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

[TheAnswerTo1984is1776]

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.

property rights and someone elses rights are actually the same thing and never contradict.

your story is really stretching your point. First of all if you push a girl off a boat to drown you have just committed murder. If she was drowning and you didn't stop to help her however then there has been no harm nor help on your part so nothing happens to you except your a sick fuck who would sit there and watch a girl drown in the river and not do anything.

 

[WaltM]

property rights and someone elses rights are actually the same thing and never contradict.

your story is really stretching your point. First of all if you push a girl off a boat to drown you have just committed murder.

why? I'm keeping her off my property, aren't I?

Does she have a right to hold on to my property?

Or is her right to life exceeding my property ownership?

If she was drowning and you didn't stop to help her however then there has been no harm nor help on your part so nothing happens to you except your a sick fuck who would sit there and watch a girl drown in the river and not do anything.

The fact you can't say this is illegal tells all.

You WANT to say how wrong this is, but can't make it illegal, so you resort to using cuss words to express your anger. If you could call this person a criminal, such anger would be unnecessary.

 

[AgentOrange]

that's what I've been saying, BOGUS DISTINCTION.

As long as you INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY allowed it to happen, it doesn't matter how much & how little action you take.

this is different than accidents, where you did your best and it still turned out differently than how you expected.

I disagree, it is an important distinction. Maybe the guy in the boat couldn't swim & didn't want to risk trying to pull the girl in the boat, for fear that he would fall in and drown. I think there is a big difference between compelling someone to act (actively try to save the girl) and someone forcibly doing something that they know will kill another (pushing the girl off into the water.)

Look at it this from this scenario, what if the boat owner had willingly taken a passenger out on his boat, can he at any point then decide to push that passenger in the water because he doesn't want them on his boat anymore? Actively killing someone, regardless of whether or not they are on your property should be illegal (obviously self-defense is a totally different situation) If one wants to pursue monetary reimbursement for the use of their property, then they should be able to do so, but killing someone who is on their property and is not in any way threatening, should be first-degree murder. This, of course, would not obligate someone to ever directly act to save someone.

 

[DamianTV]

As usual, this is the point where I quit paying any attention to the Law.

When my rights start wrecking someone elses life, I throw them out the window, and I dont care what the law says. I'll pay as much attention to words on a piece of paper that gives me the right to sodomize a trespasser as I will Lindsay Lohans court appearances.

This is when I will take the Athiest approach: what if it were me? If I needed help, wasnt trying to hurt anyone, was not hurting anyone, and was getting fucked by someone elses "Rights", I am going to turn around and help that person, regardless of what the law says. If it were me, I would not want to suffer or die because someone else had a Right to not be bothered by my death.

I was in the Military, and one thing that I learned is that you dont get to pick and choose whose life you are going to give your own to protect. Real Heroes dont get to choose who's lives they save.

 

[BrendenR]

why? I'm keeping her off my property, aren't I?

Does she have a right to hold on to my property?

Or is her right to life exceeding my property ownership?



The fact you can't say this is illegal tells all.

You WANT to say how wrong this is, but can't make it illegal, so you resort to using cuss words to express your anger. If you could call this person a criminal, such anger would be unnecessary.

A girl has violated your property rights by entering your property. There is a penalty under the law for such a violation of another person's rights.

A man has violated a girls right to life by pushing her into the river to drown. There is a penalty under the law for such a violation of another person's rights.

Are you going to argue that murder and trespassing deserve the same sentence? No? Then the right to life is greater than the right to trespass.

Said another way, you can kill me for trespassing, but we're both losing our lives (jail/death sentence). Your choice.

 

[WaltM]

A girl has violated your property rights by entering your property. There is a penalty under the law for such a violation of another person's rights.

A man has violated a girls right to life by pushing her into the river to drown. There is a penalty under the law for such a violation of another person's rights.

Are you going to argue that murder and trespassing deserve the same sentence? No? Then the right to life is greater than the right to trespass.

