Hypothetical Question on Rights: Kill Someone Through Inaction?

[yongrel]

Hypothetical question that a friend posed to me tonight over dinner:

100 people are stranded on a deserted island, with no possibility of escape. There is only one source of potable water on the island. One person controls that water absolutely, and there is no way to get drinking water without him. This one person refuses to give water to the other 99 people on the island. His intention is to have them all die of dehydration.

What are the 99 people ethically and morally able to do? Is it within their rights to get that drinking water?

[M House]

Huh? Tie him to a tree and take the water.

[yongrel]

Huh? Tie him to a tree and take the water.

But doesn't that violate his property rights? Do the 99 people have a right to drinking water? Do they have the right to forcibly take his property?

[asimplegirl]

Hypothetical question that a friend posed to me tonight over dinner:

100 people are stranded on a deserted island, with no possibility of escape. There is only one source of potable water on the island. One person controls that water absolutely, and there is no way to get drinking water without him. This one person refuses to give water to the other 99 people on the island. His intention is to have them all die of dehydration.

What are the 99 people ethically and morally able to do? Is it within their rights to get that drinking water?

Well, on a stranded island, I don't think rights is going to matter. I'd beat his ass, then drink some water. :)

Hey, guess what? An asshat is an asshat whether in civilization or on a stranded island. Only, on the island, there is no "authority" to stop action against said asshat.

How many times can I say ass in one post? :)

Property? He doesn't OWN the water, or the island, so there is no property.

[RSLudlum]

Seduce him with offerings of any type.

"I love seduction, but I hate rape" Walter E. Williams

;)

[M House]

Um definitely one of those lets makes this complicated questions. You need the water, and he's simply being a dumbass about it. I figure sparing his life and taking the water is pretty reasonable. If all 1 of him tries to fight your dehydrated hoard off and he dies or gets injured in the process I'm not gonna be too sympathetic either.

[yongrel]

Well, on a stranded island, I don't think rights is going to matter. I'd beat his ass, then drink some water. :)

Hey, guess what? An asshat is an asshat whether in civilization or on a stranded island. Only, on the island, there is no "authority" to stop action against said asshat.

How many times can I say ass in one post? :)

Property? He doesn't OWN the water, or the island, so there is no property.

If rights are natural and exist no matter what, shouldn't the presence of civilization or government not matter?

If the only reason we have rights is the government, how can we say that the government can violate our rights?

[asimplegirl]

exactly, M.

[asimplegirl]

If rights are natural and exist no matter what, shouldn't the presence of civilization or government not matter?

If the only reason we have rights is the government, how can we say that the government can violate our rights?

I don't allow the government to violate my rights. :)

He has a right to live, but not a right to allow others to die by theft of water that he cannot own legally. If he dies or gets injured in defense of someone else's life, that was well within their rights.

[yongrel]

I don't allow the government to violate my rights. :)

He has a right to live, but not a right to allow others to die by theft of water that he cannot own legally. If he dies or gets injured in defense of someone else's life, that was well within their rights.

Why can't he own the water? What makes land and resource ownership legitimate?

[asimplegirl]

He does not own the land. It is obviously not sitting there, not owned by anyone.

But, as far as legalities are concerned, if he denies 100 people water, and there is enough... and he does not own it...well, that could be considered a violation of THEIR rights, and murder if they die, which means it would be well within the rights of other people stranded to either restrain, or if he resists further, hurt or kill him to stay alive. He would be no more than a common criminal.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would have all the women on the island withhold sex from him till he shares the water. ;) Also, make sure noone sells/gives him anything till he relents and shares the water. :) economic and sex pressures work pretty well :)

[danberkeley]

...

Property? He doesn't OWN the water, or the island, so there is no property.

If no one owns it, he can homestead it. Btw, he would have one hell of a time protecting that source.


...

He has a right to live, but not a right to allow others to die by theft of water that he cannot own legally. ...

What is he taking via theft? And how can he take something via theft if said thing is not ownable?

[M House]

Nothing really it just works in most instances, but in the case of a bunch of stranded dehydrated survivors claiming to own part of the planet isn't gonna cut it.

[rational thinker]

I can see where yongrel is going with this and I must say that I actually asked myself a very similar question about a year ago. I guess the answer to your question about property rights and what makes them legitimate is: nothing. I mean if we claim we're born with said rights, how can you prove such a thing? Wouldn't that mean there is a specific, universal purpose for all human beings?

Those rights are part of our relative morals. We decided that it is one's right to own property. But on a universal level, as tested by this island example, that right doesn't really exist.

I guess that's my best shot at it. I don't know. I know I'm wrong, but at least I tried.

What are your thoughts, yongrel?

[Danke]

If you kill him, he no longer owns the water and his estate goes to the community. Problem solved.

[danberkeley]

Also, the other people on the island could desalinate the ocean water. They could also homestead the land around his so as to prevent the water hoarder from going anywhere else. They could choose to not help the water-hoarder when the water hoarder is in need of help. In other words, unless the water source was extremely limited, the would-be water hoarder would probably share (sell) the water.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Regardless of where property rights come from, they are an expression of civilized society. If the person bogarting the water seeks to destroy the society, why should he expect that the people who he intends to have die will respect the society's rules and his property rights? Dead or uncivilized, it makes no difference; the society that validated property rights is gone, and therefore the rights no longer exist.

Economically, it makes no sense. If he is the only person on the island that has water, he can get many valuable things for his water. If he kills off everyone else, he has made that water worthless because he cannot get anything for it with no one to trade with.

Freedom, responsibility. . . there really is a connection.

[danberkeley]

If you kill him, he no longer owns the water and his estate goes to the community. Problem solved.

Except that the killer does not have a right to the water.

[M House]

Wow if you really have to turn a Island in the middle of nowhere into an economic opportunity....

[Danke]

Except that the killer does not have a right to the water.

He could sell the meat (body) for water.

Or they could do an Agatha Christie killing where no one knows whose blow actually killed him.

[danberkeley]

He could sell the meat (body) for water.

Or they could do an Agatha Christie killing where no one knows whose blow actually killed him.

Yeah. Either way, he could trade with the heirs for water.

[yongrel]

One of the elemental questions raised by this hypothetical situation is "is it a violation of a person's rights to allow them to die through inaction?"

The man on the island who owns all potable water on the island is not acting directly to kill anyone, but through his decision to not sell/trade/give the water to the other 99, he is allowing them to die. The implications of this question are quite important, I think.

[Rael]

Why doesn't he own the water? Suppose for the sake of this argument he does own in. say because he found it, or put forth some effort to obtain it, making it his property. supposed he found a dug out of the ground a number of large containers of water or something. what then?

I think it would indeed be a violation of his rights to take his property, but it would be an even greater evil to let other people die.

Of course that opens up a whole new can of worms. Using this logic, it would be perfectly ok for someone in Ethiopia to steal my income to provide him with food.

[Original_Intent]

Did he dig a well or something or did he just find the water?

If he found the water I would say it is not property, but a resource. It would be immoral to deny others of a resource that they needed to live.

If he dug a well then I think the question beomes a little thornier. If he enough for all and still denies them, obviously there is a problem. I am not sure what the moral solution is. He certainly is entitled to something in exchange for his property, which he created thru his work. But if he flat out denies to trade the water for food/service/other(?) then I would say that even though it is property he is not in an ethical position imo.

If he flat out denies it and will not trade or make any other arrangement, then the other 99 people are within their moral right, I think, to forcibly take it.

Life is listed as the first of our rights for a reason. Short of taking another person's life, I believe youa re within your rights to encroach on other's liberty or property if doing so is the only way for you to continue living.

[angelatc]

What if the supply of water is limited? If the man who owns it does share it, it will mean his demise will come earlier than if he hordes it?

There's morality, there's ethics, then there's nature. Nobody is going to sit back and die of dehydration without a fight. It's our nature.

[danberkeley]

If he found the water I would say it is not property, but a resource. It would be immoral to deny others of a resource that they needed to live.

Can't resources be property?


