never legitimately purchased, so it still belongs to the lottery folks.  So do the winnings.  TANSTAAFL.


In the future, though, if you need money, just ask.  I'd front you a dollar if you needed one, man. 

[Perd Hapley]

So if I steal $0.50 and buy a $0.50 banana with it, I owe both $0.50 and a banana? And if I trade the banana for an apple, and the apple for an orange, and the orange for a grapefruit, I now owe a total of $2.50 worth of money and fruit?

If third-grade exercises make you more comfortable, I will oblige you.  To put it simply, all the items were illegally purchased, so they must be returned to their rightful owners.  (Or equivalent, if they have been consumed.  Or cash value thereof, if that suits the parties concerned.)  You owe one grapefruit to its previous owner.  And you owe the orange to its original owner.  And you owe the apple to its original owner.  And you owe the banana to its original owner.  And the fifty cents, of course, goes back to the original owner. 

So how much is coming from your pocket?  Not a dime.  You give back the grapefruit, which was not yours.  Then the other fruit is returned to the previous owners and the cash is handed over to the small child who's piggy bank you smashed, you scoundrel. 

In principle, you owe it to each of these people to see that their property is returned.  In principle, you take back the grapefruit to get the orange, then trade the orange for the apple, and so on.  So, yes, you owe both $.50 and a banana, but the money isn't being taken from your paycheck, it's coming from the grocer's register. 

[Len Budney]

To put it simply, all the items were illegally purchased, so they must be returned to their rightful owners.  (Or equivalent, if they have been consumed.  Or cash value thereof, if that suits the parties concerned.)  You owe one grapefruit to its previous owner.  And you owe the orange to its original owner.  And you owe the apple to its original owner.  And you owe the banana to its original owner.  And the fifty cents, of course, goes back to the original owner.

Nope: once I pay back the $0.50 to the original victim, all is square. As you pointed out, money is fungible: the $0.50 I gave back to my victim, which was mine, and the $0.50 I gave to the grocer, which was not, are interchangeable. Once I put it in my victim's hand, it's his $0.50, and the $0.50 in the grocer's till is mine, and all debts are square.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

So you think stealing money works like a loan?  Use it any way you want to, just pay it back? 

[Len Budney]

So you think stealing money works like a loan?  Use it any way you want to, just pay it back? 

Look at it from the other side. The guys that sold the banana, apple, orange, etc., are uninvolved innocents. Each traded in good faith. Unraveling all the transactions is pointless if the purchase price of the original banana can be redeemed by repaying the original victim.

But that's not the same as calling theft a "loan." Suppose each of those items were replaced with a priceless work of art--i.e., I stole the "Mona Lisa," traded it for "Whistler's Mother," and so on. The owner of the Mona Lisa wants it back, and will not accept payment as compensation. In that case, the chain of transactions must be unraveled, because the second guy, being forced to give up the "Mona Lisa," will want "Whistler's Mother" returned to him, and so on. To that extent I agree with you that all of the thief's transactions is potentially void.

In the case of stolen cash, however, that isn't a problem, because the original owner will accept any currency as repayment of the stolen money.

--Len.

[LadySmith]

In the case of stolen cash, however, that isn't a problem, because the original owner will accept any currency as repayment of the stolen money.

What if the money stolen was for housing? While the thief runs around trading up on ill-gotten gains, the victim gets evicted. The thief might eventually repay the money, but the victim is out on the street and the repaid amount isn't enough to put a roof over the victim's head. Will the victim be entitled to more money from the thief or the thief's domicile? Also, the victim might seek assurances that the thief won't do this again. Where's the prevention factor?

Remember, anyone is allowed to kill a murderer, and anyone is allowed to take stolen property away from a thief. The only limitation on that is that the guy who kills a murderer or robs a thief must make sure that he is not in turn mistaken for a murderer or a thief--and so he must be prepared to prove that the guy he killed was a murderer, or the property he confiscated was really stolen.

Easy. Upon conviction, whack off the right hand of the thief for easy identification and immediately execute the murder. Hey, it works elsewhere and there would be no risk of mistaken identities. 

[Len Budney]

In the case of stolen cash, however, that isn't a problem, because the original owner will accept any currency as repayment of the stolen money.

What if the money stolen was for housing? While the thief runs around trading up on ill-gotten gains, the victim gets evicted. The thief might eventually repay the money, but the victim is out on the street and the repaid amount isn't enough to put a roof over the victim's head...

The thief is required to make his victim whole, at his own expense. In this case, reimbursing the money doesn't cut it: in addition to paying any costs of investigation and enforcement, plus interest, he must also pay the cost of putting the victim in an apartment (either the original one or a new one), including any necessary deposits and fees, all moving costs, and replacement of any property lost in the eviction. If the old apartment was furnished and the new one is not, he must also furnish it.

--Len.