Political Theory

Re: Thought Experiment

thelion — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 04:51:55 GMT

This whole question to to be addressed in manner of conflicting claims: namely, the Ludwig Mises & Bruno Leoni framework.

There is no such thing as absolute rights, only "rights" insofar as "opportunities."

The question is, can islander and castaway resolve and reorganize their claims in way that removes conflict to promote division of labour and thus peace.

Whatever is good for division of labour is proper, whatever is against division of labour is not proper way of organizing claims (Mises, Human Action; Leoni, Obligation & Claim).

That is because division of labour is only thing in common that is "good-for-both" despite A and B, or islander and castaway, having different preferences.

Re: Thought Experiment

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 04:20:54 GMT

Also, forgot to say, call out Free Soviets on his Nirvana fallacy.

Re: Thought Experiment

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 04:20:32 GMT

Haha. I am assuming the situation is viewed in retrospect after either the guy is rescued or some court comes to the island (idk). The idea of what would be "legally ethical" is still interesting.

Re: Thought Experiment

z1235 — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:02:06 GMT

ZombieRothbard:

Does the islander have a right to force the castaway back into the water, likely to drown?

Does the castaway have a right to demand use of the islanders radio?

Does the islander have a right to shoot or incarcerate the castaway?

Assuming the islander "has" the above "rights", who/what would have been be the "just" giver of them to him?

If a single human being on a deserted island would not feel extatic about another human being coming on shore, then humanity wouldn't have had the capacity for social coordination large enough to invent agriculture, much less interconnected computers over which we could indulge in hypothetical masturbations of this sort.

Re: Thought Experiment

ZombieRothbard — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:49:21 GMT

Wheylous, you should register for the forums and share your insights on there! I really like your flagpole hanger point.

Re: Thought Experiment

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:46:46 GMT

Also, I'd like to point out that the existence of the radio simplifies the situation. A better question is what if there was no radio? Can the person live on the guy's property forever? At this point I'd look into the legitimacy of the homesteading of the island, as it is likely not 100% homesteaded. Not saying this because this is a tough scenario, just saying that chances are the guy hasn't homsteaded everything on the island completely.

Re: Thought Experiment

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:37:32 GMT

Another proposed solution:

The property owner has a right to use reasonable force to get the man off his island (and pushing him off is unreasonable).

If he decides to not use the radio, he is implicitly allowing the man to remain on his island. It's like the flag-pole hanger scenario if the apartment owner refused to allow the flag-pole hanger to use his door. The owner, if he dislikes the shipwreck, may take reasonable steps to get the shipwreck off. If he refuses to let him use the radio, he is refusing to let him get off, in a way, and thus allowing him to remain. How so? Well, the scenario is similar to this one:

There is a bridge connecting the island to the continent. However, the bridge is battery operated (it must be extended or lowered or something). If the owner refuses to let the shipwreck use it, he is allowing him to stay implicitly. Of course, the shipwreck must pay the owner back for any battery he drained from the radio.

Thus, by saving himself on the island, the shipwreck implicitly agrees that he will repay the owner for property loss on his part.

Hey, this works out!

Or is this a statist mess?

Re: Thought Experiment

Wheylous — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:30:37 GMT

I am thinking this currently (since desperate times call for desperate measures):

- You cannot kill the man. Or hurt him. That is imperative.

- He must make every effort he can to leave your island without hurting himself.

- As I said, desperate times: the concept of easement is now stretched to give the guy unlimited easement across your property unless he harms you or it.

- He must make every effort to sustain himself by fishing the waters around the island, etc.

I am still unsure whether he can take your food or food from the island in general.

The liberal may now say: what if the guy is allergic to fish?

Well, I am unsure about the origins and extent of homesteading, but you could argue that the man can grow something on a piece of land without violating your property rights.

Re: Thought Experiment

ZombieRothbard — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:02:40 GMT

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=135200&start=1100

Thats the last page, you might have to go back a few if you want to get the full debate. The guy I am referring to is Free Soviets, but there are others now also.

Re: Thought Experiment

Wheylous — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:42:21 GMT

Can I have a link to your discussion with the liberal guy?

Re: Thought Experiment

ZombieRothbard — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:31:41 GMT

Look up title-transfer theory of contract.

Re: Thought Experiment

ZombieRothbard — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:31:24 GMT

It may be an improvement, but you aren't altering it like you would if you were homesteading and mixing your labor with the land.

Re: Thought Experiment

Wheylous — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:14:59 GMT

Actually libertarians consider slavery to be immoral even if it is voluntary. I think that they also frown on incarceration (I say they because I have not read up on jail theory). Can I have a link to this?

Re: Thought Experiment

Nielsio — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:14:22 GMT

ZombieRothbard,

Extracting something from nature is considered an improvement.

When you pluck an apple from a tree, that's your apple. The tree however is not.

Re: Thought Experiment

ZombieRothbard — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:11:41 GMT

I agree, and I already tossed him a utilitarian argument along those lines, but he is claiming that libertarian ethics then considers slavery or incarceration to be freedom.