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

[teacherone]

"there out to be a law about pushing drowning victims off one's barge."


anyway... sounds like your guiding us to good Samaritan laws where one is held criminally liable for not assisting another in need.

these laws clearly violate self-ownership for anyone forced without compensation to assist/serve another is reduced to the status of a slave.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Suppose you are not the the owner of the barge but a hunter on the shore, with a rifle. You see some guy on a barge drowning a youg girl.

Do you sit there a watch or do you use enough force to save the drowning girl?

 

[NiceGoing]

Prosecute this guy for contributory homicide, IMO.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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.

Why do most people pay unsecured credit card bills? To maintain good credit?

Why do most people avoid bank fraud? To be able to open a bank account?

To state force is necessary to provide incentive is B.S.

Private performance ratings, background checks, and databases on individuals would be much more prolific in voluntary society. In a voluntary society you would not have a state issued driver license you might have a private ID that conformed to some open ID standard with several rating endorsements. Before you could rent, get a job, or do business with someone they might require you to swipe your ID.

If you are not a responsible individual who does not honor their commitments, respect voluntary private arbitration, etc. You would be more effectively ostracized and discriminated against. Who wants to contract with or hire someone that does not respect voluntary private arbitration? That is plenty of incentive.

 

[Baptist]

Why not make a more realistic scenario?

A girl is starving and has not eaten in weeks. She breaks into your house of place of business and steels money or food. Do you, the owner, have the right to kick her off your property? Even though she is starving?

 

[pcosmar]

"Let me live in a house by the side of the road and be a friend to man."

THE HOUSE BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD
Sam Walter Foss

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/dl/library1/house.pdf

 

[WaltM]

Why do most people pay unsecured credit card bills? To maintain good credit?

correct, and good credit isn't a good enough incentive for some.

so some people literally live on the once a few times they cheated debt.

Why do most people avoid bank fraud? To be able to open a bank account?

again, yes, but that's not enough incentive and punishment for some.

To state force is necessary to provide incentive is B.S.

maybe for you.

Private performance ratings, background checks, and databases on individuals would be much more prolific in voluntary society. In a voluntary society you would not have a state issued driver license you might have a private ID that conformed to some open ID standard with several rating endorsements. Before you could rent, get a job, or do business with someone they might require you to swipe your ID.

that might work for employment purposes, but I don't see how that helps in forcing people to pay their debt.

If you are not a responsible individual who does not honor their commitments, respect voluntary private arbitration, etc. You would be more effectively ostracized and discriminated against. Who wants to contract with or hire someone that does not respect voluntary private arbitration? That is plenty of incentive.

that's not enough for some, I'm afraid.

Are you saying that currently the government is forcing too many people to live up to contracts, while they shouldn't?

 

[WaltM]

Why not make a more realistic scenario?

A girl is starving and has not eaten in weeks. She breaks into your house of place of business and steels money or food. Do you, the owner, have the right to kick her off your property? Even though she is starving?

I've asked that question many times.

very few here are willing to honestly answer.

 

[WaltM]

"there out to be a law about pushing drowning victims off one's barge."


anyway... sounds like your guiding us to good Samaritan laws where one is held criminally liable for not assisting another in need.

these laws clearly violate self-ownership for anyone forced without compensation to assist/serve another is reduced to the status of a slave.

Good Samaritan laws are the logical extension of "right to life"

You cannot say a person has an absolute, overriding, unalienable "right to life" but then say you have a "right to choose" "not to help" them. If you believe your self ownership is above another person's "right to life", just admit they don't have a "right to life" against any other rights you have (don't try to have it both ways)

 

[teacherone]

Good Samaritan laws are the logical extension of "right to life"

You cannot say a person has an absolute, overriding, unalienable "right to life" but then say you have a "right to choose" "not to help" them. If you believe your self ownership is above another person's "right to life", just admit they don't have a "right to life" against any other rights you have (don't try to have it both ways)

wow... you actually said something cogent and thought provoking.

i'll have to think about that and get back to you.

 

[Son of Detroit]

Seems like manslaughter to me... It's obvious the girl cannot swim and manages to get onto your boat to safety, you use force to throw her off which ends up in her death.

What if a woman puts a baby on your front step because she cannot take care of it? The baby is trespassing on your property. Why not just take the baby to the edge of your lawn and throw it as far as you can off of your property? Property rights!

