In a recent and rather provocative discussion featured by the New York Times and later elaborated upon in The Atlantic, streamer Hasan Piker hinted that he might resort to car theft if he were assured there would be no repercussions. Meanwhile, author Jia Tolentino nonchalantly confessed to pilfering lemons from Whole Foods. Although shoplifting is not uncommon, the rapid spread of this interview clip raised eyebrows due to the surprisingly bold rationale behind such acts.
Piker referenced the infamous anti-piracy campaign that employed moral appeals rather than logical arguments to dissuade individuals from taking physical property, famously encapsulated in the slogan “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car.” This campaign, originating in 2004, reflects an implicit societal consensus on the sanctity of physical property—a notion many Americans seem to uphold, rejecting the radical sentiment that “property is theft.”
In his work The Property Species, Professor Bart Wilson posits that property is not merely a legal artifact but a fundamentally ingrained social practice. Humans cultivate mutual understandings of “mine” and “yours,” enabling cooperation that transcends small communities. Thus, property extends beyond ownership; it encompasses the essential coordination necessary for societal function.
From this lens, brushing off theft as “not a big deal” is neither morally nor economically neutral. Such casual dismissal undermines the collective expectations that facilitate exchange.
Markets hinge on more than just pricing; they are founded on trust that boundaries will be honored. This perspective aligns with a long-standing economic tradition. Although Adam Smith is often celebrated for his invisible hand theory, he also underscored the necessity of justice. For markets to allocate resources effectively, individuals must refrain from appropriating what does not belong to them.
In a recent paper co-authored with Bart Wilson, titled “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car: Moral Intuition for Intellectual Property,” we examined public perceptions surrounding the acquisition of various goods. Our findings revealed that participants swiftly identified the taking of physical property as “stealing.” Within their small groups, individuals unanimously deemed it unacceptable—no one desires to have their belongings taken, and every person possesses an innate sense of “mine.”
Much of our adherence to rules stems from an internalized sense of obligation, which, once eroded, may be challenging to reinstate. Russ Roberts previously articulated a similar concern in his EconLog column regarding the theft facilitated by Napster. He remarked:
“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.”
Compliance with rules is often voluntary, sustained by ingrained norms rather than enforced measures. Therefore, the casual degradation of these norms warrants serious concern.
What might Piker envision for a world where “microlooting,” which he seems to endorse, proliferates? The ambiguity surrounding property rights can lead to tangible consequences, such as stores increasing prices to compensate for losses or shutting down in high-crime areas. These repercussions frequently fall disproportionately on already marginalized communities.
Once societal norms decay, rebuilding them becomes a formidable task, both at the community and national levels. This issue is starkly visible in countries lacking robust property rights. Nations with weaker property frameworks struggle to attract investment and foster economic growth. The challenges of reversing such decline are not merely theoretical; they are evident in the decades-long efforts of countries striving to rehabilitate their institutions. Colombia serves as a pertinent example. As noted by Omar Hernandez in his analysis of the country’s reforms, establishing reliable property institutions is a protracted and arduous journey.
Hernandez articulated, “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, along with many development economists, aspires to elevate entire populations to a state of stronger property rights and diminished 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.”
