I don’t know what the laws are like in America, but in Scandinavia people are obliged to stop and give first aid to passengers and call the ambulance if we happen to stumble upon the site of a traffic accident. Would such first aid help be considered voluntary in a libertarian society?
And another question: isn’t it impractical with lots of different emergency numbers, as would be the case if there were competition among ambulancess?
Yes. The only way to enforce this law would be through coercion. Coercion violates NAP so the libertarian would be against it.
It is impossible to say what the market solution to this problem would be.
Here are some solutions I can think of off the top of my head.
I thought of these in a few seconds off the top of my head. I’m sure an enterpreneur completing on a free market would offer much better solutions.
That law in Scandinavia is nothing voluntary. In a libertarian society, you decide if you wanna help or not.
Market will tell. It’s possible that there would exist non-profit health organizations or associations where you can call and they delegate the task to the nearest emergency service.
I
In a true liberterian society, all action will be voluntary.
The market can service any demand. If consumers demand a single emergency number like 911, then then there is no reason to believe that the maket will not provide such a service.
Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
What will libertarians answer here?
Yes, because she is forced to kill either one of five?
No, because only doing nothing is never wrong, but if she trows the switch, she takes part in murder?
If I was Jane I would yell out “Superman help!” and then pray…
Fist of all, why do you call the people “innocent”? Innocent of what? These are just people standing on those rails. Second, your conclusion that Jane’s action is responsible for the death of either one or 5 persons is flawed. Whatever Jane does, she is not commiting a crime. Remember a crime is the initiation of aggression against someone. It is not a crime not to rescue someone. It might be a moral duty in your believe system (as it would be in mine), but, Jane does not “initiate” any aggression. She is left with a triage issue. Whom to save, if anyone. Whatever she decides, she never takes part in a murder in the libertarian sense. Murder is a criminal act. A criminal act always needs to be the initiation of aggression against the property of someone else - remember as we all are slef-owners, killing someone effects the property of the one killed.
Now, the question is, does Jane initiate aggression? I would say no. She has not initiated any aggression against either one of those people stupid enough to party on rails -they should be aware of the danger that a train could run over them anyway. What Jane can do is to reduce the destruction of humans, or to be more precise, as she don’t really know that the train would kill them folks, the riks of destruction. This for sure can not be seen as aggression. Aggression is always a purposeful action. You can not aggress by not acting at all. So, If Jane does not act at all, she does not agress for sure. If she acts, she takes a change but still does not agress. Bottomline, The two options you allow Jane to have, either to switch to the right or the left, are not criminal at all. Whatever she decides, from a libertarian point of view there is no criminal act involved from her side.
Makes sense?
Are they all strangers?
The owner of the property on which said scenario occurs could set a procedure for when such a scenario occurs.
Yes, although the action itself would be virtuous (and possibly supererogatory, if one wanted to say that doing something goes above and beyond the “duty” of doing nothing).
Why would it be impractical?
Somewhere it is. Whether it should be is a different matter.
According to libertarians, acting aaccording to one’s self interest is always right. Does this mean helping traffic accident victims is wrong if you’d rather not miss the first 10 minutes of a football game?
wrong
The market for liberty says so.
no it does not. you are misrepresenting, perhaps because you misunderstood.
It probably does, but given that the book is written from a Randian perspective, he’d need to comprehend Rand’s position on altruism/self-interest to appreciate its point.
I think a more interesting question is: If you see an unconscious person, are you violating their personal space by helping them?
The laws vary from state to state. In California if you render cpr and break the rib cage cartilage in doing so, well the person can sue you for millions. Same Story in Nevada. Don’t know about the other states. I can tell you this though. Rendering assistance in Nevada or California is too risky. Call an ambulance and keep driving, or risk imprisonment. Yes, the state can charge you with battery in these circumstances, especially if you aren’t “Licensed.” You see here in Amerika the law is arbitrary. If you are a well connected civil servant, do what you want, if you aren’t, well good luck.
Yes, although the moral choice is to turn.
It would be murder for her to flip the switch, because this would be an action that causes the death of the one person, and this death cannot be attributed to the actions of any other person (assuming that the situation is a freak accident).
That she can yell at the people on the track to move.
Only sheep buy into the idea that there are but two options here.