Can you enforce property rights when it tramples someone else's rights?

[ibaghdadi]

Picture this scenario.

So you're on a barge in the middle of a river. A young girl is swimming nearby, minding her own business. Suddenly she gets a cramp and starts to drown. Luckily your barge in nearby so she makes for it just in time, and with her last gasp of air grabs onto the edge and climbs onto your barge, exhausted.

But it's your barge. You have the property rights. You don't want her on your boat, she's an unwanted intruder upon the property of a free human being. So you push her off back into the river, and watch as she drowns. You shrug and say, "Sad that that should happen to her, but it's not my problem."

In this case enforcing your property rights (the barge) meant robbing the girl from her right to life.

In this situation, what are you?
(1) You are a criminal for trampling over the girl's natural right to life (your action was immoral and illegal)
(2) You are a douche, but from a natural rights perspective you did nothing wrong (your action was immoral but legal)
(3) You did nothing wrong legally or morally (your action was moral and legal)

 

[Icymudpuppy]

The girl did nothing to harm your property. Trespass is mildly irritating, but ultimately harmless. When balanced against life, you have a moral obligation to forgive the trespass.

 

[MelissaWV]

If your barge had not been there, she would have drowned. Your presence was a fluke which afforded her a chance of survival, but ultimately she was in mortal peril regardless of whether or not you were there. The barge COULD HAVE prevented her demise, and maybe it SHOULD HAVE in the eyes of many, but would you change that to MUST HAVE? I wouldn't. At what point does the barge's obligation to provide aid end? What if she was cold and they didn't do everything they could to prevent her being so? What if she was hungry but allergic to peanuts, and they didn't provide her with peanut-free food? What if the cramp was brought on by diabetes-related sugar fluctuations, and the crew did not recognize the signs and get her something to stabilize her glucose?

Her family would, I'm sure, have much to say on the subject. Just as if any of the above absurdities had ultimately contributed to her demise, so they have a perfect right to bitch and moan and encourage people not to use the barge or your services or whatever means they can use to make your life a little less comfortable without directly aggressing.

To go back to the thread title as a question, "Can you enforce property rights when it tramples someone else's rights?" it could be asked of both parties. Does the barge have a right (assuming they've secured the river-owner's permission to be on the river at all) to continue its permitted passage along the river unmolested? Does the woman have a right not to drown?

The second one sounds a bit silly, doesn't it? If she had drowned without the barge there, who would have been infringing upon her rights? The river?

Now, if the wake from your barge (assuming it created one) or similar event caused by your barge contributed to her drowning, it's another matter. The same goes for if the river is weed-choked and you still allow swimming on your property (that area of the river), or other things which a family could show as potentially contributing to their family member's death.

 

[pcosmar]

If you have to ask,,,,
or even have a moments hesitation,,

 

[Kotin]

I don't think this particular situation comes down to property rights.. it comes down to being an extreme asshole.

 

[Reason]

I don't think this particular situation comes down to property rights.. it comes down to being an extreme asshole.

 

[BlackTerrel]

So you're on a barge in the middle of a river. A young girl is swimming nearby, minding her own business. Suddenly she gets a cramp and starts to drown. Luckily your barge in nearby so she makes for it just in time, and with her last gasp of air grabs onto the edge and climbs onto your barge, exhausted.

But it's your barge. You have the property rights. You don't want her on your boat, she's an unwanted intruder upon the property of a free human being. So you push her off back into the river, and watch as she drowns. You shrug and say, "Sad that that should happen to her, but it's not my problem."

That is murder in my eyes. And the punishment should be the same.

 

[Kludge]

Deserves death, but not by a "legal" government.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Picture this scenario.

So you're on a barge in the middle of a river. A young girl is swimming nearby, minding her own business. Suddenly she gets a cramp and starts to drown. Luckily your barge in nearby so she makes for it just in time, and with her last gasp of air grabs onto the edge and climbs onto your barge, exhausted.

But it's your barge. You have the property rights. You don't want her on your boat, she's an unwanted intruder upon the property of a free human being. So you push her off back into the river, and watch as she drowns. You shrug and say, "Sad that that should happen to her, but it's not my problem."