Said another way, you can kill me for trespassing, but we're both losing our lives (jail/death sentence). Your choice.

thanks, that's what I was asking for.

 

[Kregisen]

I didn't bother to read through the 7 pages of posts, but I think if you're a real libertarian you have to go with #2.

If you say a property owner HAS to save someone's life, then you also support universal healthcare so 40,000 kids won't die a year (or whatever the number is).

No one here will deny whoever pushes someone who's dying off their boat is an asshole who doesn't deserve to live, but under property rights, they AREN'T obligated to save someone else. Like someone pointed out back on page 1 I think, where would the line stop? If you were suddenly obligated to save her life, would you have to give her food? What if she was allergic to all the food you had? Do you have to go get more food? Do you have to give her a place to sleep (assuming you're out in the middle of nowhere)?

Where does it end?

I wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep knowing someone who did something like that later died, but it's really sad to see 70% of people who voted don't seem to be real libertarians.

 

[Jordan]

Really? 68 posts (mine included) on a topic like this?

 

[Son of Detroit]

I didn't bother to read through the 7 pages of posts, but I think if you're a real libertarian you have to go with #2.

If you say a property owner HAS to save someone's life, then you also support universal healthcare so 40,000 kids won't die a year (or whatever the number is).

No one here will deny whoever pushes someone who's dying off their boat is an asshole who doesn't deserve to live, but under property rights, they AREN'T obligated to save someone else. Like someone pointed out back on page 1 I think, where would the line stop? If you were suddenly obligated to save her life, would you have to give her food? What if she was allergic to all the food you had? Do you have to go get more food? Do you have to give her a place to sleep (assuming you're out in the middle of nowhere)?

Where does it end?

I wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep knowing someone who did something like that later died, but it's really sad to see 70% of people who voted don't seem to be real libertarians.

There is a big difference between throwing a person off your boat to drown and not trying to help them up on your boat.

 

[eOs]

What do we accomplish with these threads? I never see any types of conclusions, and everyone's answer always seems to be different. Under U.S. law you could probably get away with not helping her, and there are even situations where it could probably be morally justified, ie: not enough food/water for the both of you on the barge, you're also starving, etc. None of these questions have a clear cut answer, and we just end up going in circles. I let my libertarian ideology guide me, not rule me, for I wouldn't want to become enslaved to an idea. Loop holes exist in everything.

 

[nayjevin]

What do we accomplish with these threads?

The reasoning necessary to solve a hypothetical like this is also used in day to day life to make moral decisions.

Similar problems can arise in the hypothetical as what might arise in real life. For instance, can one determine proper action with a strict formula? Discussion of the hypothetical can aid in answering such questions.

 

[Kregisen]

There is a big difference between throwing a person off your boat to drown and not trying to help them up on your boat.

You have the right to demand nobody enters your property. If they enter your property, you can throw them off.

If the impact from throwing them off killed them, THEN you would be charged with murder.

If they can't swim or are too tired to swim and later drown, that's not the fault of the property owner. That is not murder, although it's very sickening.

 

[Son of Detroit]

You have the right to demand nobody enters your property. If they enter your property, you can throw them off.

If the impact from throwing them off killed them, THEN you would be charged with murder.

If they can't swim or are too tired to swim and later drown, that's not the fault of the property owner. That is not murder, although it's very sickening.

Yes, it is murder. Your action directly led to their death. It doesn't matter if they're on your property or not.

Let's say you're deep sea fishing and you rescue a guy in a raft whose boat sank. You bring him up on your boat, and he vomits on your shoes. You get mad and decide to want him off your property. You can't just throw him overboard to die. That's 100% murder.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Yes, it is murder. Your action directly led to their death. It doesn't matter if they're on your property or not.

Let's say you're deep sea fishing and you rescue a guy in a raft whose boat sank. You bring him up on your boat, and he vomits on your shoes. You get mad and decide to want him off your property. You can't just throw him overboard to die. That's 100% murder.

This. Unequivocally so.

The reality is in most such situations there will never be enough evidence to be definitive.

