If I put a sign on my door saying “everyone who enters will be killed”, and let’s also assume that this message cannot be missed and it is written in many languages and is very clear and convincing. Will I be liable if I kill the first person to enter the door?
Now let’s assume we live in a city in which everyone knows that every serious theft is punished by death, will it be just to kill a person for stealing, or would it be considered aggression?
As long as it’s clearly there, sure you ca do as you wish. The worst excesses of staistm are not evil in themselves, but rather are evil because they’re involuntary. Had Hitler really owned Germany, I’d have fought for his right to kill whoever he liked.
No, murder on your land is still murder. Trespass is a legal concept that stands over and above the individual and his property in land and the rules regarding how trespass is to be righly handled are not abrogated by posting a sign at the edge of your property. I think that hyper-property rights absolutism actually mitigates against the case for stateless society. No culture has ever acknowledged an unlimited right to kill on one’s property. I may not invite you to my property, feed you and then suddenly decide you are trespassing and shoot you. From this, it follows that my rights on my land are not absolutely unlimited so the question is really to what extent are they limited?
Clayton -
What happens if someone enters the door, and they aren’t killed? Would you be guilty of fraud?
Also, what if I had a sign around my neck that said “anyone who kills me will be held liable?”
Liability is determined by the law, and any legal system which allows for loopholes to murder people will not fair as well as one that doesn’t (this is assuming you’re asking this question under the assumption of a polycentric legal order).
Wow, putting the word of judges, be they free market judges, above a voluntary transaction?
All that the sign does is clarify that the trespasser is indeed a trespasser, and that they can’t rely on an impression of consent to be on the property. It’s not all that significant.
If the property is a nuclear reactor, or an enclosure containing dangerous animals, obviously the owner isn’t liable to the trespasser. The hazard that befell the trespasser came about as a result of a lawful exercise of the property, the owner being under no legal duty to trespassers to limit the ways in which he may use his property.
The same would likely apply to security mechanisms specifically designed to deter break-ins, such as dangerous guard dogs, an electric fence, or some similar automated system that could inflict harm on trespassers.
HOWEVER, there is a distinction between this, and a situation in which the owner sets up traps to capture trespassers alive, say, and then does all sorts of perverted and terrible things to them - that Eugene could no doubt dream up - on the grounds that they were trespassing, and therefore he can do whatever he wants to them.
The distinction is that in the former instances, the owner never uses force against the trespasser - either as an unlawful initiation of force or a lawful response to force. The harm that befalls the trespasser results from a lawful utilisation of the property by the owner together with the unlawful ingress by the trespasser, therefore the trespasser bares the cost of his actions. In the latter situation, there is a proactive use of force by the owner in response to the trespasser’s unlawful ingress against his property. A response to an initiation of force must be reasonably proportional.
Trespass, if that’s all it is, is not a terribly serious crime in itself. I would contend that it is only prima facie legitimate to use force in response to trespass to the extent that it is reasonably gauged to compel the trespasser to vacate the unlawfully occupied property post haste.
Likewise, regarding theft, retaliatory force is only prima facie appropriate inasmuch as it is reasonably gauged to compel the thief to return what was stolen. Why not kick thieves out of the city?
The sign, if visible, lets the trespasser know that if he enters willingly he agrees to be liable of being shot at sight. Did he enter on his own accord? Then he agreed voluntarily to be shot. Who are we to find the shooter guilty? How is this different from euthanasia?
If the sign gives rise to a contract, then the trespasser is no longer a trespasser because he has consent to be on the property, contingent upon him allowing himself to be killed by the owner. What if he changes his mind? Then consent is withdrawn, and he has to leave. If he doesn’t, he becomes a trespasser, and force may be used to compel him to leave.
If the situation is no different to a contract of euthenasia, which is a bit laughable, but anyway, then surely you’ll agree that the doctor charged with administering euthenasia cannot proceed if the patient changes their mind and no longer wants it…
signs as contract? Gimme a break. It may inform you, but it could never be a type of valid contract, in my opinion. For example, there is this idead about Death Parks or what they call it, don’t remember, where everybody that enters it “consents” by default to be killed. I think that’s madness too. Without voluntary signed contract (eye-to-eye) any murder should be illegal (unless it is defense).
Anyway, this thread seems interesting, maybe it will change my view, maybe not. Waiting for more arguments for and against it.
I agree here, but this is a separate point. If it can be shown that the guest asked to leave and was leaving and you still shot him, yes I agree that this is murder. Bu the burden of proof is on the victim’s folks, not on you. In practice, this stuff is well nigh impossible to prove.
MaikU, do you put on the written word any super-natural emphasis? Is a transactions arrived by a contract any more valid or enforceable than one arrived at verbally?Many would say that contracts are not inherently special, but that they serve as proof that an agreement ever existed.