If he dug a well then I think the question beomes a little thornier. If he enough for all and still denies them, obviously there is a problem. I am not sure what the moral solution is. He certainly is entitled to something in exchange for his property, which he created thru his work. But if he flat out denies to trade the water for food/service/other(?) then I would say that even though it is property he is not in an ethical position imo.

Yup.


If he flat out denies it and will not trade or make any other arrangement, then the other 99 people are within their moral right, I think, to forcibly take it.

So does that mean that I can forcibly take your money and give it to someone in Ethiopia who is starving without violating your property rights?


Life is listed as the first of our rights for a reason.

Where? The Constitution? It doesnt say that you can take someone else's property for your own life. It means that no one has the right to take your life away from you..


Short of taking another person's life, I believe youa re within your rights to encroach on other's liberty or property if doing so is the only way for you to continue living.

That would mean to your rights and the other person's right are in conflict. Rights can't be conflicting.

[danberkeley]

What if the supply of water is limited? If the man who owns it does share it, it will mean his demise will come earlier than if he hordes it?

There's morality, there's ethics, then there's nature. Nobody is going to sit back and die of dehydration without a fight. It's our nature.

Sure. But that does not mean you have the right to violate someone else rights. Sex is also "nature", but that does not mean I have a right to force you to have sex with me.

[Original_Intent]

So does that mean that I can forcibly take your money and give it to someone in Ethiopia who is starving without violating your property rights?

Are they going to eat my money?




Where? The Constitution? It doesnt say that you can take someone else's property for your own life. It means that no one has the right to take your life away from you..

Declaration of Independence actually. Not that the DOI is the authority, but I think that it rightly listed them in an order, that they are in a heirarchy. That's my opinion.
Depriving someone of their life is the most serious because without life, there is no liberty or property. And you can't restore it to them.
Liberty and property can both be restored, although abviously liberty cannot be restored for the time that it was deprived.




That would mean to your rights and the other person's right are in conflict. Rights can't be conflicting.

I think that it means that a person's right to life takes precedence over another person's right to property. Of course, the property owner has the right to protect his property also. I am not sure I understand that rights cannot be conflicting.

[wizardwatson]

Also, the other people on the island could desalinate the ocean water. They could also homestead the land around his so as to prevent the water hoarder from going anywhere else. They could choose to not help the water-hoarder when the water hoarder is in need of help. In other words, unless the water source was extremely limited, the would-be water hoarder would probably share (sell) the water.

This water question touches numerous debates in property rights. This specific one I would definitely call a "lifeboat situation". Rothbard devotes a whole chapter (ch. 20) to them in Ethics of Liberty.

I would say general homestead rules apply except that the water-hoarder is essentially homesteading 'land' in the sense that he possesses the only supply of potable water. In this case, by the 'Lockean Proviso' he should leave enough in common for others.

We should always keep in mind that the concepts of 'rights' is just the concept of 'justice' viewed from the individuals perspective. There are situations where justice overrides 'rights'. And this point manifests itself most clearly where private land ownership conflicts with another's ability to merely survive.


Edit: Oh yeah, I wanted to comment on Dan's comment. I totally agree with the, putting the property hoarder under 'siege' concept as well. There's lots of ways shy of using force to make it worth someone's while to cooperate.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

This is not strictly hypothetical. Monsanto is buying up water rights. . . for some reason.

http://www.mindfully.org/Water/Monsanto-Indias-Water-ShivaSep99.htm

[mediahasyou]

It's within his best interests to share or sell the water.

However,
If you own your life you are justified in maintaining it. Your life is your property. A loss of your own life would be a loss of your own property. Thus, you are justified for actions involving survival.

Life is greater than property. For without life, there is no owned property.

"The right to survival is paramount." - G. Edward Griffin

[wizardwatson]

Sure. But that does not mean you have the right to violate someone else rights. Sex is also "nature", but that does not mean I have a right to force you to have sex with me.

I think the point was that nature works above this concept of individual rights. Just like a child killed in a horrible car accident. People don't say that "Oh, look how nature violated that poor child's rights!" They realize things like that happen in the world. They are a tragedy but they happen. It could have been prevented perhaps, but it happened regardless.

Same way with the water-hoarder. He can protest all day about his rights, right up until they throw him off the island or kill him. People won't say, "oh look he was trying to keep the peace and uphold justice and we were all criminals". They will say, "Man, civilization just broke down, it was crazy. It was a horrible tragedy" and the world will move on.

[The_Orlonater]

Regardless of where property rights come from, they are an expression of civilized society. If the person bogarting the water seeks to destroy the society, why should he expect that the people who he intends to have die will respect the society's rules and his property rights? Dead or uncivilized, it makes no difference; the society that validated property rights is gone, and therefore the rights no longer exist.

Economically, it makes no sense. If he is the only person on the island that has water, he can get many valuable things for his water. If he kills off everyone else, he has made that water worthless because he cannot get anything for it with no one to trade with.

Freedom, responsibility. . . there really is a connection.

This.

[pdavis]

Hypothetical question that a friend posed to me tonight over dinner:

100 people are stranded on a deserted island, with no possibility of escape. There is only one source of potable water on the island. One person controls that water absolutely, and there is no way to get drinking water without him. This one person refuses to give water to the other 99 people on the island. His intention is to have them all die of dehydration.

What are the 99 people ethically and morally able to do? Is it within their rights to get that drinking water?

He does not own the body of potable water merely by claim, but can only own what he has acquired through labor (labor theory of property) e.g., bottling water. By bottling water, this person now owns the bottled water but still does not own the body of water.

[danberkeley]

I think that it means that a person's right to life takes precedence over another person's right to property. Of course, the property owner has the right to protect his property also. I am not sure I understand that rights cannot be conflicting.

Because either homesteader has rights to the water or you do. How can the homesteader have rights to the water unless someone else does not have water?


This water question touches numerous debates in property rights. This specific one I would definitely call a "lifeboat situation". Rothbard devotes a whole chapter (ch. 20) to them in Ethics of Liberty.

I would say general homestead rules apply except that the water-hoarder is essentially homesteading 'land' in the sense that he possesses the only supply of potable water. In this case, by the 'Lockean Proviso' he should leave enough in common for others.

We should always keep in mind that the concepts of 'rights' is just the concept of 'justice' viewed from the individuals perspective. There are situations where justice overrides 'rights'. And this point manifests itself most clearly where private land ownership conflicts with another's ability to merely survive.


Edit: Oh yeah, I wanted to comment on Dan's comment. I totally agree with the, putting the property hoarder under 'siege' concept as well. There's lots of ways shy of using force to make it worth someone's while to cooperate.

Under the Lockean Proviso, would the hoarder be ethically required to leave enough in common, or would the hoarder have the right to the water minus enough in common for others? Or both?

[danberkeley]

He does not own the body of potable water merely by claim, but can only own what he has acquired through labor (labor theory of property) e.g., bottling water. By bottling water, this person now owns the bottled water but still does not own the body of water.

What if the person puts a fence around the body of water?

[wizardwatson]

Under the Lockean Proviso, would the hoarder be ethically required to leave enough in common, or would the hoarder have the right to the water minus enough in common for others? Or both?

I really don't know, I guess both?

I've read quite a bit on the issue of property rights in land given my Georgist leanings, but I've honestly read very good arguments both ways. And the closer you get to lifeboat situations the more it all gets muddy.

I personally don't believe in 'rights' per se as anything other than a personalized view of universal justice. Rights exist in property as a concept when there isn't scarcity to a degree that it affects the survival of others.

There's a times when the morality of an action overrides the legality of an action.

For instance if my son is going to die of thirst because of some water-hoarding anti-social asshat, I'd probably be more than willing to risk my life and freedom in order to neutralize said asshat.

[asimplegirl]

Okay, I am out, you guys are waaay too smart for me. Damned kids. :)

[Original_Intent]

Because either homesteader has rights to the water or you do. How can the homesteader have rights to the water unless someone else does not have water?



I would say that he may have property rights to the water (depending on whether he had more than a mere claim to the water, or if he had actually, say, dug a well) and that I have a right to preserve my life, and thus have a right to at least enough of the water to preserve my life.