But being that we are speaking in hypotheticals. If we had a situation where we knew for a fact what you described happened - then yes that person is 100% guilty of murder. I really do not understand the argument against that.

 

[Kregisen]

This. Unequivocally so.

The reality is in most such situations there will never be enough evidence to be definitive.

But being that we are speaking in hypotheticals. If we had a situation where we knew for a fact what you described happened - then yes that person is 100% guilty of murder. I really do not understand the argument against that.

What if you look at it from the boat owner's perspective?

"Just me here minding my own business, fishing and not infringing on anyone's rights...."

suddenly someone swims over to the boat and tries to board. The fisherman doesn't let them board, he just wants to mind his own business....they later drown.



That's allowing them to die, but I always thought "murder" was something you did, not something you didn't do.

If someone needs CPR on the side of the road and you don't give them CPR and they die, you did not murder them. You allowed them to die. Both are fucked up but they are not the same.




There's actually a very interesting story that I read today.....

KINSHASA, Congo – Two boats capsized over the weekend in separate incidents on Congo's vast rivers, leaving 70 people dead and 200 others feared dead, and both vessels were heavily loaded and operating with few safety measures, officials said Sunday.

Early on Saturday, a boat on a river in northwest Equateur Province hit a rock and capsized, provincial spokeswoman Ebale Engumba said Sunday. She said more than 70 people are believed dead among 100 estimated passengers. She said officials are investigating why the boat was traveling through the darkness without a light.

In a separate incident in Kasai Occidental Province, 200 people were feared dead after a boat loaded with passengers and fuel drums caught fire and capsized in southern Congo, a survivor said Sunday. Another survivor confirmed the account and said local fishermen refused to help drowning passengers who jumped off the crowded boat.

The incident in southern Congo would be the deadliest boat accident in the Central African nation this year, and among the worst in Africa this year.

The boats that traverse Congo's rivers are often in poor repair and filled beyond capacity. The industry is not well-regulated and boat operators are known to fill boats to dangerous levels.

In the first incident in northwest Congo, Engumba said officials think the boat's lack of lighting was responsible.

"We are going to arrest people involved who are in charge of regulating the boat's movement who failed to stop that boat from traveling at night," she said.

In the second incident, survivors said the boat was overloaded with people and goods. A local official said two of the boat's crew were arrested but both refused to say how many people were aboard. The official said the passenger manifest apparently vanished in the fire.

Fabrice Muamba, who said he was on the boat when it caught fire Saturday night on the Kasai River, said he thought only 15 of the more than 200 people he thought were aboard were able to swim to safety. He said passengers began to jump overboard when the engine caught fire as it passed the remote village of Mbendayi, some 45 miles (70 kilometers) from the town of Tshikapa, which is north of Congo's border with Angola.

Another survivor, a woman named Romaine Mishondo, said the boat was already packed with "hundreds" of passengers when it stopped some 10 minutes before the fire to pick up more people.

She said she did not know exactly how many people were aboard, but said the boat was so crowded it reminded her of "a whole market in the village full of people."

But when the fire started and people began jumping overboard, she said nearby fishermen ignored drowning passengers' pleas for help.

"Fishermen attacked the boat and started beating passengers with paddles as they were (trying) to loot goods," she said. "The fishermen refused to save passengers, instead taking goods into their pirogues. ... I survived because I hung onto a jerrycan until another vessel passed by the scene and rescued us."

 

[BlackTerrel]

What if you look at it from the boat owner's perspective?

"Just me here minding my own business, fishing and not infringing on anyone's rights...."

suddenly someone swims over to the boat and tries to board. The fisherman doesn't let them board, he just wants to mind his own business....they later drown.

Yeah even from that point of you - you are a murderer. You specifically left someone to drown.

That's allowing them to die, but I always thought "murder" was something you did, not something you didn't do.

By not allowing a drowning person to board you murdered them.

 

[Kregisen]

Yeah even from that point of you - you are a murderer. You specifically left someone to drown.



By not allowing a drowning person to board you murdered them.

So if you see someone on the ground not breathing, and refuse to give CPR, did you murder them too?

