Something that I've been thinking about:
Is it a crime (ie; a violation of the NAP) to infect someone with a disease? How about intentionally infecting someone? Since, as far as I can tell, intent does not matter in a libertarian legal system, is this an exception or what?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Block has referred to it before as a form of aggression, in his videos.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
wombatron: Something that I've been thinking about: Is it a crime (ie; a violation of the NAP) to infect someone with a disease? How about intentionally infecting someone? Since, as far as I can tell, intent does not matter in a libertarian legal system, is this an exception or what?
You seem to be referring to bioterrorism. Is that a crime? The answer seems amply evident to me. Perhaps you could elaborate if my conclusion does not appropriately touch on your question.
Democracy does little else but depose one tyrant and install a nation's worth in his place.
scineram:Was there a legal system where intent mattered not?
Why would that matter?
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Lord Jeff: You seem to be referring to bioterrorism. Is that a crime? The answer seems amply evident to me. Perhaps you could elaborate if my conclusion does not appropriately touch on your question.
Not nessicarily. The situation I had in mind is the unintentional (but still damaging) spread of disease vs. the intentional spread. Since I posted, I think I've solved it myself . All of the methods of disease spread that I could think of (stabbing someone with a needle, coughing/vomiting/what-have-you on someone or their property, etc.) are themselves violations of the non-aggression principle.
scineram:Because the assumption of the irrelevancy of intent should not go unchallenged.
But why does intent matter? If I accidentally crash my car into your house, you have just as good a claim against me as if I had done it intentionally. Does the nature of various crimes/torts change this? (honest questions, no hostility intended)
If someone intentionally infects you they are employing a means to achieve an end, so it would be no different than physical battery.
Peace
wombatron: scineram:Because the assumption of the irrelevancy of intent should not go unchallenged. But why does intent matter? If I accidentally crash my car into your house, you have just as good a claim against me as if I had done it intentionally. Does the nature of various crimes/torts change this? (honest questions, no hostility intended)
Steven Kinsella makes a distinction between action and non-action.
http://www.stephankinsella.com/archive/2006_07_01_archive.php#115402771731407116#115402771731407116
My question was not about the intent part, but about the legal system part. I'm asking, why does the content of a legal system matter to the question?