So depite your argument that rights cannot be in conflict, I would say that they are. He would have the right to protect his property, if property it is, and I would have a right to take it, inasmuch as he was unwilling to trade enough to me for survival.

[Pennsylvania]

There are necessarily limitations on squatters' rights.

Taken to another extreme. The oldest living person could argue squatters rights over this entire planet since he/she found the earth first.

[danberkeley]

I really don't know, I guess both?

I've read quite a bit on the issue of property rights in land given my Georgist leanings, but I've honestly read very good arguments both ways. And the closer you get to lifeboat situations the more it all gets muddy.

I personally don't believe in 'rights' per se as anything other than a personalized view of universal justice. Rights exist in property as a concept when there isn't scarcity to a degree that it affects the survival of others.

There's a times when the morality of an action overrides the legality of an action.

For instance if my son is going to die of thirst because of some water-hoarding anti-social asshat, I'd probably be more than willing to risk my life and freedom in order to neutralize said asshat.

One huge flaw I see in the assumptions of lifeboat situations is that the hoarder would want or would care if everyone else died. Say the hoarder only had one-month's supply of water, if he does not share the water with the others and the others die, he hoarder is putting himself at huge disadvantage. If the others remained alive, perhaps they could build a boat within a week to get out. But if everyone besides the hoarder dies, it could take the hoarder six weeks to build a boat himself. Perhaps there is a task that requires more than one person, how would the hoarder get the taks done if everyone else is dea.

Now that I think about it, vegetables and fruits contain huge amounts of water, therefore, fruits and vegetables could also be a water supply.

[wizardwatson]

One huge flaw I see in the assumptions of lifeboat situations is that the hoarder would want or would care if everyone else died. Say the hoarder only had one-month's supply of water, if he does not share the water with the others and the others die, he hoarder is putting himself at huge disadvantage. If the others remained alive, perhaps they could build a boat within a week to get out. But if everyone besides the hoarder dies, it could take the hoarder six weeks to build a boat himself. Perhaps there is a task that requires more than one person, how would the hoarder get the taks done if everyone else is dea.

Now that I think about it, vegetables and fruits contain huge amounts of water, therefore, fruits and vegetables could also be a water supply.

Well a real lifeboat situation example is usually one where one person has to die because of the property of the other. Rothbard used a floating piece of driftwood example in Ethics of Liberty, very similar to the situation Jack and Rose found themselves in at the end of the Titanic. Eventually someone has to submit. If no one submits nature will resolve it.

[danberkeley]

Well a real lifeboat situation example is usually one where one person has to die because of the property of the other. Rothbard used a floating piece of driftwood example in Ethics of Liberty, very similar to the situation Jack and Rose found themselves in at the end of the Titanic. Eventually someone has to submit. If no one submits nature will resolve it.

There is also this from Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/story/1628):

In a lifeboat situation, indeed, we apparently have a war of all against all, and there seems at first to be no way to apply our theory of self-ownership or of property rights. But, in the example cited, the reason is because the property right has so far been ill-defined. For the vital question here is: who owns the lifeboat? If the owner of the boat or his representative (e.g., the captain of the ship) has died in the wreck, and if he has not laid down known rules in advance of the wreck for allocation of seats in such a crisis,[2] then the lifeboat may be considered — at least temporarily for the emergency — abandoned and therefore unowned. At this point, our rules for unowned property come into play: namely, that unowned resources become the property of the first people possessing them. In short, the first eight people to reach the boat are, in our theory, the proper "owners" and users of the boat. Anyone who throws them out of the boat then commits an act of aggression in violating the property right of the "homesteader" he throws out of the boat. After he returns to shore, then, the aggressor becomes liable for prosecution for his act of violation of property right (as well, perhaps, for murder of the person he ejected from the boat).

[wizardwatson]

There is also this from Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/story/1628):

You can definitely sort it all out from a legal standpoint after the fact. The question is, if someone is going to die because of lack of resources, either because there really aren't enough resources or because some person who has a legitimate legal claim is withholding resources, would the overriding sense of injustice of the situation cause some actors to break the legal code for the sake of another or themselves. I think they most certainly would, and I also think that any sane person would realize this fact and loosen up his 'right' to said resources in light of this fact.

'Rights' paradigms break down in circumstances like these the same way the laws of physics break down around singularities.

[danberkeley]

You can definitely sort it all out from a legal standpoint after the fact. The question is, if someone is going to die because of lack of resources, either because there really aren't enough resources or because some person who has a legitimate legal claim is withholding resources, would the overriding sense of injustice of the situation cause some actors to break the legal code for the sake of another or themselves. I think they most certainly would, and I also think that any sane person would realize this fact and loosen up his 'right' to said resources in light of this fact.


Rothbard follows up with this:

The error here on the part of the "contextualist" libertarians is to confuse the question of the moral course of action for the person in such a tragic situation with the totally separate question of whether or not his seizing of lifeboat or plank space by force constitutes an invasion of someone else's property right.

Btw, I'm assuming you have read this. I'm reading this for the first time now.


'Rights' paradigms break down in circumstances like these the same way the laws of physics break down around singularities.
I dont know what that means but are you saying that the law of physics breaks down in never-existent situations that require that the law of physics break down?

[wizardwatson]

Rothbard follows up with this:


Btw, I'm assuming you have read this. I'm reading this for the first time now.

Yeah, I've read it.


The error here on the part of the "contextualist" libertarians is to confuse the question of the moral course of action for the person in such a tragic situation with the totally separate question of whether or not his seizing of lifeboat or plank space by force constitutes an invasion of someone else's property right.

This is my same basic point, which he makes here. We usually presume that what is illegal by definition immoral. But certain tragic situations in life can break that assumption.

I really like Ethics of Liberty. I like Rothbard much more from the Liberty angle than I do from the economics angle. I don't agree with all his economics, but I love him on Liberty.

[wizardwatson]

I dont know what that means but are you saying that the law of physics breaks down in never-existent situations that require that the law of physics break down?

No, I'm just saying that not everything fits together in a well-defined theory all the time.

Saying 'the laws of physics break down' is a fancy way scientists have of saying, 'we really don't know what the fuck is happening past this point'.

The homesteading principle is a mental guide about when it's ok to use force against another, but as Rothbard points out, there may be overriding moral issues that outweigh one's reliance on the homestead principle that compel one to use force. Society should not treat the person any different from a legal standpoint, but the individual may or may not be acting immoral.

Most of the situations we deal with are not lifeboat situations. But eventually, as Earth's population steadily increases private property in land will likely become one in many places.

[danberkeley]

I really like Ethics of Liberty. I like Rothbard much more from the Liberty angle than I do from the economics angle. I don't agree with all his economics, but I love him on Liberty.

I keep intending to read all this material but, instead, I come on here and argue with people like cheapseats (:rolleyes:). :D But as of right now I am hooked on Ethics of Liberty.

[tremendoustie]

Here's what I think:

Suppose the person dug the well for the water, and so legitimately owns it. Also suppose, for some reason, no one else can dig a well and there is no other source of water.

Then, that person has a LEGAL right to the water. That is, if the island has just laws, anyone who steals his water will be punished. Yet, in extreme cases, I think it may be MORAL to violate even just laws. So, if I see that a child is dying of thirst, I should steal water, and give it to the child. I should then fully expect to be fined or punished according to the just laws of the island, and I should accept that punishment, as being worth it in order to save the child.

Of course, I think it goes without saying, that although the person witholding the water is acting within his LEGAL right here, his behavior is highly IMMORAL.

In another context, if a child was starving and I had absolutely no other way to get bread, I might steal it. But, I would expect to be punished for it, and I would not protest the punishment.

That said, these are all very obscure situations, and are very unlikely to arise in real life.

[danberkeley]

Here's what I think:

Suppose the person dug the well for the water, and so legitimately owns it. Also suppose, for some reason, no one else can dig a well and there is no other source of water.

Then, that person has a LEGAL right to the water. That is, if the island has just laws, anyone who steals his water will be punished. Yet, in extreme cases, I think it may be MORAL to violate even just laws. So, if I see that a child is dying of thirst, I should steal water, and give it to the child. I should then fully expect to be fined or punished according to the just laws of the island, and I should accept that punishment, as being worth it in order to save the child.

