I think it’s obvious that someone that infects another person with AIDS on purpose should face penalties. However, what about a person that knowingly has TB and goes about their day as if nothing is wrong, thereby spreading it. What is the culpability? Would laws restricting their movement be unjust?
Hmm. I don’t think a law would be necessary really.
I imagine in the unhampered market, the owners of roads and other major ‘public’ places might require clients to have regular check ups to ensure they aren’t contaminated with anything like TB. If they were [infected with TB ect.], they would be excluded from entering these areas by the owners of these areas. A similar process would follow for employers and excluding employees with disease. Those who would continue to interact with this person nonetheless would be doing so voluntarily, and would as such be consenting to any diseases they receive from the person, or so I figure.
What I am unsure about is if someone who had such a disease went about their regular business and didn’t inform the people they interacted with that they had the disease. Humor me, on whose property is the person on when he infects others? His own? His employers?
Wed. 10/03/24 14:51 EDT
.post #26
What, for you, is the essential difference between these two things?
Intent.
Depends on how serious it is.
Thurs. 10/03/25 10:02 EDT
.post #28
Then let me rephrase the question, with the inessential parts changed:
Essentially, it’s the same question, because its essence, “intent,” has been preserved.
Let’s say somebody has H1N1 and gets on a plane, and a small child catches it and dies from complications. This has undoubtedly happened. What cuplability does the person infected have if 1) they felt perfectly fine 2)they felt sick but didn’t know what was wrong or 3) they knew they had H1N1?
I’m interested in seeing an answer to this question as well. I believe that it is criminal for a person to get on an air plane knowing that they have H1N1, that it is contagious and that it could potentially be hazardous to other. With that being said I think it would be nearly impossible for someone to prove that person a infected person b with H1N1 during the time of their flight. Even it one could prove with complete certainty that person a infected person b with H1N1 it then must be determine if person a was aware of their illness.
Thurs. 10/03/25 10:47 EDT
.post #31
You believe that behavior that is potentially hazardous to others should be criminalized?
No, the issue not would arise until some sort of property rights violation had occurred.
Thurs. 10/03/25 11:12 EDT
.post #32
Do you mean “the issue would not arise until some sort of property rights violation had occurred”?
Yes sorry for the typo. I’m at work atm so I have other things on my mind 
I think nothing.
Tort with compensation.
Possibly criminal.
Thurs. 10/03/25 11:29 EDT
.post #33
…and yet, consider your earlier statement:
What is the “it”?
- Person gets on a plane, AND
- knowing he is infected with H1N1, AND
- knowing H1N1 is contagious, AND
- knowing that it could be potentially hazardous to others.
Does the above intersection constitute “the occurrence of some sort of property rights violation”?
Why do you do this?
Anyhow, to make a case, I think that a person would have to know they have an infectious disease AND it must be proven that this persons actions caused infection of another (i.e. the “victim” didn’t pick it up somewhere else). More likely, an airport might be able to use the person’s diseased state as an excuse to breach the contract of allowing them on a plane or around other customers. This would probably develop as preemptive clauses in commercail contracts.
A property rights violation occurs when one individual damages the person or property of another individual. In the above scenario if no one is infected with H1N1 due to the actions of whoever is carrying the virus then they have not violated anyone else’s property rights. If the infected person transfers the virus to someone else then they have violated that persons property rights. A persons intentions has no bearing on rather or not a property rights violation has occurred. Intentions only come into play when considering what punishment and or reparations the concerned parties deem appropriate.
Thurs. 10/03/25 12:20 EDT
.post #34
Then, since the above scenario does not include the violation of anyone else’s property rights, why do you “…believe that it is criminal”?
I know the date time is redundant, but I like to have the post’s ordinal status recorded, plus an easy way of sequentially stepping backward.
I don’t. I was responding to Mt Dew who established a scenario in which a baby caught H1N1 and died.
Thurs. 10/03/25 12:39 EDT
.post #35
Ah, only criminal in Mtn Dew’s “case 3.” Got it, sorry, and thanks.
Thurs. 10/03/25 12:59 EDT
.post #36
Assuming we absolutely know and can prove:
- H1N1 exists AND
- H1N1 is communicable AND
- H1N1 “causes” death AND
- person B died from H1N1 AND
- it “came from” person A,
then at what point does person A’s behavior become “criminal”?
As an extreme example, let’s suppose person A was just sitting on his porch, breathing, and a lone H1N1 virus escaped his nostrils, was carried by the wind into a passing car and inhaled by that car’s driver, person B, who consequently got sick and died, and we had some way of objectively establishing all of this.
Would person A’s behavior be “criminal”?