 

[MelissaWV]

Seems like manslaughter to me... It's obvious the girl cannot swim and manages to get onto your boat to safety, you use force to throw her off which ends up in her death.

What if a woman puts a baby on your front step because she cannot take care of it? The baby is trespassing on your property. Why not just take the baby to the edge of your lawn and throw it as far as you can off of your property? Property rights!

Right, and that's all painfully obvious. Let's flip it the other way, though, which is why this thread has me perplexed.

Should you be *forced* to take the girl aboard? Should the slim chance that you'd be an asshole enough to kick her off of the boat and let her drown be reason enough to make it illegal to pass her by? If that's true, then how "close" is close enough to render you responsible for attempting to aid her? How far does this aid go? Who decides, and who enforces it? Does the baby being on your doorstep now mean you are responsible for its well-being *LEGALLY*, which means if you do not do a certain amount to ensure its continued survival and health, you might be held liable? What if you're on vacation and the baby dies there because no one ever got to it? Your fault?

To those who voted that it should be illegal, I am wondering how you would phrase the law?

 

[Deborah K]

I imagine this is a very thought provoking exercise for those who are heavily influenced by the anarchy position. For me, it's clear cut. It's illegal and immoral and it has nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with doing the right thing versus the wrong thing. Letting the girl die should not be an option in a civilized society.

 

[Deborah K]

To those who voted that it should be illegal, I am wondering how you would phrase the law?

Isn't it negligent homicide?

 

[MelissaWV]

Isn't it negligent homicide?

Okay. Is it such because she touched the boat? Because she got onto it? Because she was within x yards of it? Because she was seen by crew? Because she was "safe" (like over-running first base)? Would it still be such if she were just near the boat but hadn't hauled herself onto it? How near is near enough?

I'm having some trouble seeing how this would be written without making you responsible for anyone within reach who MIGHT be having problems. What if she was just injured but swimming fine? Is it only going to apply in cases of mortal peril? If so, then how are you supposed to know until you get close enough to examine her and figure out if she's in danger for her life or just going to take awhile to swim to shore?

That's not to say this shouldn't be a civil matter. "Legal" implies, though, that you're going to land in jail for not doing enough. That's a pretty serious thing, so for those purposes it would seem in everyone's best interests to get the law defined in terms of enforcement and what constitutes illegal activity.

 

[Son of Detroit]

IMO, if you play a part in her death, then it's illegal. As much of an evil person you would be if you just refuse to help, as much as you should be taken somewhere and have your nipples ripped off, you don't HAVE to help.

However, if you do something to aid in her death it's illegal. Like in the OP scenario, throwing her off your boat. If she's trying to grab on and you knock her out with a baseball bat.

You would only be right to do those things in self defense. A little girl in obvious distress passed out on your boat is not a threat to you.

 

[Deborah K]

Okay. Is it such because she touched the boat? Because she got onto it? Because she was within x yards of it? Because she was seen by crew? Because she was "safe" (like over-running first base)? Would it still be such if she were just near the boat but hadn't hauled herself onto it? How near is near enough?

I'm having some trouble seeing how this would be written without making you responsible for anyone within reach who MIGHT be having problems. What if she was just injured but swimming fine? Is it only going to apply in cases of mortal peril? If so, then how are you supposed to know until you get close enough to examine her and figure out if she's in danger for her life or just going to take awhile to swim to shore?

That's not to say this shouldn't be a civil matter. "Legal" implies, though, that you're going to land in jail for not doing enough. That's a pretty serious thing, so for those purposes it would seem in everyone's best interests to get the law defined in terms of enforcement and what constitutes illegal activity.

Based on the OP:

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."

It seems like negligent homicide to me.

 

[MelissaWV]

Based on the OP:

It seems like negligent homicide to me.

So if she had not made it to the boat, he could have watched her drown and it should have been legal?

 

[WaltM]

I imagine this is a very thought provoking exercise for those who are heavily influenced by the anarchy position. For me, it's clear cut. It's illegal and immoral and it has nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with doing the right thing versus the wrong thing. Letting the girl die should not be an option in a civilized society.

I agree.

Well, I meant, I agree that IF you believe a person has a right to life, you can't say you have a right to choose not to help them. IF you believe it's wrong for a person to die, then you cannot logically say there's a difference between "passive" and "active" killing.

 

[Son of Detroit]

So if she had not made it to the boat, he could have watched her drown and it should have been legal?

Legal, yes. Moral, no.