Of course, I think it goes without saying, that although the person witholding the water is acting within his LEGAL right here, his behavior is highly IMMORAL.

In another context, if a child was starving and I had absolutely no other way to get bread, I might steal it. But, I would expect to be punished for it, and I would not protest the punishment.

That said, these are all very obscure situations, and are very unlikely to arise in real life.

Well said.

[wizardwatson]

I keep intending to read all this material but, instead, I come on here and argue with people like cheapseats (:rolleyes:). :D But as of right now I am hooked on Ethics of Liberty.

Well, I should be working on community currency research and graph theory related problems yet unresolved therein, but I too get sucked into RPF time sinks.

[Pauls' Revere]

First, on what authority does the water hoarder hold the water? If it is inate rights i.e. natural then the other 99 are also equally entiled to the water under the same natural dispersion of such rights. What is good for water hoarder is good for the 99 non water hoarders. If these rights are paid for or some other legal means obatained then thats a different twist too.

Rational Thinker made an interesting point about relative rights so I searched that and came up with relative water rights.
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/agec/courses/AGEC4070/section9.pdf
Natural Flow Theory
Reasonable Use Theory
Prior Appropriation Doctrine
etc...

IMO I would wait until water hoarder falls asleep and drink as much water as you like. No harm done to anybody and water is still there. Gotta sleep sometime.

[wizardwatson]

When the sacredness of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property. - John Locke

"Land" means natural resources in limited supply. This would include arable land, water rights, mineral rights, etc. Some things which are "land" aren't really scarce enough to be an issue. Like air, sunlight, moonbeams, ocean water, etc.

[Kludge]

There are no rights, however much we try (and fail by subsequently violating as government) to create. It's unethical, IMO, to keep the water to oneself... Perhaps the owner could work out some sort of enslavement deal with the other 99.


I imagine it'd play out something like this (with more original dialogue ;)):

1 - "I have enough water for everyone, but am choosing to keep it all to myself"

99 - "You're an asshole. Give us the water or we'll take it from you forcefully."

"Option one" 1 - "No." 99 tie up, steal, or take life from 1.

"Option two" 1 - "Alright." 1 gives up his property to 99 to possibly save his life.''


If you believe rights are inherent (or that gov't can grant rights), the 99 may not ethically violate 1's property rights. To do so would violate God's law (or some Law of Self-Ownership), and ought to be punished ASAP by a higher authority. If 99 kill 1, then 99 ought to be put to death. This provides disincentive to violate rights (while providing justification for 1 to resist), since the harm you do will always reciprocate.

[danberkeley]

[QUOTE=Pauls' Revere;1904368]First, on what authority does the water hoarder hold the water? ...QUOTE]

Homestead.

[hypnagogue]

The sad truth is morality is a luxury. When you have nothing left to lose, a person will do anything. Can we fault them? This is what nature had to make us; survivors.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Number19]

You have an inalienable right to life. Any "natural right" must derive from this.

As stated earlier by Original_Intent, mere possession of a resource is not a fundamental right. Except for the fundamental ownership of your own body, "ownership" of property is "natural" only when labor is applied to a resource - by collecting/harvesting it becomes yours or by changing it's nature it becomes your property.

If someone builds a contraption to collect rainwater, that individual is required to share the water only on his terms. But others can see what was accomplished and build their own. Once the water collecting device is constructed, and once you have collected water, you have a commodity which others may have need for. But for spending time building your water collector, you didn't have time to catch a fish for your meal. A third person spent his effort building a shelter from the night. So three people have property which is rightfully theirs through the application of labor. To survive each must apply skills to some craft that supplements the survival of the "community". If someone refuses to join this effort then that person is devoid of the necessary "credit" to purchase the means of life and this person may rightfully be denied support by the community.

Now, through force, an individual can claim "ownership" of a resource which has been unimproved. In our example, this might be represented by a natural water spring. This type of "ownership" can only be recognized through civil law, otherwise it is "property" only as long as it can be held through the application of force. At some point, this individual must sleep or direct his energy toward food gathering. "Homesteading" has been mentioned, but this implies the addition of labor to "improve" the resource.

There is a clear distinction.

I would guess that in the history on mankind, most migrations of people, and the resulting wars and conquests, have occurred because of the lack of resources to support life. The New World was an exception because it was largely and sparsely occupied.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[angelatc]

Sure. But that does not mean you have the right to violate someone else rights. Sex is also "nature", but that does not mean I have a right to force you to have sex with me.

Early versions read "Life, Liberty and Property." The Founders changed that last one in the final draft.

[Number19]

Early versions read "Life, Liberty and Property." The Founders changed that last one in the final draft.Yes, but what was the meaning of "property"?

Property meant the farm they had created by cutting down the timber and building their cabin, the fields they had cleared and the crops they had planted.

It did not mean the vast tracts of unimproved wilderness occupied by the Indian.

"Property" was surveyed, or otherwise marked, and title was filed with the civil authority. This phrase arose because of the vast tracts of wilderness, where any man had the freedom to pioneer and to carve out his homestead and farm and file claim on this property. In the Old Word, the king, or other people of importance, owned all land, even if they made no attempt to "improve" the land.

But the inalienable right was embedded in the time, effort and skills required to improve the natural resources of the land into something of value, and was not embedded in the land of and by itself.

[The_Orlonater]

The more realistic scene would be a man starting his own water business. ;)

[Andrew-Austin]

Hypothetical question that a friend posed to me tonight over dinner:

100 people are stranded on a deserted island, with no possibility of escape. There is only one source of potable water on the island. One person controls that water absolutely, and there is no way to get drinking water without him. This one person refuses to give water to the other 99 people on the island. His intention is to have them all die of dehydration.

What are the 99 people ethically and morally able to do? Is it within their rights to get that drinking water?

Its pretty easy to think of some dumb ass, next to impossible hypothetical question to challenge just about anything. Philosophy isn't about satisfying any kind of freak anomaly that could ever happen. If he disagrees with me on this, just subject his views to equally silly questions, or better yet just pose a hypothetical question thats actually relevant to our everyday lives.

I'm surprised I'm the first to say this in this thread? Should philosophy be focused on what to do when your stranded in a life boat at sea, when there still seems to be so much debate about regular conditions as it is? Ask him to debate whether property rights benefit us all here and now, rather than if we were stranded on an Island with some psychopath. I take it you have pwned him in previous discussions, and so he has resorted to life boat scenarios.

Here is an article from Rothbard on this topic BTW: http://mises.org/story/1628, from the book Ethics of Liberty.


The more realistic scene would be a man starting his own water business. ;)

No kidding, apparently this guy would like to do all the work on the island himself and deny the benefits of specialization, and also be a lonely miserable hag.

[nickcoons]

I agree with Andrew-Austin's response. This is an interesting question to ponder, but it in no way discredits the merits of property rights.

To contribute my own answer, I'm going to make the assumption that the one who claims ownership of the water has a legitimate claim (whether it was improved by him, or by someone else from whom he purchased it). I'm also going to assume that the 100 people on the island fully understand the concepts of rights, property ownership, etc, and hold themselves to those values strictly (this casts off any practical answer of "but the 99 will just kill the 1 and take his water", which may be true in many real-life situations).

Philosophically, the water owner would be well within his rights to deny others access to the water. And if they died because of this, it would not be his responsibility. On a side note; if it was, then, as others have pointed out, this same argument could be extended to be a basis for any domestic or foreign welfare program that our government has implemented.

From a practical sense, the water owner would most likely disburse his resource in exchange for goods and services provided by the 99 others. If he wasn't a fool, he would realize that he could have all of his needs met (food, shelter, "companionship," etc) without lifting a finger merely by allowing the others access to his water. On the other hand, he could deny access to the water, let the others perish, and be on his own for the rest of his life.

The liberal response is "But what if he is a fool? We need to guarantee water for everyone." It is this slippery slope that has led us to where we are today.

