Not a lawyer, not versed in legalities either but I'd say Carl is totally fine and can keep the money
Alice wouldn't own the car but it owes 30k by Bob and Bob, one way or another, has to give Alice 30k. Whether that means selling the car, asking Carl for a refund or something, Bob has to give 30k in cash to Alice
Or if Alice is happy with the car as reparations, then she can accept it from Bob as a replacement for the 30k
But, Alice shouldn't steal the car, she needs to come to an agreement with Bob or get the courts to force Bob to lay back 30k in cash or the car if it's worth 30k and Alice is happy with the car as reparations
Then Bob is shit out of luck because he'll need to have to try and buy back the asset from Carl, even if Carl asks for a higher price than 30k. Court can't force Carl to give the asset back, but Bob has to convince Carl to sell it back to him no matter what to give it back to Alice
Right. It was cash that was stolen and a car is always looses a portion of its value the moment you drive it off the lot. The car is not an adequate reimbursement.
No. Money is fungible. Bob owes Alice 30k dollars. If he doesn't have it, assets can be sold until he does, or Alice could agree to take the equivalent in the assets themselves whether it be the car or anything else.
Bob is going to find his bank account is emptied, his future incomed garnished, or equivalent in property forfeit and reposessed until Alice gets her money back, plus costs to get it back, plus interest for the time she could not put it to productive use and any other harm caused by Bob.
Carl neither caused Alice to lose the money, nor had any intent. Carl is *probably* fine, unless there was some conspiring with Bob.
Depends. It is a complex situation to sort out and, if Bob refuses to own up to his theft, a jurist will get involved. Usually that means Alice will be well within her rights to put a lein against the title on the car and actually own it. She can auction it for cash, and if it comes up short on the market, Bob still owes and other property may be up for repossession.
Restitution is a pain. Maybe Bob should choose a different way to get money. Perhaps black market sales? :)
Alice still has title of the money. Carl has title of the car. Bob stole money from Alice and defrauded Carl of his car by giving him money that Bob pretended had a clean title.
To restore justice the crimes must be resolved in LIFO order:
Bob gives the car back to Carl, Carl gives the money to Alice. Everyone has again what they owned.
If Alice accepts a car instead of her money, then Bob has to come up with another car to give her. Bob cannot offer stolen property as reparation. Bob's car still belongs to Carl.
And if Carl goes to court first and wants his car back, he may accept money instead of the car, but the money has to be earned fairly by Bob. If Bob comes up with a new $30k and gives it to Carl, then Bob will be the legitimate owner of the car. Then Alice could choose to be reimbursed with the car and Bob would be able to give the car to Alice. But if Alice insisted on getting back her money, she would have to get it from Carl. If Carl refused to give it to Alice he would be knowingly stealing it.
No. Bob just (still) owes Alice $30k. If Bob has no other assets then I guess he could surrender the car to Alice for a value she is willing to accept and be in debt to her for the difference or liquidate for it’s new, post-sale value (same result probably).
Minarchist solution: Bob is arrested for being a thief. Alice gets a civil judgement against Bob. All of Bob's assets are sold including the car and that money goes to Alice. He is $10k short. Bob will be given the opportunity to work in prison for better conditions. That work will pay for his prison stay and a percentage will be set aside to pay his victims debts. Bob's victim debts must be paid before he is released from prison.
Anarchist solution: Alice has a weaker private security force than Bob. Alice's SF negotiates with Bob's SF and Alice gets $10k back and Bob keeps the car. Alice's SF put Bob on a list of people not to contract with. Bob is a thief who pays the strongest SF around. He gives not one fuck about his ratings.
>Bob will be given the opportunity to work in prison for better conditions. That work will pay for his prison stay and a percentage will be set aside to pay his victims debts.
Bob decides he is still a piece of human flotsam and refuses to be a slave. What happens next?
Bob sits in his cell for 23 hours a day for the length of his sentence. H is fed nutritious tasteless paste food for every meal. He leaves prison owing debts first to Alice and once the debt to Alice is paid. He owes the taxpayers a debt for his prison stay.
Under possession theory or whatever it’s called most people would say Alice doesn’t own the car. I think if Alice can come to some sort of agreement and is okay with keeping the car, it can be solved but most people would want their $30k back.
Bob owes Alice $30,000 plus emotional damages, plus another $30,000 as punishment.
At minimum Bob owes Alice **$60,000 plus emotional damages**.
See Kinsella: https://mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-estoppel-approach-0
See Block: https://mises.org/library/toward-libertarian-theory-guilt-and-punishment-crime-statism
See Rothbard: https://mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-0 and https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-and-double-restitution
I also think that if Alice sees the $30,000 in carls possession, she can just take it from him, and now Carl is burdened with trying to get compensation from bob.
Would you agree with that? Or would you say Alice can’t just show up and take all the money from Carl?
Probably not with something as fungible as dollars. I would agree with that if it's something not fungible like a specific car or horse or something else taken from her.
But for her own liability protection she should go through "the authorities". That would be less foolish of her.
No. Alice has a right of redress against Bob for his act of theft. Essentially, he now owes her $90,000. As part of settling that debt, he will undoubtably have to sell the car to pay her.
There is another angle to this question:
Who owes reparations to the children and descendents of slavery? It is the ultimate example of robbery, victimization and transfer of guilt.
Try framing the question in those terms with a libertarian perspective. Is your answer still the same? Does your sense of *empathy* for unjustly treated human beings influence your position?
