Political Theory

Re: Right to safety

Meistro — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:07:21 GMT

Property rights don't really need to be absolute, although they should be viewed as sacred - it's just that certain situations call for blasphemy. A lot of these things can be settled on a case by case basis without rigid adhearance to doctrine. And these are mostly absurd hypotheticals, which may be enjoyable as a form of mental calesthenics but have little relevance in the real world (much like keynesian models of the economy).

Re: Right to safety

gotlucky — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:03:05 GMT

FlyingAxe:

People are liable for the torts they committ, once they have committed them. I am sure most people find little comfort in the idea that once a criminal kills their loved ones, they can sue him for torts. They would like to prevent it from happening. So, the question is: to what length can you go to prevent a criminal from committing a crime? Clearly, when someone is running towards me with a knife screaming "I will kill you, bastard!", I don't have to wait until his knife touches my skin. I can just shoot him. But can I make it illegal (through a minirchist government) for him to carry a knife if he has a history of knife-related violence? Can I take his knife away? Can I make it illegal for a store owner to sell him a knife, or make it required to check a customer's history before dangerous weapons are sold to him?

See outlawry.

Re: Right to safety

gotlucky — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:01:30 GMT

FlyingAxe:

The question is whether you can do preventing strikes. If you see an out-of-control truck driving full-speed towards your house (in which your family is having a dinner), can you shoot a rocket launcher in it to move it off-course? Can you enter your neighbor's property and say: "Sorry, this nuclear bomb you're building has a high chance of blowing up, and I don't really want to wait until that happens, so that I (or my relatives) can sue you for the lives of my family. So, I am forcing you to take it apart"?

I would be truly impressed with you if you could get up from the dinner table and get a rocket launcher all ready and run outside and fire at the truck. I really would be.

I think you might want to familiarize yourself with customary law. After enough trucks go veering at a house with people having various ways of deflecting them, then you will have your answer as to what is the lawful response to an out-of-control truck driving full-speed towards your house.

Re: Right to safety

FlyingAxe — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:22:35 GMT

Minarchist wrote: You don't need to outlaw activities which are likely (by someone's calculation) to cause harm. Harm is itself already "outlawed." People are already liable for torts they committ. End of story.

People are liable for the torts they committ, once they have committed them. I am sure most people find little comfort in the idea that once a criminal kills their loved ones, they can sue him for torts. They would like to prevent it from happening. So, the question is: to what length can you go to prevent a criminal from committing a crime? Clearly, when someone is running towards me with a knife screaming "I will kill you, bastard!", I don't have to wait until his knife touches my skin. I can just shoot him. But can I make it illegal (through a minirchist government) for him to carry a knife if he has a history of knife-related violence? Can I take his knife away? Can I make it illegal for a store owner to sell him a knife, or make it required to check a customer's history before dangerous weapons are sold to him?

If the answer to the above questions is "sometimes", then perhaps it makes sense (from legal, not practical, point of view) for some states to institute gun laws, and McDonald vs. Chicago was decided incorrectly? (Specific nuances of incoporation aside.)

Re: Right to safety

FlyingAxe — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:15:44 GMT

Wheylous wrote: Yes, you can prevent people from shooting you. Threats of violence are aggression.

So, in your opinion, if a local community decides to outlaw guns as a protection from shooting, this may be ok under anarchy? (OK from natural law point of view, not in a practical sense.)

To me it seems that there has to be a direct threat of violence from a specific person. Just like (moving to the constitutional universe for a moment), in the case of "unreasonable search and seizure", reason has to be shown in every specific case. Which is why the recent Supreme Court decision is wrong: if we need a search warrant for every case of searching a suspect, why can we make an accross-the-board rule for prisons, relying on the prison authorities' word that strip-searching every person is "necessary"?

Also, rights don't "trump" each other. Having a right to property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to people on your property. It means that you can control access and use "equal" retributive power to prevent interference with your property.

The question is whether you can do preventing strikes. If you see an out-of-control truck driving full-speed towards your house (in which your family is having a dinner), can you shoot a rocket launcher in it to move it off-course? Can you enter your neighbor's property and say: "Sorry, this nuclear bomb you're building has a high chance of blowing up, and I don't really want to wait until that happens, so that I (or my relatives) can sue you for the lives of my family. So, I am forcing you to take it apart"?

I guess if we say that in any choice between a life and a property, life wins, then we can just confiscate property to save lives, which seems a little strange. So, one must differentiate between a direct action, a defense, an indirect action, and prevention of an action?

Re: Right to safety

Minarchist — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:16:07 GMT

You don't need to outlaw activities which are likely (by someone's calculation) to cause harm. Harm is itself already "outlawed." People are already liable for torts they committ. End of story.

Re: Right to safety

Wheylous — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:28:55 GMT

can we not restrict somoene from exploding an atomic bomb on his ranch which is adjacent to others' ranches?

Yes, you can prevent people from shooting you. Threats of violence are aggression.

Also, rights don't "trump" each other. Having a right to property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to people on your property. It means that you can control access and use "equal" retributive power to prevent interference with your property.

Right to safety

FlyingAxe — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:43:48 GMT

(Before I start, let me say that the title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don't believe in a right to safety.)

This question pertains to a minirchist society. Let's say that we argue that (1) it is the job of a minirchist government to protect people's rights, and (2) that a right to life (and by that I don't mean a right to continue living; I mean a right not to be killed) trumps the right to property (as in the discussion about the abortion; i.e., I cannot kill someone just for trespassing my property). That's the assumption of the question.

In that case, should it not be a responsibility of a minirchist government to outlaw blowing up atomic bombs on one's property (or doing experiments that create a significant danger of an explosion). Or, if there is a significant danger that guns may cause loss of life, maybe it should be allowed to outlaw guns as well? (I know, I am making very likely erroneous assumptions here. I am saying: if we accepted those assumptions as true...)

Why is this argument wrong? My wife is of an opinion that we cannot ban something just because of a probability that it may cause a loss of life. But, I repeat, can we not restrict somoene from exploding an atomic bomb on his ranch which is adjacent to others' ranches? The argument "After he kills them, let their relatives sue him" does not seem very compelling to me.