[cheapseats]

That would mean to your rights and the other person's right are in conflict. Rights can't be conflicting.


You are RIDICULOUSLY positing that billions and billions and billions of people's right to pursue happiness is NEVER in conflict.

Not just an entire planet but its atmosphere and even its outer space invalidate your hunky dory, pie-in-the-sky, magical thinking theory.



I keep intending to read all this material but, instead, I come on here and argue with people like cheapseats (:rolleyes:). :D

You're losing, but you're doing what makes you happy, but it also sometimes annoys me. Hmmm, conflict.

My happiness, its pursuit established by God and sanctioned by the state, desires that you to bring your A Game to our next pissing match.

[tremendoustie]

You are RIDICULOUSLY positing that billions and billions and billions of people's right to pursue happiness is NEVER in conflict.

Not just an entire planet but its atmosphere and even its outer space invalidate your hunky dory, pie-in-the-sky, magical thinking theory.




You're losing, but you're doing what makes you happy, but it also sometimes annoys me. Hmmm, conflict.

My happiness, its pursuit established by God and sanctioned by the state, desires that you to bring your A Game to our next pissing match.

Firstly, it's pursuit of happiness, not happiness. But, I've always thought that's a bogus right -- I'm not even sure what it really means. If you have liberty, obviously you can pursue happiness. Life, liberty, and property is more like it.

And, rights cannot conflict. It is not necessary to kill in order to live, it is not necessary to steal in order to have, and it is not necessary to enslave in order to be free.

[Conza88]

Ah, if only I got in on the ground floor I may have been bothered too respond to some on the out right wrongful comments on here.

In summation; Kludge is wrong, cheapseats is wrong, Dan is fairly right and so is Rothbard.


Hypothetical question that a friend posed to me tonight over dinner:

100 people are stranded on a deserted island, with no possibility of escape. There is only one source of potable water on the island. One person controls that water absolutely, and there is no way to get drinking water without him. This one person refuses to give water to the other 99 people on the island. His intention is to have them all die of dehydration.

What are the 99 people ethically and morally able to do? Is it within their rights to get that drinking water?

It is not completely relevant to ascertain how he got that water. Homesteaded, or first use (found it) the fact remains it is his property and he can do what he wants with it. (We're assuming he hasn't violated the non aggression axiom to obtain it) He has a RIGHT to do what he wants with that bucket of water.

Rights are different from morality though. The two should not be confused, although rights often give great guidance to what is the moral and just action.

Now, let me ask you this - what if it was Ron Paul, or better yet - YOURSELF: who had the water & the other 99 people consisted of Hitler, Stalin, Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Bernanke, Bush, Greenspan, Rove, Rumsfield, Strauss, Krugman, Che, Cheney, Ashcroft etc.?

Does this change anything? ;) From a utilitarian view, certainly.

Essentially, in the scenario that is forced upon us with prescribed ASSUMPTIONS, it is literally tailored to a different direction than it would plausibly take in reality. Game theory always suggests that the person, would take the option that is best for themselves, but which screws the other person. Prisoners dilemma etc. In REAL LIFE tests these have pretty much ALWAYS failed. The majority of us have empathy and use it, we couldn't live with ourselves. It is very rare you get someone like a Josh_LA ;) lulz.

Anyway, heres the kicker which I think pretty much everyone has missed, or failed to properly outline. If we are to assume someone like Josh or some other psychopathic person, has control of the water.

Invariably there will be an effort put forth too take the water from him; his RIGHTS would be violated.

Now it depends on what happens AFTER this, because REPARATIONS are key.

Does Josh or the psychopath, just lose his bucket of water?
- If so then, should they all survive and make it back to civilization (obviously a libertarian society with private courts etc.)

The correct course of action would be too: give Josh a bucket of water to replace the one he had, give him another one for the trouble caused, and plus compensation any scare factor.

- What about if Josh attempts to defend himself from his aggressors who are trying to violate his RIGHTS i.e steal his water? He is legitimate and justified in doing so. However, should he be over powered - which is the case with 99 people. Whoever violated his rights has to pay, with reparations.

Now if they all survive and make it back to civilization. The proper course of action, naturally is that - IF the person whose rights were violated WANTS to, they could press charges or SUE.

Naturally in reality, any reasonable person might have legitimately thought they would DIE if they shared the water. Having survived, they may feel bad or unfavourable about their "selfish" actions, or they may not. But in a Libertarian society where the VICTIM gets to CHOOSE if they want the violators to be punished or NOT, it is more than likely the victim would want the issue to go away for ever, and not be in the papers - where their character, reputation and image in society would be TARNISHED.

Private property owners, having the right to discriminate on sales... whole communities may refuse to deal with you, business owners may not sell you food to you because they think you are immoral or a bad person. But then you might get a few people who empathize with the situation and predicament you are in, and deal with you.

Anyway, should the psychopath proceed to sue or ask for reparations, should they want the violators of their rights punished. Then the proper course of action would go along the lines of:

- Bucket of water to be replaced, another given another for the trouble and then repair the damages to the victims property (body) - whatever they be. If a leg is broken and he can't work, then the hours lost of wages. If it is a few bruises then practically nothing.

Now, if for instance - Josh seeks to fight to the death to defend his bucket of water. He is attacked and kills someone in self defence - that is morally and ethically legitimate. He is the one being aggressed, he is the victim.

Lets assume he continues to fight and Josh ends up dead. Killed by one of the 99. They all survive after sharing the water and arrive back in civilization. Josh's family, next of kin etc. Josh could have been a dad, and had a whole family to feed. Whoever killed Josh, essentially killed that familes bread winner, the only sole provider for the family.

They are the victims, and they can choose whether to sue or press charges etc.

Should they sue, and require reparations - what would be the proper course of action.

The bucket of water was not THEIR property, although - if it was diamonds or gold, or something they were going to inherent then it would count. But I don't think the doubling "for the trouble" applies. Nor the "scare factor" because it doesn't relate.

More specifically, reparation of DAMAGES - the loss of monetary value that their father would have earnt during a life time, avg life expectancy etc etc. Then instead of "scare factor", I would suggest a "grieving factor". (Private Law remember, and a judge or jury who would potentially decide what is "fair" or "just".)

Ultimately a forensic analysis would take place, a postmortem to find out who actually killed Josh or the psychopath. Extensive interviews etc, who actually did it. That person then would be liable - they would work until they had paid the Victims family what it is owed.

Now in reality, what is more than likely to take place - the other 98 people would consider you a hero (if you did it all alone and saved their lives) or even if they ALL played a part and you were the one who finally finished it off. They would ALL, CHIP IN to meet the damages for that family.

[Conza88]

Reparations by Walter Block (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block10.mp3)
Is a great basis.

Essentially, it is like this:
- There is a little girl in a field & there is a Bull that is also on the property. It begins to charge at her, and will more than likely kill her.
- There is a sign that says "Private Property, Trespassers will be shot"
- What is the moral or ethical response? Do you trespass and violate the land owners rights?

Practically same principle. Instead this time, we'll assume a REASONABLE person - just as the law does.

You decide to take the risk, you make the decision you couldn't live with yourself if you did nothing, or you don't even need to make a conscious decision - it is about human action. Praxeology. ;) You violate the private property rights, and you accept the consequences.

Lets assume you save the girl. The owner later finds out you violated his property rights, you trespassed. Is any reasonable person going to hold you accountable, you SAVED a little girls life. Again, thinking of the wider societal consequences, "Man SUED for saving a little girls life"... come on... lol, that is fcken retarded. Anyway, hypothetically he sues the man for trespassing. In this instance, it's just a paddock - the reparations would be practically nothing, minuscule. Damages.. what damages? :confused:

Anyway.. I haven't fully fleshed out the possibilities because there really isn't a need. I hope you all get the overall point. :)

[cheapseats]

Firstly, it's pursuit of happiness, not happiness. But, I've always thought that's a bogus right -- I'm not even sure what it really means. If you have liberty, obviously you can pursue happiness. Life, liberty, and property is more like it.


