Clever, but I believe the analogy fails. In your case, you didn't do anything to cause the problem - the money was taken from you without your consent (I don't see that it's relevant if it was done by mistake or intentionally). It was your money, not theirs.
In the case of a bank giving you money by mistake, it is *their* money to give you. One can hardly accuse you of theft when someone or a bank gives you money, absent fraud or contractual conditions.
In other words, there isn't an analogy between someone taking your money by mistake and their giving you their money by mistake. I think you're going to need a different line of argument to demonstrate that someone mistakenly giving you money creates a legal (that is law of force, based on a rights-violation) obligation to return it.
It's an interesting question whether a law exists that would compel one to return money mistakenly transferred into one's account - though I would suspect it does.
More interesting is the question of whether someone can RIGHTFULLY compel you to return money to them that was given to you by mistake (absent fraud, etc.). I don't know of a slam-dunk argument for why that ought to be the case.
Well, I don't think it's that obvious that if an institution/bank mistakenly transfers money into your account that you are "stealing" from them (this situation is somewhat different, since the loanee doubtless had a contractual agreement for the $10,000).
The example of returning the money is more about ethical considerations than legal ones; that is, no law exists (that I know of) that says one must return to the cash register with excess change or make an effort to return found money - nor do I believe such laws ought to exist.
First, there's the interesting question about whether the person who is mistakenly given a sum of money actually owes the money back. I think that's highly debatable. I see no a priori reason that the person or institution making that mistake isn't responsible for it.
Winning a war, by the way, does not consist of absolutely quelching ANY resistance. It means the official capitulation or destruction of a government, essentially.
By the criterion that winning war means absolute submission, Germany didn't defeat France in WWII, since there was an ongoing resistance movement there.
Sutherland has a line in that movie which at the time absolutely cracked me up. I can't remember it exactly, but he was with a nun, I believe, and he was pretending something...and in reply to her question he had an incredible answer. Damned if I can remember it. I'm pretty I'd still love that movie now. Clint and dopehead Sutherland (the "anti-Jack")...what's not to love?
Man, are you sure you want to live in South Dakota? I don't know anyone here who doesn't own a half-dozen weapons (of course, they're not in the big city). I had no idea they were all so weak and cowardly!
I call that "inconsiderate." Usually I ask everyone around me, "Can I help you?" And when they turn to motion toward their luggage, I simply slip ahead in line. Air flights tend to bring out the selfish monster in me.
There is nothing about "self-interest" or "selfishness" (depending on how one defines it...I'm assuming an intelligent definition) which precludes caring about/feeling compassion/valuing others. I'd go further and say true valuing of others requires self-love (as one member here is constantly harping on!).
Well, I doubt very much that any emotion is "unconditional" - that is, would exist regardless of conditions (we've had this discussion a few times before, and eventually everyone seemed to concede that "unconditional" had to be strongly qualified to make sense) - but in any case, I doubt very much if a dog or cat or anyone would love someone without receiving some positive things from that someone. Those receipt of those "positive things" makes the dog a selfish mutt as far as I can see.
RE: If $10,000,000.00 was mistakenly put into your account
Clever, but I believe the analogy fails. In your case, you didn't do anything to cause the problem - the money was taken from you without your consent (I don't see that it's relevant if it was done by mistake or intentionally). It was your money, not theirs.In the case of a bank giving you money by mistake, it is *their* money to give you. One can hardly accuse you of theft when someone or a bank gives you money, absent fraud or contractual conditions.
In other words, there isn't an analogy between someone taking your money by mistake and their giving you their money by mistake. I think you're going to need a different line of argument to demonstrate that someone mistakenly giving you money creates a legal (that is law of force, based on a rights-violation) obligation to return it.