**This is an excerpt from a book i'm writing titled Defining The Undefinable (about 80 pages complete). This is a very rough and incomplete draft, i want it to be a fun look into defining private property under radical situations. I would appreciate any feedback**
Chapter Nine: Conjoined Twins
The point of this chapter is to survey the question of property rights of conjoined twins. Foremost, we must conclude that, aside from an inability that leaves you under the willing care of another, there is no negation of liberty that comes from a birth defect. In the current situation we have two distinct minds with authority over one body. Although there are several different types of conjoined twins[1]and property rights may vary with each situation, the distinguishing characteristic is the liberty to make decisions. The following chapter will attempt to provide a backdrop for approaching questions such as, what if one twin has control over certain aspects of the body does his control have limits based on the demands of the other twin? Could one twin commit a crime while the other is innocent? Could one twin end their life if it meant the end of both of their lives? Could one twin enter into a contract without the consent of the other twin? The reader will agree that conjoined twin property rights are extremely complicated and such complication, as well as its rarity, is why such cases stay outside our courtrooms.
Foremost, we must conclude that if one twin has no control over the body’s movements than he or she can only use persuasion to limit the actions of the other twin and persuasion is limited to how another is influenced. Therefore, if one twin wishes to eat ice-cream with no regards to their body mass index and the other conjoined twin wishes to eat a health snack, the one without control over the body’s movements is at a loss—with their only tool being that of persuasion. If for some reason the second twin were to have no means of making his or her opinions known then their desires are not in need of scrutiny. It would be a moot point to believe that an outside party can in anyway predict the desires of the mute twin then that of his or her conjoined twin. In this case, the mute twin would simply be at the mercy of their dominant twin.
For many, such conclusions are too much to accept. After all it is within the realm of science to discriminate when another being is in pain. The problem with such a device is not that of science it is that if interpreting the science. As with many cases of individuals in a state of vegetation whom offer certain signs of life, like blinking, smiling, twitching of fingers, etc, whenever they are exposed to stimuli that ‘sign of life’ must be interpreted by someone and the someone is not without their predisposed biases.
Take for example a scenario where an excommunicated Jehovah Witness is laid bedside within a vegetative state. Let’s say an individual’s brother, who happens to be a Baptist minister comes to see him one day in order to read his King James Version of the bible in a hope that he can rescue his soul in order that it will make it to heaven. Let’s say that throughout the bible reading the vegetative man performs a series of random signs like blinking, smiling, twitching of fingers, etc. His brother takes the signs as consent with his message. At the end of the meeting the brother asks the vegetative man to accept Jesus Christ into his heart to be forgiven of his sins. The brother leaves the hospital extremely happy that his brother will be with him in heaven. Let’s say that on the following day the vegetative man’s Catholic sister brings with her the King James Version of the bible, yet with her own interpretation of how and if this man can go to heaven. Let’s say that during the bible reading and praying the vegetative man performs random signs like blinking, smiling, twitching of fingers, etc that the sister accepts as an act of agreement with her message. She too leaves the hospital thinking that she has performed her heavenly duty and that her vegetative brother has seen the light of truth.
Now it should be obvious to the reader that something is wrong with this scenario. Either the vegetative brother changes his mind at will or the movements are not representative of understanding the way in which the brother and sister interpreted. Maybe they are a response to stimuli but not a transmission of opinion/preference. Therefore, we see that the aforementioned problem with our conjoined twin and interpreting the sings from such science, it cannot escape the interpreters own bias. The sign brain waves in response to determined pain cannot simply be wrote off as a preference. A depressed individual who retreats to cutting their arm is in reality educing a smaller pain to extinguish a larger pain. The point is not to quibble over rare cases, only to point out that such science is not a guarantee of assessing ones preference. The vegetative twin has no way of expressing his or her desires and thus such desires must be interpreted by external source. The individual who disagrees with the decision making process of the dominant twin is simply using their own predisposed bias. They are claiming that a doctor with the use of his science can better guess the preferences of the vegetative twin (which may or may not be true)
Proceeding back to our situation where one twin has a means of communication but not a means of control over such preferences. In this scenario you have an entity who is physically under the direct control and mercy of another entity, a very common theme within the general public. For example, many parents become guardians of their parents or grandparents when they reach a level of inability. Furthermore, some individuals via some mishap of birth, accident or ailment become disabled and must depend on another individual for welfare. In situations like these the disabled individual operates under the charity of another individual; they, like small children are parasitic—their life depends upon the charity of another individual. Individuals who provide this service are extremely kind in nature since, under libertarian law, they are under no obligation to do so. Furthermore, any extension of obligation should be met with skepticism. Charity is not charity if it involves force. Thus, our conjoined twin is under no obligation to heed the advice of his twin. Indeed, the dominant twin may disregard their advice all together and they would have committed no crime.
