I guess this would apply in worse-case scenarios more than any where scociety, finances and government continue fully functioning. Not a fully Mad Max situation, but one where ownership of resources is unknown say during an 8, where situations resemble a post-war rebuilding effort.

An example is: XYZ Corp has gone under and their plant has been abandoned. You know creditors can lay claim to the property, but they're a conglomerate interest who themselves may no longer exist. You, in your rebuilding effort, need some materials which are in the plant's storage area.

Do you "aquire" the materials for your new neighborhood water system under "rights of salvage" or have you just looted property from XYZ Corp and its creditors? At what point is the line crossed from scrounging around for salvage materials and looting or theft?

I know that I will never have everything I could ever need for rebuilding. At some point I'm going to have to go on a scavenger hunt to find the part to make something work. I'm confident everyone will find themselves in a similar boat at some point if Y2K leads to an 8 or 9. If people go out intending to trade or barter for what they need but no one's there to deal with, what rules should be followed for "salvaging" property?

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), August 22, 1999

Answers

WW, What a great point you've raised!

Of course the answer is very subjective. I think it depends strongly on how much the government is in control, and how they are maintaining control; and _this_ in turn depends on the severity of Y2k.

In one level 8-9 scenario the government would maintain some order by enstating martial law or even just a state of emergency. In this case officers could view "scrounging" as looting, as they would do in any disaster today, and execute (no pun intended) the law accordingly. Especially if you are out in the dead of night after a curfew.

On the other hand if there is no government order in a particular place you could imagine a free-for-all where any property of "spurious owenership" as you mentioned is up for grabs. Now picture the owner of plant XYZ, unwilling to abandon his site even though his business had folded and his employess have bailed out. He would be justifibly upset when you come to "acquire" some materials that are just lying around, and he may let his 12-gauge do the talking. Of course the owner may instead have abandoned the site; then you would be competing with dozens of other scroungers for the precious booty.

The upshot here is in a level 8-9 you could not rely on clear cut rules or regulations in the matter, nor any proper law enforcement. Do what you need to to survive: But think very carefully before scrounging about in another persons property, whether the place seems to be abandoned or not. And remember in an emergency situation, when logic and common sense are scarce, there are others who will do anything to get hold of that piece of tin. Have your S&W handy....

-- JQ (onca@hotmail.com), August 22, 1999.

Western property law is rooted in common sense and survival. Eminent domain is the right of the community to "take" private property for a legitimate larger public good as long as a fair equivalent in value is paid to the owner. The roots of this are grounded in the primacy of the community over an individual's needs.

Likewise, an individual may "take" another's private property, (subject to later fair payment for its value or use,) if that property is necessary for the individual's survival. A typical example often used is the "borrowing" of a boat found along the shore in a time of flood.

There is also a principal called the "common enemy" principal that cuts an individual some slack when his actions are taken to protect his life and property. An example of this would be going into a creek with a bulldozer to push up a berm, (without a permit,) when high waters threatened to flood or severely erode land.

Of course, no matter what is lawfull, other circumstances may dictate what is wise.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 23, 1999.

Hi Wildweasel!

The scenario you describe suggests to me that the property has been abandoned, and is thus available for the taking.

It is abandoned because the corporate owner and the corporate creditor no longer exist. A property without an identifiable owner would be considered abandoned, although I suspect that state governments will promptly write laws declaring that such abandoned property automatically escheats to the state.

So if a bill is to be paid, it will be paid to the government. Should a corporation later claim to own the property, it would then sue the government for compensation.

-- GA Russell (ga.russell@usa.net), August 23, 1999.

Take this question down one notch. There may very well be a lot of "abandoned" homes, for a variety of reasons. So, if you see a home that looks like it is not being occupied any longer, do you have any right to use some of the things left there? How does this relate to the old cabin-in-the-woods that might have some food, and a fireplace, which you could use if you are stranded out there? What is the legal issue here? Do you "owe" the property the value of what you take from it? If we get into high level disruption these things will happen.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

If there are any authorities at all (County Gov?) Then records should be kept of what was taken and used for whom or by whom. Then fair compensation can be made if the owner or creditors should return.

Just setting up such a contingency plan, with people designated and paper and pencils, would go a long way to keeping order from degenerating into lawless anarchy and looting.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), August 23, 1999.

If you take something that doesn't belong to you, it's called stealing. Does anyone believe this anymore?

It makes no difference whether the property in question belonged to a private individual or a corporation- it's still theft.

Is it right to steal from a faceless corporation but not right to steal from you?

How about grave robbing? Surely the dead don't need their gold teeth and wedding bands anymore.

Would it be alright to steal food from an old man near death to feed a child, because the child is more important?

Would it be permissible to steal from a family of three to feed a family of eight, because eight are more inportant than three?

How about stealing from an atheist to give to a Christian? Aren't christians better people, i.e worth more?

I am not a religious man, but I as I recall, a statement was attributed to God once. It said, "Thou shalt not steal." I recall no exceptions being made to this rule.

If property is abandoned, what does that mean? That the owner is unable to stand watch over it all the time? I am unable to determine what "line" there may be between looting and salvage.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 23, 1999.

Thanks, Forrest. If it wasn't mine to begin with, then it isn't mine now just because I want it. While the examples of the boat being "borrowed" to save a life during a flood and the bulldozer to protect property are reasonable, they don't involve the permanent removal of an item by a non-owner to be consumed by that non-owner. Stealing is the correct term here. If you go to sleep at night, and are unable to guard your possessions, does that mean that your neighbors have the right to take them? Of course not. In another part of the Word, God states that we are to consider the lilies of the field. Do what you can to prepare for Y2K, and trust God that He will provide what you need as you need it.

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

I simply cannot visualize any scenario in which the places we now call "villages", "towns", and even "cities" will not continue to be on the map and have at least some people attempting to live in them. Part of that effort to live and to survive will have to consist in not just "salvaging" the material infrastructure, but also salvaging the civil infrastrucure.

In other words, I just don't believe that it is going to come down actually to the law of the jungle, every person for themselves. If it does, it won't stay that way that long, because 99.9999% of us really can't live that way. Homo sapiens is a social animal. We have ALWAYS lived in extended families/bands/tribes, etc. Most of us will try to pull together to survive. The inner city gangs do it one way, those of us in the smaller towns or suburbs will try a different approach.

That being the case, I really don't think that an individual is going to launch his/her own "do it yourself industrial reconstruction project." It was originally built by people working together, and it is going to have to be rebuilt by people working together.

If we should find ourselves in a scenario where there has been major social/civil chaos, major destruction of the industrial infrastructure, and major disconnects between properties and their owners, then it would seem to me that the first order of business would be for people living in a given geographic area to re-establish at least some rudimentary civil authority. (Of course, if existing local governments continue to exist to some extent, then you try and build on those existing structures and officials.) Once you have some basic laws, jurisdictional boundaries, and a rudimentary judicial system in place, THEN your community AS A COMMUNITY can proceed to work together to deal with the disposition of abandoned or seemlingly ownerless property, along with whatever other actions need to be taken to get the rebuilding and recovery moving. Records of these actions can be kept, and if disposessed property owners reappear later, provisions can be made for reasonable restitution.

I agree with those who have pointed out that individuals who "unilaterally appropriate" property that they do not own are stealing, and that is wrong. If they find themselves in communities where everyone is shell shocked and nobody is doing anything to motivate and organize community action to get things moving again, then perhaps a more appropriate and moral approach would be to sieze the leadership initiative themselves. The Bible say "Thou shall not steal." It does not say "If there is anarchy, you can't step in and fill the void."

-- Stefan Stackhouse (stefans@mindspring.com), August 23, 1999.

I have planed for another "legal" solution to something I wish will happen. I gave my son and his new bride 100 oz. silver bar at their wedding, with the following instructions. Save this till next spring, and I'll bet you can quit claim one of those $700,000 homes they are building across the road from my house with this, 10 gallons of gas and three days supply of food. Why ? Because, when they are freezing and starving to death, it will offer a way out to relatives in the warm south, when there are no other choices. I always said that some people have more money than brains, and if you play your cards right, you can often get a lot with a little in the right circumstances. This may sound heartless, but the reverse is true when the monied bankers take a lot (your house) when you can't pay the morgtage (a little). I believe the Devil will get his due, and many of the "smart" brokers, lawyers, politicians and bankers who have lived off our sweat, blood and tears may have a "Comeupence", as we term it here in New England. Food for thought ! Eagle`

-- Hal Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), August 23, 1999.

I would bet that before you had a chance to steal that piece of tin from the roof of that abandoned bldg. that you would find that some one or a family has moved in and are occupying the bldg. The same goes for houses. If there are empty homes standing around, due to repossession, cold and hungry and tired people will take possession of them. My advice to those of you who have mortgages: If you cannot pay the mortgage, DON'T MOVE OUT (unless you have better choices) until the law comes and moves you out. If we have another depression, there will be so many homes repossessed by banks and the banks will be begging people to stay in the home rather than leave it to be vandalized The longer the depression goes on, the more the banks will be begging people to stay in the houses. Just MHO!

Taz..

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

Taz et el,

I guess we're talking about more than just 'scrounging' here, but all other forms of 'appropriation' like squatting. Again, it will all depend on what kind of facilities are available in a particular (urban) neighbourhood after a severe Y2k shock.

In one extreme: The governrment has maintained order, and basics like water and food are available. I see most folks will stay holed up in their homes. This would be best for aforementioned banks, because even if people could not pay their mortgages then at least rioting and property damage would be kept to a minimum by the authorities (one would hope!).

But in the other extreme: There is no control, the power is out, no running water, no food, etc. I see a mass exodus from the urban area as folks escape the trouble. In that case the region would be left with a scant population, with riots, fires, and scavanging quickly turning the place into a wasteland. The displaced people would in turn put a strain on the already over-stressed surrounding areas, assuming they have not gone the same way themselves. In the absense of govenrment order, as folks are trying to survive, scavenging, scrounging, and squatting would run rampant; heedless of property or salvaging laws.

I guess the reality will lie somewhere in between, depending on how badly a particular area is hit by Y2k. As everyone agress, your 'appropriation' of the various remaining, scant resources will depend a lot on the situation. Think extinuatung circumstances. What may be reasonable on one instance may be totally unacceptable in another -- one's best judgement and common sense (not to mention that S&W) will be one's best allies. If laws must be broken in the name of survival, one would hope this would be taken into account when (if?) order is restored.

Thanks for listening....

-- JQ (onca@hotmail.com), August 24, 1999.

"Western property law is rooted in common sense and survival. Eminent domain is the right of the community to "take" private property for a legitimate larger public good as long as a fair equivalent in value is paid to the owner. The roots of this are grounded in the primacy of the community over an individual's needs. "

The previous paragraph was copied from a response further up in this chain. I want to point out that "Eminent domain" is merely theft by force. The mob is big enough to do what it wants to so it does. Trying to pretend that it is for the greater good of the community is so much male bovine excrement. Some group wanted something. Some group took it. so much for property rights.

If y2k is severe enough to destroy the present government by mob rule, I sincerely hope that another just like it does not arise. If I own something and another wants it, he should not get it unless I agree to it.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 24, 1999.

Is "eminent domain" based upon might of the many or the common good?

While I am an advocate of the common good, I believe the truest common good is one that strikes a delicate balance with the rights and dignity of the person.

For further reading, see Jacques Maritain's "Person and the Common Good" or something similar.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 25, 1999.

Hm. Not so difficult a quandry, but it does take a little careful consideration. Put simply, if all possible heirs of the items you are taking are known to be dead, you're off the hook. If not, you're bound to compensate them if they come looking for their property. A simple return of the piece of property and an apology will show you are not intentionally a thief. On the other hand, if they're all dead, or have written it off as a loss already, it is like finding an apple tree growing wild: you are simply taking what nature provides when you pick the apples. But as I say, be ready to give them back if someone owns the tree. You are not a thief until you are certain someone else owns it. I am a Christian, as others answering this question are. I ask that my fellow Christians pay attention to the question, lest they make the mistake of thinking this guy is advocating socialism. He's simply asking whether it is stealing to take what appears to be unclaimed, knowing a risk that it is claimed. Do not let your passions get ahead of your careful consideration of the question. It's what's inside a person that matters to God, and if theft is not in him, he is not breaking the command not to steal. This will show itself if the owner returns for his property, for this honest person will give it to him, or pay whatever compensation the owner asks.

-- Loren Blackmun Meyer (RorschachKovacs@Hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

In Australian law, and I guess it's the same in the US, it is possible to gain ownership of a property by what's called "adverse acquisition" (or something like that). Basically this means that if you squat or otherwise occupy a property continuously for a specific period of time (12 years in many countries), and the rightful owner takes no legal action in that time, then ownership of that property passes to you. I would imagine this includes the land, plus any buildings and goods contained thereon.

If the original owner suddenly reappears and wants his place back then it's tough luck to him. But then his recourse may be to sue you, in which case the matter gets dragged through court.

After a major level 7-9 breakdown, with homeless folks moving into unoccupied properties, we could see issues like this could be popping up everywhere. Of course all this assumes the judicial system is still in place as we know it.

In relation to WW's original query, the same law of "adverse acquisition" would apply to industrial sites. So if an owner, and his his creditors, have all gone bankrupt, and you move in for 12 years, the place is yours. This may sound a bit silly but in Ed's 10-year breakdown plan it is entirely feasible.

Bear in mind that if a factory goes bust the first thing that will happen is locked-out employees will break in and loot the place, grabbing what they would consider "rightful compensation" for any unpaid work and unfair dismissal.

Thanks for your time,

-- Jason Quarry (onca@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Perfect, Loren, just perfect. Thanks

-- Zeda (rickster@n-jcenter.com), August 25, 1999.

Historically, during dramatic changes in economies, things change hands -- and not always by mutual consent.

An elderly gent of my acquaintance once showed me a fine oil painting he had, done by one of the minor masters. I admired the painting, and wondered how he ever afforded to acquire the masterpiece. He said that during the Great Depression, he was unemployed and looking for someplace to stay. He ended up on Long Island, going from mansion to mansion -- they were empty and abandoned. The wealthy had been dispossessed by the collapse. The old fellow said he "acquired" several paintings, some nice furniture, etc. simply by walking out in broad daylight with them. The items were otherwise unsaleable during the Depression, totally valuless.

During the Black Death in Europe, when entire towns died, there was a massive "redistribution of wealth" as the survivors made use of the goods of the dead. Complete estates were "claimed" by those who were healthy enough to hold them.

It is common for archeologists to find that "newer" buildings are constructed from the stones of more ancient structures, hauled away by people who knew where to find the "junk of ages". Is this thrift and prudence, or simply theft?

Essentially, these situations speak of severe social crisis, where the ordinary boundaries and rules of ownership are, for whatever reason, absent.

It might not be right, moral, or even polite. But, if y2k produces that kind of dislocation, it is reasonable to assume the same thing will happen here.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 27, 1999.

If the ownership to property leaves the last "person" (including corporation) and there is no "heir," ownership escheats to the state. So in the case of the factory, either there is a private owner or the state now owns it. In either case, taking of materials could be construed as theft.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 27, 1999.

In the early 1990s, when the city of Prague in the Czech Republic was returning out of communism into a market economy, families who had their homes confiscated in the sixties were allowed to lay claim to their assets.

Young families who had lived for decades caring for beautiful homes or apartments in the old sector were evicted so that the property could be returned to heirs of people who had escaped to Germany. So in essence, the young family was renting although they did not know it.