In this case enforcing your property rights (the barge) meant robbing the girl from her right to life.

In this situation, what are you?
(1) You are a criminal for trampling over the girl's natural right to life (your action was immoral and illegal)
(2) You are a douche, but from a natural rights perspective you did nothing wrong (your action was immoral but legal)
(3) You did nothing wrong legally or morally (your action was moral and legal)

I don't like the options given. A private property society does not absolve us of doing what is practical and humane at any given time. It simply minimizes conflict.

 

[loveshiscountry]

That is murder in my eyes. And the punishment should be the same.

No one should take anothers life unless it is in self defense. I have no problem taking him out back for a beating though.

 

[johnrocks]

A pretty extreme hypothetical example, at most I will say that there is always an exception to a rule as your example shows, life would come first in this most extreme example,imho.

 

[brandon]

Common sense is so much better than some abstract philosophical theory of absolutes.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The owner of the barge is well within his right to trespass an intruder but not using force since life is not in danger. One a non-threatening intruder is aboard the barge the barge owner has a care of duty for persons on their property. I don't think the barge owner would have any problem collecting some kind of usage or passenger fee in a civil action but he would likely not be a popular barge owner. Property damage would also a civil matter so if the intruder damaged any property while attempting to latch on and save herself the barge owner would have no problem collecting that in a civil action as well. A responsible person would offer to compensate the barge owner for any inconvenience of property use.

 

[osan]

Picture this scenario.

So you're on a barge in the middle of a river. A young girl is swimming nearby, minding her own business. Suddenly she gets a cramp and starts to drown. Luckily your barge in nearby so she makes for it just in time, and with her last gasp of air grabs onto the edge and climbs onto your barge, exhausted.

But it's your barge. You have the property rights. You don't want her on your boat, she's an unwanted intruder upon the property of a free human being. So you push her off back into the river, and watch as she drowns. You shrug and say, "Sad that that should happen to her, but it's not my problem."

In this case enforcing your property rights (the barge) meant robbing the girl from her right to life.

In this situation, what are you?
(1) You are a criminal for trampling over the girl's natural right to life (your action was immoral and illegal)
(2) You are a douche, but from a natural rights perspective you did nothing wrong (your action was immoral but legal)
(3) You did nothing wrong legally or morally (your action was moral and legal)

Is there a point to this hypothetical nonsense? The answers are fairly clear and probably don't require any great amount of discussion.

Do you stay up at night thinking up stuff like this?

 

[ibaghdadi]

Is there a point to this hypothetical nonsense? The answers are fairly clear and probably don't require any great amount of discussion. Do you stay up at night thinking up stuff like this?

It's not nonsense, it's actually quite a deep question and I intend to pursue this topic further. I've recently read "For A New Liberty" for the second time and yes, my mind has been whirring nonstop.

That being said, I can't blame you for not seeing the point. But please don't blame me for seeing one.

 

[WaltM]

yes, by definition, property rights are in conflict with another person's rights.

Anybody who claims otherwise is a liar, or has a very inconsistent, unlivable definition of property.

also, property rights are impossible to protect under justice, in order for a court, a legal system or government to have power, it must be able to violate property and use force, or nobody would have any incentive or threat to obey.

the utopian idea that "private courts" can settle disputes without violating property is logically impossible (much less realistic)

 

[WaltM]

I don't think this particular situation comes down to property rights.. it comes down to being an extreme asshole.

I love this type of question, it goes to show how many people are willing to live up all the way to "property rights" against another person's (alleged) "right to life".

This is why it makes more sense to admit nobody has rights.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Oh, FFS. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while we're at it?

Osan nailed it up in #14.

 

[torchbearer]

property rights is self-ownership. no right trumps that. the only limit to you liberty is when it infringes upon someone else's rights, or right to self-ownership. which include the fruits of the labor that comes from that body.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Does the answer change if the woman in trouble changes?

Nancy Reagan
Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Rosie O'Donnell
Hillary Clinton

Isn't moral relativism all the rage these days?

I'd drown 'em all, and Baba WaWa too.