Suppose X is an expert arrow maker but a terrible stalker. He spends
his time fletching, trading the arrows to better hunters in exchange
for a share of the kill. They get good arrows, which enables them
to kill more game, the arrow maker gets fed, and all are content.
If Y steals a batch of arrows from X, he does not deprive X of
arrows to shoot. After all, X is producing more arrows than he
personally can use, especially since he is not a good enough stalker
to get close to a deer. What has been taken is his livelihood, or his
ability to barter, or his time.
...
The thief, Y, makes everyone poorer, including his fellow
hunters. If X cannot make a living by making arrows that he trades
for game, then he will be forced to give up fletching and hunt his own
food. Everyone else will also be forced to return to a nonspecialized
system in which each makes his own arrows and does his own
hunting. This decreases both the absolute amount of game killed,
because the hunters must spend time making arrows, and the value
of the game that the hunters do kill, because it no longer has an
exchange value. Nor does Y actually do the hunters a long-term
favor if, after the theft, he shouts ‘‘arrows want to be free’’ and
passes his loot out to them, thus destroying the system for a shortterm
gain.
