The definition of crime sounds
somewhat trivial to most people. It is
commonplace to believe that the definition of crime is any action taken against
the laws of the state. This, however,
barely scrapes the surface. The state,
or government, is nothing more than a body of people organizing in a certain
way, and calling their organization the government, or the state. Hence, these same people, just as anyone
else, are capable of committing crimes as well.
The most obvious example of this is the Nuremberg trials after World War
II. Since governments can commit crimes
as well as citizens, it goes to show that the definition of crime cannot simply
be actions taken against the laws of the state (as refusing to follow orders in
the case of Nazi Germany would have been considered a crime by the German
government at the time).
In order to define crime, we need
to explore the nature of mankind. It is
necessary to start with universal facts about human existence. What do we know that applies to everyone in
the world, and at all times? Well, we
know that people can only be at one place, at one time, doing one thing at a
time (yes, I know multi-tasking is growing, but multi-tasking involves constant
shifts in attention and goals rather than doing them all at once). That being said, we may say that we know
"man acts". Thanks to the contributions to the social sciences by
Ludwig von Mises in the 20th century, who used the science of Human Action
(praxeology) in order to build a coherent economic model, we already have the
necessary axioms of human action to begin with.
Human action, which ought be the starting point of all social sciences,
shows that man acts in order to improve the conditions of his life with
purposeful behavior. If there were
nothing man could 'do' in order to make his life better than what it is, there
would be no reason for action. The axiom
of argumentation proves that since individuals can and do argue with one
another, there are cause and effect expectations in life.
There are two distinct
ways in which man interacts with the world in order to improve the conditions
of his life. These include forming
relations with others, and acquiring property.
In order to analyze the aspects of crime when it comes to relationships,
it is first necessary to explore the question of property.
Since we are all in
complete control of our own bodies (baring some medical deficiency of course),
we may say that we own our bodies. I am
the only person with the brain required to tell my body what to do; to tell my
fingers to type, my legs to cross, etc.
Ok, so we own
ourselves, but how do we gain ownership of things outside of ourselves;
provided by the Earth? One way is by
homesteading property. This means being
the first to mix one's labor (that is, effort to improve one's living
conditions) with the land. Being the
first to mix your labor with a piece of land means that it is your will that is
at work there; you are the one using the said land in order meet your ends, and
it was your labor. Rightfully, this
property belongs to you.
Suppose you decide to
use this piece of land to build a house.
Since you were not born with any knowledge on how to build a house, your
venture could take quite a while. But
this is true of everyone, so how do we overcome this obstacle? By exchanging with others. Man cannot possibly bring into reality
everything he wants throughout his life all by himself, however, if I could get
someone to build this house for me, I can spend my time trying to acquire some
of the other things I want. It is easy
to see why people trade with one-another (first through barter and later
through the indirect money economy).
It should be noted that
before something can be exchanged, one must acquire it, that is, make it his
property. Since we have seen that
property is a reflection of man's efforts to improve his own life, we may say
that all actions taken against man's property, which includes his labor and his
body, ought to be considered crimes. In
order to live one's life to the fullest, he must be permitted to use his
property as he wills without anyone else forcibly
exerting their will upon his property.
The keyword in that
last sentence is forcibly because only the individual truly knows in what
manner his property is meant to be used.
For example, I own a car that I sometimes let my girlfriend drive. When she is driving my car, she is exerting
her will on my property. However, in
such a case, this is in line with what I want, what I see as the best way to
improve the conditions of my life, and therefore should not be interfered with.
Therefore, the definition of crime should logically be: any forcible
exertion of will against another's property.
Property here being defined as: one's body, any homesteaded land (land
in which the owner gained by being the first to apply his labor to it), or
anything in which one received through any form of voluntary transfer (usually
trades or gifts).
I will, however,
provide a few examples. Since we own our
bodies the labor they produce, nobody can own another person. Criminal acts such as murder, rape, assault,
arson are all obviously crimes by the definition we have put forth.
Here is an example that
I live through every day as a security guard, which is not so obvious. I work in the parking lot of a retail store
in which a panhandler visits on a daily basis.
And on a daily basis, I have to ask him to leave. His being there is a crime by our
definition. It is known to him that the
store in question does not want panhandlers on their property, and yet he
exerts his will upon their property anyways by asking people for money. This is a little more tricky than rape or
murder because there is not a clear example of force. This panhandler has never been violent with
any of the workers and usually leaves when asked to do so. But the force can be seen in his constant
defiance of the rules of the property. His
actions say "you don't want me panhandling on your property and I know it,
but I am coming here and doing it anyways."
Why is this force? because constantly telling this man to leave
the property requires actions taken by the property owner to deflect the will
of rule breaker in order to use his property in the way which he wishes (and
not as a place for panhandlers to annoy people, since they are his customers).
Exploring the
complexity of the definitions which I have used here is an endless task,
outside the scope of this little blog.
But it is important to know what to look for when we try to define
actions as criminal. The reason for this
will be explored in Part II covering the methodology of providing justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment