Via Strange Stuff, an interesting discussion in the wake of what can only be described as a truly repugnant example of state sponsored theft; the unclaimed assets bill.
Chris links to Dizzy, who makes a parallel with a vintage motor car, which is where it gets interesting. Missing Dizzy’s point about property theft, a number of commenters point out (quite rightly) that the bill only applies to those assets where the owner cannot be traced. So the point that Dizzy’s analogy doesn’t quite work may be a fair one, but the overall one is valid; that this is theft, pure and simple. Theft does not become morally right just because the state passes a bill saying that it is okay. Theft is theft. Yet, disturbingly, Dizzy has a number of commenters who just don’t get it. This, for example, from someone who prefers to remain nameless:
The Unclaimed assets bill does not and will not mean that your money is taken away. What it means that the money that banks currently put on their balance sheets as profits and use to invest but make no attempt to find the rightful owners of will be put to social use.
What is does not mean is that you will not be able to have the money should you discover an old savings book under the Mr and Mrs Thinks mattress. Banks will simply take out insurance against the claimant coming back for the money and there it will be in all its insurance gathering glory for you to spend as you see fit.
It is estimated that there is around £10-15bn worth of cash lying around on bank’s balance sheets that does nothing bar feather the nests of bank executives. This way, banks have to actually do something to earn their money, your money remains asseccible should you want it, and the cash can be put to good uses like under fives edudaction provision or finding kids something to do in the summer holidays – all things that reduce long term crime and save tax payers money whilst making Britain a nicer place to live.
So, idealogy aside we have a little tickle of the banks which is always popular, we have no extra taxation, we have extra socially good spending that will reduce crime and save money in the medium to long term and you get to keep your money if you want it.
So libertarianism gone mad aside, what exactly is there not to like?
Um… simply put in plain English; “it is not the government’s money”. Despite this being an oft repeated mantra during the discussions, there are still those who think that the state stealing form other people is a good idea:
Meanwhile it is making social capital not super-profit for thieving banks.
I don’t hold much of a brief for the banks, particularly when they hit their most vulnerable customers with hefty charges, but they are not guilty of theft here, as they are the custodians of this money as a consequence of a voluntary exchange.
What is deeply worrying is that there are people out there who genuinely believe that the state should have the right to take whatever it wants for no other reason than that the original owners have done nothing with it and cannot be traced.
It is not the state’s money. To take it is stealing and stealing is immoral. At least, it is in civilised societies.