Fine than, if you see such a sign, and its clearly visible (at least if you enter by the door, as you should) and you still proceed to get in, does this imply that you agreed to this? Sure. Is there any trouble proving that the ‘agreement’ existed? None at all, it’s logical. Than, what’s the issue with there being no contract? There is an agreement, and it can be proven.
To me the important part is voluntarism. As long as stuff is voluntary, its fine for me, even if I find it morally disgusting or repellent.
If it is possible to prove, that the person saw the sign and UNDERSTOOD it (the language, the consequences) 100 percent, then.. yes, I am more likely to agree, that the murder in that case should be legal.. But there is always a doubt, that’s why I am not strict propertarian and don’t believe that something is just just because it is “voluntary”.
If you adhere to the title transfer theory of contracts, the sign is not a contract. No Titles to property have been exchanged. the trespasser is guilty of agressing against the property owner, and he thus gives up his own rights TO THE EXTENT that he has violated the rights of the owner. Killing, in this case, constitutes an agression by the owner on the trespasser.
Property can be protected by automatic rifles that shoot every tresspasser, surely this is the right of the property owner as long as apropriate warning is given to anyone who attempts to enter. Military bases and national borders today, especially in times of war, are protected with lethal force. No reasonable individual can claim he doesn’t know he is trespassing into a military base or attempting to pass a national border. So if you know something and you still proceed, aren’t the consequences of that your fault?
Now what if a neighborhood complex signs every new resident on a contract that says that every theft (according to a known arbitrator) will be punished with death. In this case capital punishment for theft in that neighborhood becomes legal. I think that’s an important tool, because some crime can be so widespread that it becomes necessary to increase the punishment for that crime. Since it cannot be done in the entire country, it can at least be done in privately owned neighborhoods or towns.
Nope, this won’t work. Let’s say Alan and Bob hate each other. Alan invites Bob to his house. Bob unwittingly enters, only to find that Alan is lying in wait for him. Bob is shot to the floor. Alan then hangs a sign on his front door which clearly reads: “All who enter here agree to be shot and killed on sight.” When Bob’s parents find out about his death, they are enraged. Knowing Alan and Bob hated each other, they immediately suspect Alan. Preliminary investigation turns up evidence that Bob had gone to Alan’s house so Bob’s parents sue Alan, demanding restitution. In the course of the trial, Alan is challenged to allow Bob’s parents to inspect his house for evidence of Bob’s death. Bob’s blood is found in the house. Alan is then forced to admit that he did, in fact, kill Bob but since he had the sign posted on his door clearly stating “All who enter here agree to be shot and killed on sight”, he is not liable for Bob’s death, since Bob had - by entering - freely agreed to be killed.
QED
Assisted suicide entails a free agreement to have another person commit homicide upon you… however, the person administering the homicide is, I think, in a very serious CYA situation… he is going to want to have documentation out the ass proving that his client REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted to do this completely voluntary, etc. I can imagine that it might emerge that industry standard practice would be to have a video-taped deposition with two attorneys present representing both the euthanasiast and the client giving written and verbal agreement to the act prior to going through with it, perhaps with a “cooling off” period to be sure the client really wants it, etc. etc.
Clayton -
I don’t know if it originates in common law, but American law differentiates between homicide (the act of killing another human being) and murder. Unfortunately, murder is defined by some kind of “guilty mind” (mens rea) which I think is the wrong criterion. What really matters is whether the homicide was justifiable. But the implication of treating homicide as its own act (regardless of intent, justifiability) is that it requires justification. Any homicide requires an explanation. Perhaps there is a perfectly valid explanation but the onus rests on the person who committed the homicide to provide that justification. Without proper justification, he may very well be guilty of unjustifiable homicide (murder). What, precisely, justifies homicide is, I think, a matter to be hammered out through precedents.
Clayton -
I would not take title transfer to mean that only when property changes hands we have an enforceable agreement. My understanding of it is that any party can unilaterally wiredraw form nay agreement/contract/promise at any time and be liable to pay only whatever liability he has incurred to that point. And under this ‘interpretation’ the sign is fine.
Clayton,
What you’re discussing there are practical considerations. So, you say, I indeed have the right to put a visible sign on and than shoot folks, but the issue is in proving that the sign was there or, I’d add, that the ‘victim’ did not ask to leave before you shot him.
Yet practical difficulties cannot eclipse the principle. The arbitration market will find ways to make sure that the killing has been done in justice (i.e. voluntarily), by shifting burden of proof as necessary and/or loosening-tightening proof requirements (perhaps requiring a camera to be on the whole time). We cannot foresee such developments. But the principle still stands.