You said you could walk and get the soccer ball…[N] That’s trespassing. And yes it takes will to kick.
Please do.
Were you claiming this is a non sequitur?
Its a valid argument. If the neighbor gets to keep the car then he is substantially better off than he was before it rolled into his trash cans. What damages then exist to compensate for?
You are putting words in my mouth. Here is what I said:
And I will say once again that using your will to kick a ball is different than using your will to deliberately defy one’s property rights.
Of course I put words in your mouth. I missed it when you changed the story around again. I see you’ve updated the exchange scenario. ok.
This was only a few posts ago:
Yet in this post you claim to know when a “deliberate” event occurred. Which one is it?
If the neighbor thinks I deliberately defied his property rights then he can take it to a court and they can decide on if he now owns my soccer ball.
Or we can simply haggle. It is up to him.
lol [:D]
I think you really put a lot of good time into thinking about these events. Excellent! You came up with some good ideas. [Y]
I’m thinking the haggle might be the best situation seeing how these two neighbors are so stubborn. I’m thinking outside of court would be best. Maybe the judge would even think haggle or he’ll want to cut the ball in two and see who will try to stop the ball from being cut in half to find out who loves the ball more.[;)]
Or… they start throwing rocks at each other and that might implode the neighborhood so we don’t want that happening over a dang soccer ball. [:P]
good night [:)]
[:|]
Thank you for the compliments! The neighbor would have to be really insane to go to court over a soccer ball, but it would definitely be useful in the china shop case. I devised the “nature, accident, aggression” system as a practical way to implement proportionality into the NAP. Most of the time intention can be easily identified by words and actions, but in tricky situations, such as if there are no witnesses and the victim is dead, private courts and detective agencies could be used.
One more thing I wanted to note about my system is that it covers children, such as Rothbard’s candy-stealer, very well. Let’s examine it under my “NAA” rule:
The two most common cases are:
(1): The child knew that taking the candy constituted as aggression
(2): The child did not know any better and was acting on impulse
In both cases the child owes the shopkeeper restitution.
If (1) is the case, then the shopkeeper is justified in using force to get it back, though how he handles it may hurt his business.
If (2) is the case, then the shopkeeper’s use of physical force would be aggression and he would have to pay for the harm done to the child.
Because it is a child, the shopkeeper really has no good way of knowing whether it is case 1 or 2, so he would be inclined to err on the safe side and not physically hurt the kid.
If the kid was actually a large man wearing a ski mask, however, then the shopkeeper would be pretty safe in his claim that the guy is intentionally asserting higher ownership and fire away.
You’re trying to force a distinction that doesn’t exist.
Intent doesn’t matter as far as legal liability is concerned. If the man broke the china accidentally he is still criminally negligent.
Obviously, the shop owner can’t attack the man after he broke the china, as it would serve no purpose. Only if the man was likely to break more china would it be required.
If somone has your property, you are entitled to reclaim it.
Something I said earlier in the topic:
I am not so sure about that. I think he could be justified either way. What if the man attacked the owner and started to leave? I would say the owner would be perfectly justified in attacking him back. The owner’s china and his body are both his property.
Why?
Maybe so, but then why would he be entitled to restitution if he’s expended his proportional response on retaliation?
I think it might be helpful for me to explain my “NAA” system in detail:
Property can be damaged in three ways:
-
Natural Disasters
-
Accidents
-
Aggression
Natural disasters can not demand restitution or retribution.
Accidents can demand restitution, but not retribution, for the person(s) responsible.
Aggressions can demand restitution and/or retribution for the person(s) responsible.
Stranger will like that. It can be his new revolutionary motto. No restitution without retaliation!
It is getting late, but I do not think I adequately answered this question in my last post. I have been thinking for five hours, and I think I’m on to something incredible.
Two people walk into a china shop. Both pick up a $100 plate. One drops the plate by accident. The other throws it on the floor in aggression. Both owe restitution for damages. The question is, does the aggressor owe retribution? (I am using the word “retribution” just to mean “extra payment”.)
