https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/8.aspxDiscussion of political theory.enCommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/82125.aspxThu, 22 Jan 2009 22:49:24 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:82125nirgrahamUK0https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/82125.aspxhttps://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=8&PostID=82125<p>theres been a lot of debate recently on the subject &#39;perilous situations&#39;, though it was framed a different way:</p> <p><a title="thread link" href="http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5790.aspx">http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5790.aspx</a></p><div style="clear:both;"></div>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/82119.aspxThu, 22 Jan 2009 22:39:06 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:82119Sphairon0https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/82119.aspxhttps://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=8&PostID=82119<p>Nicol&aacute;s Maloberti has published an intriguing <a href="http://www.libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-5.pdf">article</a> in the first volume of the Libertarian Papers.<br /><br />He basically contends that people have positive rights to some extent in case they encounter a situation of unpredictable peril and there are people with the means to save them. Then, he says, those in need have a positive claim towards those with the means to save them. As an example, he cites the drowning baby and the idle bystander.<br /><br />I have two main issues with his idea:<br /><br />1) It is not entirely clear what constitutes a &quot;perilous situation&quot;. In his paper, Nicol&aacute;s defines it as a situation that threatens survival (page 6). Some types of illness threaten survival; do those inflicted with such an illness, then, have a claim to the wealth of the non-ill? In another example, he uses the hiker in the cold mountains who would freeze to death if he were not taken care of by a cabin owner. However, didn&#39;t the hiker take the risk of ending up alone in the cold woods when he consciously decided to leave civilization for a hiking trip? How minimal does the risk have to be for it to be unpredictable, thus legitimating a samaritan claim? It gets pretty subjective from there.<br /><br />2) Even if we assume that there&#39;s an objective threshold concerning risk and obligation to help, doesn&#39;t this actually deny the self-ownership of the individual? If I have a claim to a log cabin owner&#39;s cabin and may legitimately use force against him if he denies me access, am I not practically enslaving the cabin owner? After all, his life and property are secondary to my needs in this case. This seems to be deeply unlibertarian to me.<br /><br />What are your thoughts on this?</p><div style="clear:both;"></div>