If someone you trust tells you that your mother is in the hospital and is dying, and then you rush to the hospital running over someone in the way. Later you discover that you were decieved. Who should pay compensation to the car accident victim, you, or the person who deceived you?
You should. You are the one who ran someone over.
You’re the one who hit them while driving recklessly, this is essentially the crime. You’re liable for the damages. If your “trusted informant” was paid at all, you might be able to get some kind of recompensation from them for fraud. Easy peezy lemon squeezy.
Fraud? I don’t think the standard definition of fraud has anything to do with that.
If you’ve entered into some kind of contractual agreement with that person to provide “accurate” information, and you can demonstrate that the person knowingly lied and decieved you, that would be a type of fraud. I’m talking about what’s going on between you and the “lier”, not you and the person you hit with your car.
The fact that you are in a rush, be it because of false information or not, does not allow you to break whatever rules the private roads outline–assuming that pedestrians have the rightaway would still be the norm, you would be a fault.
If that was the description, what is this box… this is a test
Shoot I lost everything I wrote. Here it is again.
There is not a fundamental answer for this that can be determined through deductive reasoning. It depends on the details and circumstances and it up to the courts to decide, preferably non-monopoly courts. That being said, I predict that the outcome would have the driver paying for the victim or the victim’s family, but then the driver would sue his friend and collect.
Sue for what? For lying?
Yeah. Lying is not a blanket crime, just as murder is not a blanket crime. Some lies are tolerable (such as white lies) but many are not (such as libel). This would be one that I am guessing is not. The amount rewarded to the driver would not be as much as what he paid the victim, but it would probably be a large portion of it.
You can find a comprehensive attack on the idea of libel/defamation on this very site. No true libertarian would believe in the validity of libel.
Then you would be stretched to find a true libertarian. Most of the objection is with the operations of the courts when dealing with libel rather than the concept itself. Courts today generally rule much too much in favor of libel and hate speech and bullying and the such, but that does not mean I can’t find a thousand examples where prosecution is legitimate. Imagine someone says I’m about to murder my dog, and I have to answer to the police all day. Not only should the lier have to pay for wasting my day, but he should have to pay for wasting the police’s day.
You are responsible for the running-over. You can try suing the person who lied to you, in turn, but I doubt in a “free law market” that they would be held responsible. There’s no unilateral redrawing of property boundaries that I can see.
Clayton -
First of all murdering your dog should be legal since farmers kill chickens and cows in the billions.
Second of all, you can accuse anyone with anything, but if you do so not in the context of an agreement that binds you to say the truth and contains a punishment clause in case you were found lying, it should be legal.
@Eugene: You really need to get a methodology. You’re all over the map. How do you come to your conclusions? I can explain to you how I come to my conclusions, I don’t just throw darts at a wall full of random assertions.
Clayton -
I don’t have yet a methodology. Currently I am inclined to use NAP as first principle, but sometimes utilize Estoppel when it comes to threats or attempts. How do you come to your conclusions? What do you think about the “dog” example?
In terms of the animal, I don’t think it matters too much. As you said millions get killed every day. What matters is how it relates back to the individual. If an individual kills his animal for no reason than it is a sign that there is something wrong with him and that he is capable of doing a lot of damage and should probably see help. Also, my example was not the best because it was more of a threat than libel. If I changed it to say that I was accused of killing my dogs and as a result the police came and took me away and I then had to spend all day answering questions and talking to police, it would be closer to libel. Even if the police did not bother will the call because they felt it was bogus, other people who found out might threaten me and cause me distress. It would be like shouting fire in a crowded theatre, where everybody gets worked up because of a lie.
Animals don’t have rights. You can have a neighborhood with laws protecting animals, but you can’t force everyone to protect them, otherwise there will be no food. It shouldn’t matter what is the reason for killing an animal, it is the same action and it should be either legal or illegal. Since it can’t be illegal, it must be legal.
Regarding police. If they take you for questioning by force, they will be at fault and you’ll be able to demand restitution. It is still not the fault of the libeler. He just said something, you can’t prosecute people for expressin their opinion, false or true. You also don’t have to believe everyone who says something. This person won’t lie in the cout room because he will then be legally obligated to say the truth, and that’s something else together.
That’s not the reason why animals don’t have self-ownership and property rights. Lots of people are murdered too, but that doesn’t make it right or irrelevant.
Animals won’t reciprocate with humans in an ethical/legal framework. If humans treat animals in a particular way - whatever it may be - they do it for their own purposes.
Inexplicable, sadistic behaviour towards animals is a warning that someone is likely to behave the same way towards people.
It’s no business of the law, though. It’s up to individuals to discriminate wisely regarding someone like that.
No, the concept of libel goes against the principle of self-ownership; libel implies a damage to an individual’s reputation that will harm their future chances or contracts. Libel means that an individual can in some way own or influence others’ thoughts. However, you can’t own someone else’s mind or opinion of yourself - so I repeat if you truly are a libertarian, then libel laws should be invalid to you.
aureate, I’m sure much of the criticism of libel is based on the current application of the laws, but this is irrelevant as the concept does not make sense.