General

Re: Criminality of infection?

histhasthai — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:30:06 GMT

scineram:
Because the assumption of the irrelevancy of intent should not go unchallenged.

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?

Re: Criminality of infection?

Bostwick — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:20:00 GMT

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

Re: Criminality of infection?

Bostwick — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:12:15 GMT

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?

If someone intentionally infects you they are employing a means to achieve an end, so it would be no different than physical battery.

Re: Criminality of infection?

wombatron — Fri, 30 May 2008 22:58:22 GMT

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)

Re: Criminality of infection?

wombatron — Fri, 30 May 2008 22:54:51 GMT

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.

Re: Criminality of infection?

scineram — Fri, 30 May 2008 21:43:19 GMT

Because the assumption of the irrelevancy of intent should not go unchallenged.

Re: Criminality of infection?

histhasthai — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:58:14 GMT

scineram:
Was there a legal system where intent mattered not?

Why would that matter?

Re: Criminality of infection?

scineram — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:55:51 GMT

Was there a legal system where intent mattered not?

Re: Criminality of infection?

Lord Jeff — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:23:07 GMT

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.

Re: Criminality of infection?

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:03:22 GMT

Block has referred to it before as a form of aggression, in his videos.

-Jon

Criminality of infection?

wombatron — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:53:25 GMT

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?