I would argue yes. The accidental breaker has committed the lone crime of taking away some of the owner’s property through destruction but did not intend any offense in the dropping. The aggressor, however, not only destroyed the plate through his actions, but claimed it as his own through his intent. (That is the something incredible I think I’m on.) Therefore, he owes both restitution because of his actions and retribution because of his intent.
The same can be said of any aggression. By stealing from a store, two crimes have been committed: property has been removed from the rightful owner (action) and property has been given to an illegitimate possessor (intent). Murder is the claiming of someone’s life for oneself (intent) and the destruction of that life (action). Trespassing is the disregard of another’s property rights (intent) plus the actual stepping foot on the land (action).
Accidents are missing the factor of aggresive intent. Picking up the wrong suitcase at baggage claim is not stealing unless you claim ownership. Tripping and toppling someone down stairs to their death is not murder. And kicking a soccer ball so badly that it enters your neighbor’s lawn is not trespassing. You still owe for the damages, but you can not be charged with aggression, and therefore retribution, in those cases.
Why do you keep saying this? No, the lawnowner doesn’t have to touch, or even look at, your ball. The fact is, he has no positive obligation to go out of his way to return the ball to you, and you have no right to trespass onto his property to get the ball. You no longer have any ethical means to possess that ball.
The point is that your action was the catalyst for lodging what was your property so deep into his property, that you have no ethically legitimate means to repossess it (unless you can get a suction device, or a hovercraft, or a long pole). If you damage his property, you may in fact owe him restitution, but the fact remains that he has no obligation to return the ball to you, and you have no justification for trespassing onto his land to retrieve it. You have no physical control over the ball, and you have no ethical means to possess it. It is meaningless to call it your property any longer.
What does this have to do with anything we’ve been talking about? Why do you keep bringing up “punishment”? I’m not talking about punishment. I’m talking about the property status of a thing that becomes completely uncontrolled by you from both a physical and ethical standpoint.
All right.
No, it doesn’t. My claim that it is trespassing to walk onto another man’s land without his consent rests on the fact that that land is that man’s property. What if the situation were bizarrely switched around? What if you had not one soccer ball, but a whole ball pit? Let’s say the land owner is carrying patches of turf, and he accidentally tosses a patch of his turf into the middle of your ball pit? Is he justified in just walking across your ball pit without your consent to go get his patch of turf back?
My claim that you forfeit the title in the property which you lose complete physical control over and have no ethical means to possess is not based on the fact that a “transfer of title” has occurred. The title has not been transferred. Merely dissolved.
As I said to Ming, the neighbor’s actions here are completely irrelevant. The neighbor doesn’t have to touch your ball, or even look at it, or even know about it. The fact is, you have no right to trespass onto the neighbor’s property without his consent to retrieve your ball, and the neighbor has no positive obligation to stop what he’s doing and go return your ball to you.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I honestly have no clue how that relates to what you’re responding to. I.e. non-sequitir.
A shop keeper cannot shoot a child who steals a candy bar, because shooting the child is not necessary for the shop keeper to defend his property. Simply verbally confronting the child, and, if need be, wresting the candy bar away from him, will suffice. All that needs to be done is the return of the stolen property, plus compensation for damages/time. The minimal amount of defensive force necessary to achieve that is justified.
I never said that entering the property of another person does negate the ownership over yourself or your property.
Do I really even have to say it?
I guess so…
Strawman.
I’m very certain you don’t understand what I’ve been saying. I’m saying that if your mechanic’s action (whether of malice or negligence) was the catalyst for your vehicle being lost, you have the right to demand compensation from your mechanic.
If Person A’s car rolls on to Person B’s lawn, Person B cannot possibly thus be given a positive obligation to go out of his way to return the car, and Person A cannot possibly thus be given a right to trespass onto Person B’s lawn to get it. Thus, if Person B, for whatever reason, does not want to return the car to Person A, he doesn’t have to, and Person A’s property title in the car becomes meaningless. If it was Person B’s fault for this happening, Person B has then forfeited his property rights to the extent necessary for Person A to reclaim his property. If it was Person A’s own fault for this happening, then Person A must suffer the costs. If it was Person C’s fault for this happening, then Person A may demand full compensation from Person C. If it was an uncontrollable and unpredictable act of nature’s fault for this happening, then Person A better have had the car insured.
