If Joe were to go to sleep, and during his sleep Bob appears and builds walls around him (not violating Joe’s property rights) and when Joe wakes up he finds it’s impossible to go anywhere or get any food or water because he is enclosed by Bob’s property. When Joe dies because of this, that’s not murder, because Bob hasn’t violated any Joe’s rights, and therefore, Bob has done nothig wrong, right?
Right. No violation of property rights, no crime.
Lisa: Bart, just get out of here.
Bart Simpson: Hey, you get out out. It’s a free country.
Lisa: That doesn’t make any sense.
Bart Simpson: I know you are, but what am I?
Lisa: Get out, get out!
Bart Simpson: All right. But on my way, I’m going to be doing this…
[windmills his arms]
Bart Simpson: If you get hit, it’s your own fault.
Lisa: Okay, then I’m going to start kicking air, like this…
[kicks up her foot]
Lisa: And if any part of you should fill that air…
[kicks up her other foot]
Lisa: It’s your own fault.
Okay for a cartoon. Idiotic for an ethical philosophy.
What makes it seem idiotic to you, exactly?
If build walls around you and you starve to death or if I stabe you to death in both cases I murdered you.
It’s like nobody ever posted to this thread but Papirius
Clayton-
In other words, you think it’s idiotic because it contradicts your pre-existing chain of reasoning. Gotcha.
Can you prove that you necessarily murdered me in both cases?
Building walls surely would wake up Joe, right? Or if the walls are built further away from Joe, so as not to wake him, the fact is you won’t have enough time to construct the parameter to enclose him in.
Oh that wasn’t the point, sorry
Hmm…
Suppose I use a restroom at a restuaraunt and while I am inside this restroom the manager locks me in and shuts off the water. Sounds more plausible. Could be wrong though, still working on my second cup of coffee.
If my actions cause your death, and it wasn’t defensive or an accident, it’s murder.
Suppose I use a restroom at a restuaraunt and while I am inside this restroom the manager locks me in and shuts off the water.
Now that’s an exemple. Nice.
What’s your definition of “accident”?
If you’re drowning and I refuse to save you, even though I feel able to, would you say I murdered you?
I’ll note for the record that you did not prove that I necessarily murdered you in both cases.
If you’re drowning and I refuse to save you, even though I feel able to, would you say I murdered you?
How have your actions caused my death in that case?
So your answer is no?
Obviously.
Well you could’ve just said no, right? I don’t know why you didn’t.
But okay, so what do you see as the difference between refusing to help a drowning person and building a wall on one’s own property that surrounds another’s property?
Because your question was idiotic. I said that in order for someone’s death to be murder it firstly has to be a consequence of someone’s action, and then you ask me do I consider a death not caused by someone’s actions murder. So you are (/were) obviously jerking me around (spamming/ trolling), the only other option being that you have (or had while writing that and this last message) serous difficulties with using your mental capabilities.
Your opinions (not facts) are duly noted.
There are apparently many people who consider it murder for one to refuse to help a person who’s drowning. That is, those people believe that, if you refuse to help a drowning person, it was you who then killed him. I wasn’t sure where you stood on that issue, which is why I decided to ask.
What I don’t quite understand is how, assuming that one owns an area of land that completely surrounds another area, building a wall on his land that faces the encircled area will necesssarily cause anyone in that encircled area to starve to death. So to me, the issue of causality in that situation is hardly clear. If I’ve misunderstood the situation in any way, please point out my misunderstanding, and I’ll gladly stand corrected.
I understand your position and largely (if not entirely) agree with it, but my question was for Papirius. I want to know what he sees as the difference between those two situations.
Easements. False imprisonment.
Both basically mean that I don’t have the right to do what I want with my property (in my person and my external belongings)even though I don’t in any way even touched someone else’s property (in his person and external belongings). This seems like an addition to the NAP and Rothbard’s idea that only property rights exist. It would be fit then to rename NAP into something like a no-offensive-harm principle.
There are apparently many people who consider it murder for one to refuse to help a person who’s drowning.
I don’t see what does that have to do with me and my message where if which I explained what I consider murder.
What I don’t quite understand is how, assuming that one owns an area of land that completely surrounds another area, building a wall on his land that faces the encircled area will necesssarily cause anyone in that encircled area to starve to death. So to me, the issue of causality in that situation is hardly clear. If I’ve misunderstood the situation in any way, please point out my misunderstanding, and I’ll gladly stand corrected.
Vanitas Nomen gave a better example.
I was trying to determine what you meant by “if my actions cause your death, and it wasn’t defensive or an accident”.
That’s fine, I can work with his example if you prefer. In that case, I agree with GotLucky that Vanitas Nomen’s example (exemplum nominis vanitatis?) constitutes false imprisonment. Which brings me to…
Here’s an example that I think just about any follower of the NAP would consider to constitute aggression (in this case murder), even though no direct touching of anyone else’s property occurs:
There are two glasses of wine. I put cyanide in one of them without you seeing me. Then I pick up the other one. You pick up the poisoned one and we each drink from our glass. You then die from cyanide poisoning.
Consider this, you have two glasses of wine, and one cyanide capsule and one inert capsule. You put one in each of the wine. You put the wine on a rotator and watch them both spin, you loose track of which is which. You play russian roulette with a glass of wine. You don’t have Hydroxocobalamin, I do.
You ask me if I will give you some of my Hydroxocobalamin. I refuse. You die of cyanide poisining. Did I murder you ? no. You took a risk that didn’t pay off, and you relied on my charity to survive, which you could not guarantee or have a moral claim to.
Now how is going to sleep in a surroundable territory , where another has the right to enclose you, different from the above?