He’s not coercing the trespasser. He’s asking the trespasser to leave his property. Nobody can come in a person’s house, take food out of the refrigerator, and sit down on the couch without the home owner’s consent.
No they haven’t. They find the fetus to be trespassing. That’s why they’ve decided upon an abortion/eviction.
Well I remember you stating that a boat owner is not a slave to a contract…Did I read it incorrectly?
Laughing Man answered it at least three times, but I think you skipped some of his. Here’s one.
Let’s break that down, shall we?
Under their care means a binding, IRREVOCABLE obligation, according to Max. Meaning: you can’t change your mind. Meaning: even if there was some sort of contract (which there never was), it cannot be broken. Meaning: a woman has somehow ceded ownership of her womb to the fetus. Now there’s a tricky bit: how exactly does that happen? Max just says: “RESPONSIBLITY! OBLIGATION!” and fails to prove both. Max thinks that just asserting is the same as demonstrating. Max is sorely mistaken.
Irrelevant to the case at hand. Capital Pumper’s objection fully stands.
fully relevant. your premise is different than mine, amongst other things.
Nope. Your system is incoherent and you never addressed my objections.
nah, it’s coherent. and before your next post i’ll answer it now - I’m not wrong. And I answered your objections, but you simply state, “It’s not analogous”, but I think it is.
soooo… oh well
Nope. You didn’t answer my objections. You pretend they don’t exist. You are no different than the crowd who wants to kill petty thieves on the spot, or even children who wander off in a ‘private’ lawn.
The owner has the right to ‘coerce’ an individual off of his/her property if the trespasser refuses to vacate. The right to property is meaningless if not afforded this ability.
yeap
Do you understand what’s wrong with the boat scenario or have you gone from ‘left-libertarian’ to being a Block clone ?
Property rights are the basis of libertarian morality [ right to self-ownership ]. I never denied that the NAP is a basic tenet [ in fact i referred to it many times as such ]
Being a Block-Head ain’t so bad, I’d take it as somewhat of a compliment.
Should I care ?
I don’t know, is your handle Laughing Man?
Oh, now I see you ‘replied on’ LM’s post…though you did quote me didn’t you ? I thought I was involved in the conversation somehow…
Anyways, can I ask you a question ? Do you think that a boat owner can throw his guests in the water (probably killing them) whenever he feels like ? I mean he can do that because that’s a ‘legitimate’ use of his property and so fully in line with libertarian principles ?
I was lazy about quoting him specifically; I didn’t feel like typing in end quote tags. Sorry :\
I think the boat example is a loaded hypothetical; I’m not sure if the dilemma would realistically occur because most people (most non-libertarians) often rationalize coercion in emergencies & therefore would see no “dilemma”.
This means the boat owner could rationalize throwing guests (knowing it would kill them), or the people could rationalize stealing his property for the “greater good” of the total survival of all those involved. If the boat owner tried defending his property, the others could also easily rationalize killing him.
As for libertarians, I don’t know (consider this my answer, I guess). I think it’s completely retarded that somehow the owner of the boat & the non-owners wouldn’t somehow, negotiate terms concerning the possibility of their lives being threaten if they are thrown off & not instantly react like spoiled children & go “MINE MINE MINE GIMME!”.
But that whole “probably killing them”. Yeah, that kind of prevents me from answering, because there is no certainty that they will die, & therefore, no guarantee of coercion.
If he threw them off of his boat nearby an island, they could swim to safety.
If they are stranded in the middle of the ocean, but are capable of surviving, it might not be coercion. It wouldn’t be very nice, it wouldn’t be altruistic, but it wouldn’t be de facto coercion.
Now if there are sharks in the spot he tosses them off, that might be a good case of claiming the captain killed the non boat owners.
If this were in space, however, & the captain decided to throw people off of his ship, without any sort of protective gear, then yes, it would be coercion; they would instantly die in the vacuum.
Even with space suits, & ‘x’ amount of oxygen, they may not survive. I believe if the captain were convicted in any sort of court, he might not be charged with out-right murder, but probably murder by proxy (I think that would be manslaughter? I’m not well versed in legal terms).
If the same captain however defended his property from non-owners, & asked and/or forced the non-owners back to their own ship (like say, the non-owners are pirates & wanted to hijack), this wouldn’t be coercion either, as the non-owners would have a ship to go back to & be able to survive space.
I suppose a better answer would be it depends on the circumstances, but that isn’t a single yes or no, so you will probably be disappointed 
Nitro, thanks for the reply.
It’s true that the damage caused by the boat owner can vary depending on circumstances.
Of course, if in a given situation a person can reach safety by swimming half a minute then the amount of damage done is minimal.
But the scenario was introduced as an analogy for abortion - aborted fetus always die, just like people thrown in, say, very cold water, will die in minutes.
I think it is coercion, except that the damage caused in that case is smaller than the damage caused by death.
But there needn’t be any stealing involved. If the owner of the boat invited people over and then changed his mind, he’s obliged to carry the people to the next port and be done with it. This is not a life-boat scenario in which some people must necessarily die because there are not enough life-boats.
The boat owner can rationalize or make any excuses he wants. The point I want to make is that his rationalizations don’t prove that he’s not aggressing. He is the aggressor, not the people he invited to his boat.
I think this is a more or less clear case of a contract being violated. If the boat owner promised his guests a ride and then changed his mind before they boarded the boat, the guests couldn’t complain about the promise not being kept. However, once they are in the boat, and getting out of the boat means damage (or death), the boat owner is bound to transport them safely to land.
No, it’s OK. I think your spaceship example is clear. You could also replace the spaceship with a plane. More realistic and not fundamentally different. Throwing people off a flying plane will either seriously injure them or kill them. It seems though that some people might want to claim that ‘gravity did it’ not the captain of the plane.