Yes, you do. You always have an obligation to compensate another person for the losses they suffer due to a violation of their property that is a result of your action (whether of malice or negligence). Simply pointing to the now unowned car on their lawn and telling them “Sell that for compensation” may not suffice, any more than pointing at any other currently unowned object that happens to be resting on their lawn and telling them “Sell that for compensation.” The property violator always has a direct obligation to compensate his victim (unless the victim forgives the debt), no matter what other means the victim may use for compensation of this damage exist.
Seriously? The car is now “unowned”? Hell, no one is responsible for the damages if the car became “unowned” once it crossed the property line.
You keep asserting that you lose title to your property once it enters someone else’s property, but you’ve yet to say why, except that “Its trespassing to go and get it.” But isn’t that the point in dispute? Its only trespassing to get it, if it is no longer my property.
Your position, besides being incredibility circular and border-line incoherent, doesn’t actually serve to resolve any conflict.
Imagine that my car rolls onto my neighbor’s lawn and he seizes control of it. Should I later on find it parked and unattended in a parking lot open to the public, can I unlock it with my key and drive off? Your only reason that it has transferred ownership, that I can not approach it without trespassing, no longer applies. If I can not drive off in it, then you need to find a new defense for your position. If I can then your position is shown to not be a property solution at all, as it can not resolve dispute over ownership.
When it comes to compensation, it doesn’t matter whose property you used to damage your neighbor’s property. It matters that you were the one whose action served as the catalyst for the violation.
Because control is a necessary ingredient of property.
When the car rolls deep into someone else’s property, then you have
A). Lost all physical levels of control over it, and
B). Now have no ethical means to possess it (assuming the property owner hasn’t granted you permission to come onto his property)
It is meaningless to call any thing which you have no physical control over and which you have no ethical means to possess, your “property.”
Trespassing is always trespassing, no matter where your property is in relation to other people’s property. It doesn’t matter whether your car is on your neighbor’s lawn. If your neighbor has committed no theft against you that forfeits his property rights to the extent necessary for you to retrieve your property, then it is trespassing if you walk on your neighbor’s lawn without his consent.
Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing about yours.
As a result of your neighbor’s action, or as a result of someone else’s action? If your neighbor’s action served as the catalyst for the car rolling onto his property, then that is tantamount to theft. If someone else’s action served as the catalyst for the car rolling onto his property, and you cannot ethically repossess the car, then it is meaningless to call that car your property any longer.
If Person A (whether accidentally or intentionally) shoots Person B with a BB gun, does Person A have a right to fish that BB out of Person B’s flesh without Person B’s consent? Does Person B have an obligation to fish that BB out and return it to Person A?
If your neighbor had initially claimed possession over your car via an act of theft, then, yes, you may reclaim it. If you allowed your car to become unowned, and your neighbor properly homesteaded it, then, no, you may not legitimately reclaim it.
A transfer of ownership never occurs. In this instance, it goes from your property, to unowned, to your neighbor’s property (if he so chooses to homestead it). My understanding is that a transfer involves an exchange from one actor to another.
Facts:
-
The soccer ball is my property.
-
The lawn is my neighbor’s property.
-
By my accident, the two have come into contact.
-
I owe my neighbor restitution.
-
I cannot aggress on my neighbor or his property.
-
My neighbor cannot aggress on me or my property.
Conclusion:
You are absolutely right. I cannot force my neighbor to do anything. As long as he does not claim it as his own without my permission, it sits there until we make a deal.
We can deal on three things:
-
Price for me to get the ball myself
-
Price for my neighbor to bring the ball back to me
-
Price for my neighbor to buy the ball
I do disagree with this still, however. The ball is still my property and my neighbor cannot claim it as his own unless he agrees to deal #3.