Secondly, you sound bratty. I hate that. You are, of course, free to be and do as you please -- so long as it does not blah blah blah -- but I advise you to have a care when you address people. You seldom really know who you're talking to on the internet and you seldom know who all the person you're talking to is connected with. It's against the rules, theoretically, to end a sentence with with. Oh well, WTF.

NO ONE can really say what happiness is, very often not even what makes THEMSELVES happy. Observe us careening around like bleedin' bumper cars in its pursuit. Next observe how FEW people are happy once they get the thing/person/whatever that they were SURE would make them happy.




And, rights cannot conflict.


I swear to Christ, WHO IS TEACHING YOU RUGRATS?

Resources are scarce. I'll not engage in circular debate as to which is the FIRST law of economics but let us get this straight. I KNOW I have a bedside manner like ten miles of bad road. Good on me. We are NOT going to polite our way out of this mess.

THAT does not conflict with my recommendation to address people with respect. The people I lambaste DESERVE no respect. On the contrary. That ten-miles-of-bad-road delivery? VERY egalitarian and equal opportunity with that.

Scarcity of resources is ELEMENTAL to an understanding Economics AS IT PERTAINS TO HUMANS.

Economics - Humans = Diddly Squat.



It is not necessary to kill in order to live,

It is if someone's coming at you with a knife.



it is not necessary to steal in order to have,


It is if your babies are hungry and you have neither food nor money. I know, I know, they can go Dumpster Diving everyday. So you can all express your outrage by shouting "Child Abuse! Ignorant fuckers! Who TREATS kids like that?!" rather than bucking up to square off against the Big Guns.



and it is not necessary to enslave in order to be free.

Nicolas Cage in Windtalkers: "What kind of magical Navajo horseshit is THAT?"

No indeedy, Slavery /=/ Freedom.

[cheapseats]

Economics - Humans = Diddly Squat.


You'll thank me one day if you learn this sooner than I did.

TIME IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET.

The hypothetical is preposterous. All the theory will go OUT THE WINDOW in the scenario presented. The others will gang up on him and kill him and that will be the end of him. Depending the supply of water, there may be further violence.

Discussing the property rights of the sure-to-be-dead guy is like acting as the attorney of his estate. Who is not on the island. And who would also be hard-pressed to long resist a hostile group of people larger than 2.

Circle Jerk = Mental Masturbation = Waste of Time, though you are of course free to spend your free time as you please and Mental Masturbation DOES feel good. Obviously.

But if you mean to apply your minds to economics/business, you would begin from the premise that the original asshole is dead -- though he may not even have been an asshole, the supply of potable water may be quite limited -- if you mean to be successful, you would apply your minds to the remaining problem/opportunity/whatever.

The others have killed the guy that was hoarding the water. Start from there because, in the hypothetical presented, the Many WILL kill the One. Eventually, one way or another, by hook or by crook, because any Right-Minded person would rationalize if not believe (I would believe) that the ends justify the means.

Now what? The remaining people are still stuck on an island with a Water Supply Problem. THAT'S the Hypothetical worth exercising your brains over, because THAT IS EXACTLY OUR PROBLEM.

[nickcoons]

I swear to Christ, WHO IS TEACHING YOU RUGRATS?

Rights, by definition, do not conflict: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualrights.html

[Conza88]

You'll thank me one day if you learn this sooner than I did.

TIME IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET.

The hypothetical is preposterous. All the theory will go OUT THE WINDOW in the scenario presented. The others will gang up on him and kill him and that will be the end of him. Depending the supply of water, there may be further violence.

Discussing the property rights of the sure-to-be-dead guy is like acting as his attorney. Who is not on the island. And who would also be hard-pressed to long resist a hostile group of people larger than 2.

Circle Jerk = Waste of Time, though you are of course free to spend your free time as you please.

But if you mean to apply your minds to economics/business, you would begin from the premise that the original asshole is dead --though he may not even have been an asshole, the supply may be quite limited -- you would apply your minds to the remaining problem/opportunity/whatever.

The others have killed the guy that was hoarding the water, BECAUSE THEY WOULD.

Now what?

Did you read ANYTHING of what I wrote? :rolleyes: Your question has already been answered. :D

And your premise is wrong i.e that the guy has to die. :)

Edit: Ah, I see what you mean. You're moving the 'goal posts' though. It's not what this discussion is about. It is largely irrelevant.

[danberkeley]

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/happiness


Main Entry: hap·pi·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈha-pē-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 obsolete : good fortune : prosperity
2 a: a state of well-being and contentment : joy b: a pleasurable or satisfying experience
3: felicity , aptness



... It is largely irrelevant.

Most of what cheapseats writes is irrelevant. :D

[tmosley]

Homesteading generally takes several years. If there is no previous owner, the people on the island would have to decide how to allot the land. If the one guy had lived there for some years beforehand, then yes, he would have a principle right to the water. However, he would be obligated to either help them find a way out, or provide water for them, simply because if he didn't, it would be de facto unlawful imprisonment if they were forced to stay against their will. If he doesn't help them get off the island, or allow them use of the water, then they will exercise the right of the sword, and take by conquest. Such rights are generally recognized (I don't see any libertarians rushing out to return their land to Native Americans).

Ultimately, political power flows from the barrel of a gun. If this asshole is so protective of his water rights, his ass had better have the means to back up his claim. This is how all nations are established.

[danberkeley]

Homesteading generally takes several years.

[QUOTE]If there is no previous owner, the people on the island would have to decide how to allot the land.

If the island is unowned, any land or resource or whatever would belong to the first person to posses it.


If the one guy had lived there for some years beforehand, then yes, he would have a principle right to the water.

Yes. But this is not an assumption we can make with regards to the OP.


However, he would be obligated to either help them find a way out, or provide water for them, simply because if he didn't, it would be de facto unlawful imprisonment if they were forced to stay against their will.

If the water-hoarder does not help the other off the island, it is not imprisonment. He is not forcing them to stay.


If he doesn't help them get off the island, or allow them use of the water, then they will exercise the right of the sword, and take by conquest.

The "right of the sword" would conflict with the water-hoarders property rights.


Such rights are generally recognized

By who?


(I don't see any libertarians rushing out to return their land to Native Americans).

So? Not all Native Americans have the right to the all the land that all libertarians own. Your statement fails because it is to generalized.


Ultimately, political power flows from the barrel of a gun. If this asshole is so protective of his water rights, his ass had better have the means to back up his claim. This is how all nations are established.

Sure. Be we are talking about rights, not who has the bigger guns.

[TonySutton]

These people are stranded on a deserted island and as such should lay claim to it.

The 99 should hold a Constitutional Convention. During the convention they should include all water belongs to the state. (similar to the state of Montana)


“All surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric waters within the

boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people

and are subject to appropriation for beneficial uses as provided by law.”

Next they vote and set up a government.

If the person does not turn over access of water to the government then has the authority to claim the water in accordance with the constitution.

problem solved... ;)

[danberkeley]

These people are stranded on a deserted island and as such should lay claim to it.

The 99 should hold a Constitutional Convention. During the convention they should include all water belongs to the state. (similar to the state of Montana)



Next they vote and set up a government.

If the person does not turn over access of water to the government then has the authority to claim the water in accordance with the constitution.

problem solved... ;)

BUt the people in Montana arent stranded there.

[TonySutton]

BUt the people in Montana arent stranded there.

I know, but still they chose to keep water rights with the state. The same can happen in any government if the people choose to do so.

I am stating this is an alternative for the 99 on the island to obtain water.

[danberkeley]

I know, but still they chose to keep water rights with the state. The same can happen in any government if the people choose to do so.

I am stating this is an alternative for the 99 on the island to obtain water.

As long as it is a voluntary government.

[lucius]

With the proper mind-set, egregore, ie. belief structure, there is little conflict with this hypothetical question:

The man withholds the water and passively kills the people through dehydration: no muss, no fuss, little guilt--extremely rational mind-set, not very egalitarian though:

Abaye, however, answers that in parhesia as well, karka olam is effective in negating the obligation of yeihareg ve'al ya'avor. This is not an extension of the logic of karka olam in arayot, but a new argument. Apparently, the nature of the desecration of the name of God (chillul HaShem) is lessened when the transgression is committed passively. Since one is not actively choosing life over the word of God, but merely allowing a transgression to happen, this is not as serious as the usual case. Sanhedrin (74a-75a)

How’s this for property rights?

Their possessions are "like unclaimed land in the desert." Baba Bathra 54b

Talmud/Kabbalah (or false kabbalah?), such a friendly/open topic, but a caveat for potential contentious atheists/others: "There is a death penalty for critics of the Judaism (or false Judaism?) who study the Talmud." BT Sanhedrin 59a 'Judaism Discovered' by Michael Hoffman, p. 24 (ISBN: 9780970378453).

You may have a veritable field-day with this one. Just because you don't believe that you are "human cattle" doesn't mean that others don't hold this belief:

"All gentile children are animals." Yebamoth 98a (ibid p. 367)

Makes for nice neighbors huh? god says so…

Talmudism is the quintessence of distilled hatred, discrimination without cause, yet most the threads on this board bust upon pedestrian followers of christ/islam/true-torah etc...

[danberkeley]

...
Their possessions are "like unclaimed land in the desert." Baba Bathra 54b...


You lost me here.

[cheapseats]

It is largely irrelevant.

And THAT is highly ironic.

Whatcha studying this term?

[cheapseats]

Rights, by definition, do not conflict: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualrights.html

People the world over have been in conflict for millennia as to whether GOD exists and what do HIS words mean. I wonder if you were even a gleam in your parents' eyes when I became familiar with the work of Ayn Rand. A milestone, no question.

But there isn't even a HINT of international SUGGESTION that Ayn Rand is God.

If you will allow that Human Beings are entitled to some measure of _________________ (fill in the blank e.g. comfort/security/pleasure/joy/reward/fulfillment) AS WELL AS to Life itself, then Rights will come in conflict, period. End of discussion. Go to your room and think about it.

Because if you will NOT allow that Human Beings are entitled to some measure of _________________ (fill in the blank e.g. comfort/security/pleasure/joy/reward/fulfillment) AS WELL AS to Life itself, then I can PROMISE you it sheds some more light on the Libertarian Party's PATHETIC results in November.

Know that if you will not concede some capital-E Error, know that the good-old-college-try doubling of efforts MAY gain you 10% of the vote in four years' time, or it may gain you 2.5%. That is your affair. I do not believe that Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming our President. Mind, him BECOMING our President wouldn't be the worst thing that happened at sea -- not the best, but far from the worst -- so it's not like I'm not willing to be wrong. The question is whether YOU are willing to be wrong. Again.

[cheapseats]

Okay, I am out, you guys are waaay too smart for me. Damned kids. :)

Fuckin' A, am I right?

I've already done the Teenage Years, TWICE. Was one, raised one.

See, this is where true Isolationism makes a key difference in, well, in everything.

Eckhart Tolle re: Unpleasant Stuff: "If it's something with which you MUST deal, embrace it as though you chose it. If it's something you DON'T have to deal with, leave it alone." (roughly)

Being on the Path that you are on, you don't have to deal with the ramifications of wrong-headed people taking actions that they believe are right. It's a problemo in the Big City, though, believe you me. I hang with 'em as long as I can -- SOMEONE has to -- unless they take pride in their unteachability and/or if they are little-a assholes.

To quote my My Father, "There will ALWAYS be an asshole." The older I get, the smarter he got -- damndest thing, I expect you've noticed the same. ;)

[danberkeley]

...

Because if you will NOT allow that Human Beings are entitled to some measure of _________________ (fill in the blank e.g. comfort/security/pleasure/joy/reward/fulfillment) AS WELL AS to Life itself, then I can PROMISE you it sheds some more light on the Libertarian Party's PATHETIC results in November.

...

Why do you keep bringing up the Libertarian Party?


Fuckin' A, am I right?

I've already done the Teenage Years, TWICE. Was one, raised one.



She wasnt refering to you. :D

[cheapseats]

One of the elemental questions raised by this hypothetical situation is "is it a violation of a person's rights to allow them to die through inaction?"


Fallacious, see remarks re: ridiculous premise.

The Many WILL kill the One for the water. Done deal. End of story. Unless you want to dissect whether the Many who killed the One bear moral obligation as to dignified disposal of the body. If the water supply is limited, naturally, YOU fellas will want to discuss the Ethics and Ramification of someone privatizing the burial process.

If you buy NO burial insurance, we'll pretty much roll you into the water and let the sharks eat you.

BUT -- enter Shamwow Vince or Billy Mays -- with our affordable AND sensitive bon voyage package, Last Rights the Island Way, your murdered carcass will receive the Aloha care it deserves. Don't let your brief stint as Water Lord be clouded by anxiety over how your body is handled when it's Your Turn. Enjoy EVERY moment of the Water Lord experience - instead of dreading the next one. For a one-time payment of $_______ (fill in amount amount AND currency, and make sure it's backed by something unless, because it's a ridiculous Libertarian hypothetical, everyone happened to have gold on 'em when the boat capsized). You'll not wanna offer monthly payments on THIS bit of entrepreneurial wizardry.

Unless you want to become an academician or a G-man, you'll change your thinking about business and economics or you will choose other lines of work.

De-salinization of Water, for sure = Emerging Market.

[cheapseats]

If you kill him, he no longer owns the water and his estate goes to the community. Problem solved.

It is so obvious.

AND I would again draw attention to the meaningful hypotheticals that might be proposed for brainstorming about our REAL Water Supply Issues.

If it doesn't work in the real world, it doesn't work.

[lucius]

You lost me here.

How’s this for property rights?

"Their [non-members of this egregore, ie. not of this mind-set] possessions are "like unclaimed land in the desert [free for the taking with zero repercussions]." Baba Bathra 54b

cause god says it's a-ok to thieve from non-members...

[danberkeley]

How’s this for property rights?

"Their [non-members of this egregore, ie. not of this mind-set] possessions are "like unclaimed land in the desert [free for the taking with zero repercussions]." Baba Bathra 54b

cause god says it's a-ok to thieve from non-members...

Who is Baba Bathra?

[cheapseats]

One of the elemental questions raised by this hypothetical situation is "is it a violation of a person's rights to allow them to die through inaction?"


The preposterous notion that a decision does not constitute an action is a PREMIER factor in our capital-letter-and-unnecessary Financial Crisis.

Make no mistake about these two Truths:

1.) Actions have consequences.

2.) Decisions are not de facto but PRE facto actions.

I'll give you an example of INnaction. The Asshole's ticker goes on the fritz and those tablets he TRULY needs are across the room, out of reach to him in his stricken state. And you say to yourself, though not aloud, NO FUCKING WAY and/or THANK GOD, and feel perhaps not happiness but a degree of satisfaction as the incredulous look in his pained eyes, that you're just STANDING there letting him die. As he did to so many others.

No runs, no hits, no errors. Without assistance, which you are under no obligation to provide if you know him to be an Asshole, it's His Time.

Not so, denying access to life-sustaining Whatever to needy people who outnumber you AND are in self-contained proximity to you. Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

[cheapseats]

This water question touches numerous debates in property rights.


There are lots 'n lots of pressing questions that might touch upon numerous property-and-especially-water rights and, man oh man, do we need to address our Water Issues.

But THIS question does NOT touch on numerous property rights.

Believe you me, after the Many kill the One, they will sit themselves down and say, "What happens on this island stays on this island. Now, what's the plan?

That is the ONLY reasonable point at which to begin postulating, given the hypothetical.

[lucius]

Who is Baba Bathra?

Babylonian Talmud, Book 7

Baba Bathra: third in a series of Babylonian Talmudic tractates concerning damages (Judaism).

[or maybe false Judaism?]

[cheapseats]

this is not strictly hypothetical. Monsanto is buying up water rights. . . For some reason.

http://www.mindfully.org/water/monsanto-indias-water-shivasep99.htm

THIS is a real and yet strangely dragon-like Problem.

PROBLEMS R US.

There is no need to hide behind far-fetched hypotheticals.

ALL HANDS ON DECK, last I heard.