The great tragedy of y2k will be that the nature of the fractional reserve banking system has created a situation where title to money is simultaneously given to both the lender and the borrower. If a newlywed couple is able to "buy" a $700,000 luxury home for 100 ounces of silver (about $700 now) then this is only because some hard working widows in their 80s saw all of their savings vanish into a sucking pit and the greedy mortgage company was run by a man who saw more value in getting a silver bar than in the moral of paying back decent citizens who had loaned money.

In truth, the myraid threads of ownership are complex. If we collapse to the point where the "legality of looting" is in question, we will all be soooooo much poorer because there will be many "services" which will be gone. The rich will not be those who can squat in a luxury home, they will be those who are able to reestablish a service.

For example, lets say that a couple of "investors" decide that they are tired of seeing the three restaurants in town all boarded up because what little food that people find cannot be consumed in the luxury of a service setting. So these investors choose the place with the nicest setting and loot the other two places to drum up enough pots and pans and forks and plates and chairs (after the earlier looters had taken much) to set the place up.

Now the loote investors scrounge around and find an old 500 gallon tank of propane which was still full and they "hire" a guy with a stolen truck to bring it down to the restaurant. Then, they begin to ask people who want to eat there to bring down some uncooked food (which they do not ask the true ownership of) in exchange for a smaller quantity of cooked food. They decide to give free food to a couple local Sherrifs and a tow truck driver in exhange for a bit of local government. They decide to allow people who have young children to bring them down to the Karate Studio next door so that the kids can play there and they bring some food over every day at lunch for the kids. For the first year, the looter investors don't strive to make a big profit, but rather to provide warm food at an affordable price. So the restaurant becomes a kind of gathering place for people and soon a few other people re-establish some of the old stores to allow an indoor bartering market. Because of the active community and all of the mutual information sharing, the town is able to identify early a new source of gasoline which is coming in from a refinery a few hundred miles away. They are not sure if the refinery is run by the real owners but the main concern is that the community is able to get a gas station back on line well ahead of other towns in the area. Because of this, the town becomes a stopover place for "outsiders" who can afford gas, which allows the town to buy larger amounts of groceries (some of which the restaurant cooks). The restaurant and local businesses develop a double price standard which allows true locals to shop at a discount to outsiders, and the profits are reinvested, along with any materials (possibly looted) to improve the downtown.

Who in the end is more moral, the investors who looted to kick start their community back into action, or the young couple who "honestly" purchased a luxury home for a bar of silver?

-- Thom Gilligan (thomgill@eznet.net), August 29, 1999.

US and English property law is largely based in Roman and natural or equitable law. If you are interested in these historic roots of property law, I maintain an extensive website on the topic: http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/tableoc.html

Similar to Australia, one can acquire the equitable right of use to another's property by open and notorious use without action of ejectment. The equitable right generally ripens in the period of the local statute of limitations. That equitable right is not a right under "law" (secured by title.) It must be perfected through the legal process or it remains only an equitable right.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 29, 1999.

And in Ohio, the owner has 2 options. He may either tell you to GET OUT or OFF the property you are on, OR he may lookat the situation, and simply TAKE NOTE OF YOU and give you temporary or limited permission. At that point, your adverse posession case dies.

i LOVE a government.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 17, 1999.

Hmmm....something that seems to be missing in this conversation. A major break down in Govt control, loss of utilities-power, water, heat, etc...now, in some parts of the country it can be dealt with a bit more eiasily [and some parts of the world] than others...January 1...everything goes to pot. by Jan 10th, I imagine...there won't be many left in the northern parts of the states...they will leave or die unless they were prepared. There will be no mass groups of homeless, hungry people moving into empty buildings because there will be NO people. The ones that prepared will stay for a bit, at least. The others will die.

Or they will leave...certainly there will be some that try the 'take what you want whether someone is there or not'...some may succeed but most will have their butts shot off...the ones who prepared are probably armed and know how to use their weapons...and. more than likely, they will be part of a network of other prepared people.

So, in worse case...8-10 or whatever, houses not occupied or occupied by dead people will become resources for those who stayed.

Right or wrong, those are the facts.

-- Satanta [The Whitebear] (satanta@zdnetmail.com), December 01, 1999.