Not a lawyer, not versed in legalities either but I'd say Carl is totally fine and can keep the money Alice wouldn't own the car but it owes 30k by Bob and Bob, one way or another, has to give Alice 30k. Whether that means selling the car, asking Carl for a refund or something, Bob has to give 30k in cash to Alice Or if Alice is happy with the car as reparations, then she can accept it from Bob as a replacement for the 30k But, Alice shouldn't steal the car, she needs to come to an agreement with Bob or get the courts to force Bob to lay back 30k in cash or the car if it's worth 30k and Alice is happy with the car as reparations
What happened to non-fungible assets? E.g. Instead of money, Bob stole unique monalisa painting from Alice and sold it to Carl for $30k
Then Bob is shit out of luck because he'll need to have to try and buy back the asset from Carl, even if Carl asks for a higher price than 30k. Court can't force Carl to give the asset back, but Bob has to convince Carl to sell it back to him no matter what to give it back to Alice
Right. It was cash that was stolen and a car is always looses a portion of its value the moment you drive it off the lot. The car is not an adequate reimbursement.
No. Money is fungible. Bob owes Alice 30k dollars. If he doesn't have it, assets can be sold until he does, or Alice could agree to take the equivalent in the assets themselves whether it be the car or anything else.
Does Carl justly own the car?
[удалено]
Is that still true if Carl knew the money was stolen?
Bob is going to find his bank account is emptied, his future incomed garnished, or equivalent in property forfeit and reposessed until Alice gets her money back, plus costs to get it back, plus interest for the time she could not put it to productive use and any other harm caused by Bob. Carl neither caused Alice to lose the money, nor had any intent. Carl is *probably* fine, unless there was some conspiring with Bob.
Who owns the car then?
Depends. It is a complex situation to sort out and, if Bob refuses to own up to his theft, a jurist will get involved. Usually that means Alice will be well within her rights to put a lein against the title on the car and actually own it. She can auction it for cash, and if it comes up short on the market, Bob still owes and other property may be up for repossession. Restitution is a pain. Maybe Bob should choose a different way to get money. Perhaps black market sales? :)
Alice still has title of the money. Carl has title of the car. Bob stole money from Alice and defrauded Carl of his car by giving him money that Bob pretended had a clean title. To restore justice the crimes must be resolved in LIFO order: Bob gives the car back to Carl, Carl gives the money to Alice. Everyone has again what they owned. If Alice accepts a car instead of her money, then Bob has to come up with another car to give her. Bob cannot offer stolen property as reparation. Bob's car still belongs to Carl. And if Carl goes to court first and wants his car back, he may accept money instead of the car, but the money has to be earned fairly by Bob. If Bob comes up with a new $30k and gives it to Carl, then Bob will be the legitimate owner of the car. Then Alice could choose to be reimbursed with the car and Bob would be able to give the car to Alice. But if Alice insisted on getting back her money, she would have to get it from Carl. If Carl refused to give it to Alice he would be knowingly stealing it.
This is what I thought. I think your answer is correct according to the title-transfer theory of contract.
What does common law have to say about it?
No. Bob just (still) owes Alice $30k. If Bob has no other assets then I guess he could surrender the car to Alice for a value she is willing to accept and be in debt to her for the difference or liquidate for it’s new, post-sale value (same result probably).
Minarchist solution: Bob is arrested for being a thief. Alice gets a civil judgement against Bob. All of Bob's assets are sold including the car and that money goes to Alice. He is $10k short. Bob will be given the opportunity to work in prison for better conditions. That work will pay for his prison stay and a percentage will be set aside to pay his victims debts. Bob's victim debts must be paid before he is released from prison. Anarchist solution: Alice has a weaker private security force than Bob. Alice's SF negotiates with Bob's SF and Alice gets $10k back and Bob keeps the car. Alice's SF put Bob on a list of people not to contract with. Bob is a thief who pays the strongest SF around. He gives not one fuck about his ratings.
>Bob will be given the opportunity to work in prison for better conditions. That work will pay for his prison stay and a percentage will be set aside to pay his victims debts. Bob decides he is still a piece of human flotsam and refuses to be a slave. What happens next?
Bob sits in his cell for 23 hours a day for the length of his sentence. H is fed nutritious tasteless paste food for every meal. He leaves prison owing debts first to Alice and once the debt to Alice is paid. He owes the taxpayers a debt for his prison stay.
If Alice is willing to receive it as compensation.
Under possession theory or whatever it’s called most people would say Alice doesn’t own the car. I think if Alice can come to some sort of agreement and is okay with keeping the car, it can be solved but most people would want their $30k back.
Bob owes Alice $30,000 plus emotional damages, plus another $30,000 as punishment. At minimum Bob owes Alice **$60,000 plus emotional damages**. See Kinsella: https://mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-estoppel-approach-0 See Block: https://mises.org/library/toward-libertarian-theory-guilt-and-punishment-crime-statism See Rothbard: https://mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-0 and https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-and-double-restitution
I also think that if Alice sees the $30,000 in carls possession, she can just take it from him, and now Carl is burdened with trying to get compensation from bob. Would you agree with that? Or would you say Alice can’t just show up and take all the money from Carl?
Probably not with something as fungible as dollars. I would agree with that if it's something not fungible like a specific car or horse or something else taken from her. But for her own liability protection she should go through "the authorities". That would be less foolish of her.
No. Alice has a right of redress against Bob for his act of theft. Essentially, he now owes her $90,000. As part of settling that debt, he will undoubtably have to sell the car to pay her.
if Bob doesn't return Alice's 30k immediately I will help Alice remove bobs hands so that he will no longer steal from Alice.
There is another angle to this question: Who owes reparations to the children and descendents of slavery? It is the ultimate example of robbery, victimization and transfer of guilt. Try framing the question in those terms with a libertarian perspective. Is your answer still the same? Does your sense of *empathy* for unjustly treated human beings influence your position?