[cheapseats]

I keep intending to read all this material but, instead, I come on here and argue with people like cheapseats (:rolleyes:). :D But as of right now I am hooked on Ethics of Liberty.




You are RIDICULOUSLY positing that billions and billions and billions of people's right to pursue happiness is NEVER in conflict.

Not just an entire planet but its atmosphere and even its outer space invalidate your hunky dory, pie-in-the-sky, magical thinking theory.


You're losing, but you're doing what makes you happy, but it also sometimes annoys me. Hmmm, conflict.

My happiness, its pursuit established by God and sanctioned by the state, desires that you to bring your A Game to our next pissing match.





From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/happiness

Most of what cheapseats writes is irrelevant. :D


THIS. This is what I went looking for when my attention was caught by a variety of posts along the way. You, Young Man, you and I are gonna have a word.

You can learn from me. I advise you to try to check your Ego and try. But I don't give a flying fuck, either way. NOTHING you have espoused is anything by which I will be persuaded. You are talking to one another, then patting yourselves on the back for agreeing. That's what's known as a Circle Jerk.

WONDERFUL stuff in the college years, by the by. And perhaps that's what a group of you are. Late-teen-to-20-something. Like I said, you can learn from me. I might gain insight on ME by engaging with you, certainly I will add to my cache of Knowledge about people, but I'll not learn about Life or Economics from you.

If these ARE your college years, and this is college-age CHILDREN doing that circle-jerk thing, then I have intruded as surely as a parent who walks in during a slumber party. If that's the case, trust me, I'll duck back out - hang down below with the Adults.

But YOU.

Lemme tell you something. Unless a person's name is in the public domain, talking about them when they are not present = gossip. Gossip is born of immaturity and/or insecurity and/or insubstantiality and/or mean-spiritedness. It is also girlie.

As I said, I'll say g'night if there is consensus that most of what I say is irrelevant. I can't think of a day past the age of ten that hasn't seemed too short -- there's plenty of work to do and plenty of places to do it.

Because danberkeley is snide/rude/backbiting/whatever for the third time, I shall call the bluff and oblige people to pipe up one way or another, to signal whether further posting in the mid-section of this board is a waste of that valuable Time I was mentioning. In other words, enough people will have to PICK A SIDE, that there shall be no further ambiguity in either danberkeley's mind or mine as to my relative worth as a poster.

Real world. Inaction is its own decision. If I don't hear anything, I've got PLENTY to chit-chat about with the Bearing Arms folk. Them's get 'er done people, as a rule.

How d'ya like THEM apples, Mr. Berkeley?

At least I did it to your face. And the thing is, either answer works for me. Not so, you. You must "win" to save face. You were warned about the hot iron, but you had to touch it anyway. That's okay. When you get burned, you REALLY learn a lesson.

Which speaks directly to the inadvisability of the Bailout Bonanza.

[danberkeley]

THIS. This is what I went looking for when my attention was caught by a variety of posts along the way. You, Young Man, you and I are gonna have a word.

You can learn from me. I advise you to try to check your Ego and try. But I don't give a flying fuck, either way. NOTHING you have espoused is anything by which I will be persuaded. You are talking to one another, then patting yourselves on the back for agreeing. That's what's known as a Circle Jerk.

WONDERFUL stuff in the college years, by the by. And perhaps that's what a group of you are. Late-teen-to-20-something. Like I said, you can learn from me. I might gain insight on ME by engaging with you, certainly I will add to my cache of Knowledge about people, but I'll not learn about Life or Economics from you.

If these ARE your college years, and this is college-age CHILDREN doing that circle-jerk thing, then I have intruded as surely as a parent who walks in during a slumber party. If that's the case, trust me, I'll duck back out - hang down below with the Adults.

But YOU.

Lemme tell you something. Unless a person's name is in the public domain, talking about them when they are not present = gossip. Gossip is born of immaturity and/or insecurity and/or insubstantiality and/or mean-spiritedness. It is also girlie.

As I said, I'll say g'night if there is consensus that most of what I say is irrelevant. I can't think of a day past the age of ten that hasn't seemed too short -- there's plenty of work to do and plenty of places to do it.

Because danberkeley is snide/rude/backbiting/whatever for the third time, I shall call the bluff and oblige people to pipe up one way or another, to signal whether further posting in the mid-section of this board is a waste of that valuable Time I was mentioning. In other words, enough people will have to PICK A SIDE, that there shall be no further ambiguity in either danberkeley's mind or mine as to my relative worth as a poster.

Real world. Inaction is its own decision. If I don't hear anything, I've got PLENTY to chit-chat about with the Bearing Arms folk. Them's get 'er done people, as a rule.

How d'ya like THEM apples, Mr. Berkeley?

At least I did it to your face. And the thing is, either answer works for me. Not so, you. You must "win" to save face. You were warned about the hot iron, but you had to touch it anyway. That's okay. When you get burned, you REALLY learn a lesson.

Which speaks directly to the inadvisability of the Bailout Bonanza.

So, if Person A talks to Person B while Person C is not present and says, "I had an argument with Person C", Person A is spreading gossip although said argument is present on this forum for all to see?

From m-w.com


Main Entry: gos·sip
Pronunciation: \ˈgä-səp\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gossib, from Old English godsibb, from god god + sibb kinsman, from sibb related — more at sib
Date: before 12th century
1 adialect British : godparent b: companion , crony c: a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others
2 a: rumor or report of an intimate nature b: a chatty talk c: the subject matter of gossip
— gos·sip·ry \-sə-prē\ noun

[Conza88]

And THAT is highly ironic.

Whatcha studying this term?

Human Action... ;) Apart from that in my personal time...

Lies, mistruths and fallacies for uni. :)

SO No-ONE has anything to say about my post. Too long right? :confused:

:(

[nickcoons]

People the world over have been in conflict for millennia as to whether GOD exists and what do HIS words mean.

I didn't say there was no conflict. I said rights do not conflict.


I wonder if you were even a gleam in your parents' eyes when I became familiar with the work of Ayn Rand. A milestone, no question.

Then you should know better.


But there isn't even a HINT of international SUGGESTION that Ayn Rand is God.

Nor is there a hint of evidence that god exists, but that's for another thread.


If you will allow that Human Beings are entitled to some measure of _________________ (fill in the blank e.g. comfort/security/pleasure/joy/reward/fulfillment) AS WELL AS to Life itself, then Rights will come in conflict, period.

Your premise is flawed. I will not allow that human beings are entitled to any of those things. We are entitled to the thought processes and actions necessary to sustain our lives, so long as these actions do not initiate force against any other person. This is the definition of a right, and therefore cannot come into conflict of anyone else's rights, by definition. Claiming otherwise would be like saying that some horses are not mammals, when we know that they are by definition.

I've removed your comments about party politics so we can stick to the topic at hand.

[angelatc]

Yes, but what was the meaning of "property"?

Property meant the farm they had created by cutting down the timber and building their cabin, the fields they had cleared and the crops they had planted.

But the inalienable right was embedded in the time, effort and skills required to improve the natural resources of the land into something of value, and was not embedded in the land of and by itself.

It's not relevant to the conversation. According to the Founders, we are born with certain inalienable rights, and property isn't one of them. Life is, so withholding water could be considered a civil rights violation.

[axiomata]

Basically this thought experiment is asking whether I am a Utilitarian or a Kantian.

Here's another similar thought experiment.

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2004.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177190275&archive=&start_from=&ucat=7&

[eOs]

Killing through inaction...hmm..

First, I think, if we are thinking reasonably, this person would never benefit from hording the water. He will not be able to survive by himself on a deserted island. He would rather embrace his community and trade/sell the water for services, etc. If in fact, he was mad and just wanted to horde all the water so he could survive and the rest die, then each individual has the the right to life, and in doing so, have the right to survive and have water. If this is the only water available then I would think that it would be morally acceptable to forcefully take this water.

From each perspective, the water horders and the thirstys, each has the right to life and eventually this will boil down to a moral issue of survivability/harmony. The water horder has the right to do what he wants with the water...but beware water horder!!!