Trespassing & Time
What if one argues that another is trespassing--and indeed they are trespassing. They proceed to ask the trespasser to leave. Yet leaving takes a specific amount of time. How can this time be arrived at without violating the owner of the property?
Let me offer an example, you tell me to leave your house, I say ok, I proceed to leave a specific pace. You don't like the pace I'm traveling and take up arms against me
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Jeremiah Dyke:You don't like the pace I'm traveling and take up arms against me
are you saying that you are going ridiculously slow, or that i'm an idiot ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
There exists a space between commanding someone to leave your property and them leaving your property. I'm wondering if this space is implicit to the property owner or is it a violation to the property owner. For example, I know that it should take you the same time to walk from my living room to out my door as it did to walk in my door into my living room. There is an implicit assumption here.
What you believe that the property owner should be required by a monopoly third party to provide a "reasonable" amount of time to egress? It is normally the trespassers who are being beaten, jailed, tased, etc by the third party, the police, and not by the property owner. How many tasings and beatings and jailings of innocent people have to take place before we refused to accept this.
The anti-liberterian crowd is always having to resort to outlandish scenarios trying to find a hole in property rights or the Non Aggression Principal to show how giving a group of others the ability to agress against their neighbors is a good idea. The property rights/NAP philosophy is always better, that is to have people respect the property rights of others by not aggressing against them.
you seem to me to have in mind a boundary problem.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_Paradox it has a long history in philosophy.
Having said the above, the answer is always relative to the situation. If I purchase a ticket to a football game with 100,000 other people and after my team loses the stadium operator says I have 30 seconds to leave or I will die, I can not make it out of there in 30 seconds. Understand that in the preceeding riot to leave the building people will have the argument that the ticket between them and the operator did not explicitly state this so the stadium operator is liable for damages, even if not liable, the stadium operator may find it hard to sell tickets or find teams willing to play there in the future.
It is like the old gangster movie: I give you 10 seconds to get the hell out of here, 1, 2, 3, 10 bang.
Hypothetical type questions and thought experiments are productive. Especially when there are broader implications associated with them-like this one.
I have recently submitted an article to Libertarian Papers for publication titled
The Implicit Contract
An Amoral Animal
In it I make a case against the validity of an implicit contract for most transactions, yet, in the case of force, like the question of time and trespassing the theory breaks down without resorting to an implicit contract
This is a solid point, and a better representation of my question.
The ticket supposedly implies rights, yet, why? And why is the implied rights biased toward the ticket holder verses the stadium owner?