The reason for this stems from the premise of self-ownership which implies the right to associate and not associate with whom one pleases. Any objection to such rules of association is to disavow self-ownership (outsourcing ownership to some third party). This is not libertarian. Since the dominant twin has not contracted to provide such charity to his twin, he commits no wrong by simply following his personal will. The dominant twin may simply ignore the requests of his conjoined twin without violation. We may call this decision making process the tug-of-rope policy making.
Surely such a conclusion is not black and white, it must be dependent upon the situation. Therefore, let us apply some applications and see how such a theory would apply. Let us propose that the dominant twin commits a theft and is caught, how should the arbitration company reach a conclusion when no matter what the conclusion an innocent party must be punished. First, let us expel the myth that one twin is an accomplice of the other twin and therefore guilty of at least aid and bedding. The libertarian doesn’t subscribe to Good Samaritanism as anything more than a value judgment of what someone ought to do, not under obligation to do. Therefore, someone may watch a crime take place, even cheer on the criminal and not be subjected to legal recourse. In the situation above, the dominant twin is the one who commits the action and is thus the criminal.
Can there be two wills? I don’t think there can be, but I’m not really sure. Say for example your grandmother dies and left you and your sister her ring, who owns it? You cannot say that both parties equally own 100% of the ring since both parties may wish to will the ring in different ways. If your sisters will matched your own will at any point in time you choose, the story may be different but under the definition of ownership you must be able to wield your will upon it…this clearly is not the case here. Ownership cannot be divided, only partitioned. Therefore, both parties could have a 50/50 split of ownership or any other split of ownership but such 50/50 division must be settled on…a job for such a private entity. So how could we say that a conjoined twin has a 50/50 division of ownership within the body? Not so. Ownership is more then simply desire to will it is also command to will. You cannot simply desire that your grandmothers ring be cleaned, you must have the ability to clean it yourself or to favor someone else into cleaning it for you. You cannot demand the job to be completed because of your stake in ownership since ownership presupposes both will and ability to carry out that will. To require someone else perform your will for you would fall under the category of positive obligation…a realm not supported by libertarians.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins
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
*bump*
questions such as, what if one twin has control over certain aspects of the body does his control have limits based on the demands of the other twin?
I think you should research this more. Try to find examples of where one twin fully controls the body besides the twin's head and the other is "just a head". It seems like it is problematic to prescribe punishment for one twin's crimes which would result in the death of the innocent "head". I'm not really sure how I feel about the theory yet, and the specifics of the case are important.
From your case of Dicephalus:
Each of the twins manages one side of their conjoined body and are quite effective in cooperatively using their limbs when both hands or both legs are required. By coordinating their efforts, they are able to walk, run and ride a bicycle normally — all tasks that they learned at a normal speed. Each writes with her hand. Together, they can type on a computer keyboard at a normal speed. The sense of touch of each is restricted to her body half; this shades off at the midsagittal plane such that there is a small amount of overlap at the midline.
Here they couldn't rob a store and ride off without both being complicit. I'm not sure how the "problem cases" could yield useful theory applicable outside of a subset of the already small population of conjoined twins, let alone where one has criminal tendencies and the other does not.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Thanks for the response. I could make a hell of a paper out of dealing within every single type of conjoined twin, but my book is already quoted to be 23 chapters. I really wanted to write a brief 5-10 pages on this chapter to serve as a thought experiment.
Would anyone be willing to comment on my writing and its readability? I want the book to be fun, like a Defending the Undefendable, but my sentences tend to be longwinded and complicated.
I could make a hell of a paper out of dealing within every single type of conjoined twin
I'm sure you could. The whole subject makes me squeamish, similar to when I think of things like my phobia of breaking my collarbone (again). What you need to do, though, is point out the type of conjoinment which would bring about the "innocent head on a criminal's body" scenario before taking it any further. I spent 5 minutes or so this morning searching and found nothing.
I was hesitant to even comment because I am such a hated figure, but oh well. You should help lobby for some better division in the fora (philosophy/law/religion/etc.) A "working papers" forum where people are held to a higher standard would be amazing.
I don't think anywhere as ill of you as Marx, but I have numerous issues with your theory when it peeks out. I don't care how fun the carnival is. The bad theory is going to make it a drag. Most people won't say Block is a great writer, but it is difficult to make a dent in his theory.