It's sickening to leave someone to die but I'm appalled you can call that murder.....how can you murder someone if you didn't do anything?

 

[MelissaWV]

Yes, it is murder. Your action directly led to their death. It doesn't matter if they're on your property or not.

Let's say you're deep sea fishing and you rescue a guy in a raft whose boat sank. You bring him up on your boat, and he vomits on your shoes. You get mad and decide to want him off your property. You can't just throw him overboard to die. That's 100% murder.

It would certainly be murder, because you did not leave things the way you found them. If you put the guy back in his raft, though, he is none the worse or better than when you found him. If he stayed in the raft and later died of dehydration, would you be guilty of murder because you didn't give him water? Many on this thread would argue yes, because you had a chance to do something but didn't. When you put him in his raft, in other words, you assumed responsibility for his safety/well-being. I don't particularly agree with legislation of such, and criminal charges if you didn't give the guy water. What about when his water ran out? You should have given him food, too. What about if you took him aboard, and he got injured later on your boat, or even killed? Right about now, even though he wasn't an original passenger, you could be charged with all sorts of goodies because he is now on your boat, and hence you really are responsible for what happens to him.

Basically, a large number of people are arguing that once someone has sought refuge on your property, you are obliged to care for them and better their lot. How far does that go? What if it's not a swimmer seeking refuge from a river, but someone seeking refuge from an evil regime? When they get to your country, do you have a right to send them back, knowing they can't swim and were seeking aid? If you set foot here, you can stay (rather like the wet-foot-dry-foot policy concerning Cubans)? What if they are fleeing a violent person? Are you obligated to place yourself at risk and open the door, or face prosecution, if someone bangs on your door at 3am screaming "HELP HE'S TRYING TO KILL ME!!!"? Remember, not opening your door might mean they die, and opening it might mean you get involved and someone violent enough to be perceived as a killer might not take kindly to that.

When you get into the legality of it, you are getting into making all those decisions for everyone. Examine your position minutely, and ensure consistency; some of you are fibbing a little.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

So you push her off back into the river, and watch as she drowns.

You've just killed another human being which is immoral and illegal.

You can only morally and legally kill someone when its done in self defence (against serious physical harm) of your person or others.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

It would certainly be murder, because you did not leave things the way you found them. If you put the guy back in his raft, though, he is none the worse or better than when you found him. If he stayed in the raft and later died of dehydration, would you be guilty of murder because you didn't give him water? Many on this thread would argue yes, because you had a chance to do something but didn't. When you put him in his raft, in other words, you assumed responsibility for his safety/well-being. I don't particularly agree with legislation of such, and criminal charges if you didn't give the guy water. What about when his water ran out? You should have given him food, too. What about if you took him aboard, and he got injured later on your boat, or even killed? Right about now, even though he wasn't an original passenger, you could be charged with all sorts of goodies because he is now on your boat, and hence you really are responsible for what happens to him.

Basically, a large number of people are arguing that once someone has sought refuge on your property, you are obliged to care for them and better their lot. How far does that go? What if it's not a swimmer seeking refuge from a river, but someone seeking refuge from an evil regime? When they get to your country, do you have a right to send them back, knowing they can't swim and were seeking aid? If you set foot here, you can stay (rather like the wet-foot-dry-foot policy concerning Cubans)? What if they are fleeing a violent person? Are you obligated to place yourself at risk and open the door, or face prosecution, if someone bangs on your door at 3am screaming "HELP HE'S TRYING TO KILL ME!!!"? Remember, not opening your door might mean they die, and opening it might mean you get involved and someone violent enough to be perceived as a killer might not take kindly to that.

When you get into the legality of it, you are getting into making all those decisions for everyone. Examine your position minutely, and ensure consistency; some of you are fibbing a little.

You can only morally and legally kill someone when its done in self defence (against serious physical harm) of your person or others.

Further, you cannot be forced to provide privately owned sustenance to another human being if such a provision can be reasonably seen to put your own life at serious risk.

This is not complicated.