But is that mutually agreed. Did the guests say, “Ill set foot on your land, if you have sex with me”? (Edit: though this is sounding more like a promise than a contract, anyways)
So then the sign is nothing but a terms of use, “I won’t let you come on my property if you won’t have sex with me.” Where’s the issue? I wouldn’t want to be invited over to that person’s house for dinner.
Don’t think of it as correct. Think of it as the best political theory to advance the goal of your life. It’s called rule utilitarianism. It’s much better than act-utilitarianism. If you make an exception to any rule, you can make an exception to any rule. Which leads to property rights disintegrating completely.
I have a cabin in the woods, no saw mills within 50 miles. Someone wants to build one 100 feet away, its an objective fact that doing so would effect the level of sound on my property, ie distrub the peace.
So two people might disagree on what is pollution ? That’s what property rights exist to remedy, to determine who gets the final say!
My general objection to rule utilitarianism (from Roderick Long) is that it seems to be in a weird position. The basic utilitarian premise is clear - but the rule utilitarian, even in a situation where it is clear how to act on that premise, will forbid doing so if it violates a rule. So how is the rule serving a utilitarian function? What distinguishes rule-utilitarianism from any system of making rules? In particular, what is utilitarian about it?
Yes, you’re right. I read the “mutually agreed” part but it didn’t really register in my mind.
Rule utilitarianism takes into account the fact that if you ever use act utilitarianism as justification, you will be more likely to use act utilitarianism as justification in the future, and will so become an act utilitarian.
The premise goes like this. Any given criminal act has a low probability of coming back to bite you in the ass. So if you break into someone’s house while they’re gone and steal all their stuff, you will likely get away with it. Over time however, your chances of being caught generally rise to a level which is unacceptable to over all utilitarianism. So if you are a rule utilitarian who says “but this one time the chances of getting caught are so low, that I should do it”, you have become an act utilitarian. You will likely stay an act utilitarian since the next time “this one chance of getting caught is so low” comes by, you will do it again. You are then going against your over all utilitarianism if you continue on like that. Everybody thinks they aren’t going to get caught when they commit a premeditated crime.
This is some egoist form of utilitarianism. The fact that your chances of getting caught once are low does not imply that doing it that one time increases overall utility.
No, because the point of view that NAP is all you need is not commonly asserted by non-thick libertarians. Again READ the bubble thief thread here on this forum to see why.
So you have the right to aggress on another person in terms of misfortune and/or happenstance? Sorry, but not only does that violate NAP, it violates self-ownership. Try again. facepalm
What is a thick libertarian anyway? Is that like a bad thing?
Then according to you, stopping someone who is starving from eating my food also violates self-ownership and the NAP. Tell me, if I had water in the desert, and there was someone who was dying of thirst, would I be violating the NAP or self ownership if I stopped him from drinking my water?
Yes it is egoist. That’s the only way that any type of morals exist. Your goals define your morals. If you goal is to live, then voluntarism is the best set of rules. And people only do things because they think it’ll increase their utility. When it does not increase their utility, it’s called a mistake.
You’re appealing to personal ethics not law which is political and can’t account for every single particular event that deals with virtue or vice.
No I’m not. I’m appealing to natural law. I think it’s legal in a natural law sense that I can deny someone starving my food, or deny someone dying of thirst my water, or to deny someone who’s drowning refuge on my island. It’s all the same thing. Rothbard addressed life-boat ethics, and he even said that if you own the life boat, you can deny a drowning person entry onto that boat. The same holds if you own an island.
Would love to read / hear a convincing argument for natural law and/or natural rights, then.
The problem I have with this argument is that it really has no end.
Where can I actually draw the line and exclude you, when you cross “my” fence, when you trample “my” grass, when you enter “my” home etc… to answer conclusively is impossible.
I like the idea of common law determining the amount of acceptable trespass, as the nature of the property and how it is used differs from location, the laws should follow suit.
QFT
The argument is that it is most likely the best political system for you to live in and achieve your goal of living. There’s nothing metaphysical about it, it’s just the most logical choice of politic if your goal is to live. If your goal isn’t to live and instead to kill people, then it’s not the best political system, but don’t be surprised when people who’s goal is to live then kill you.
Or you could give somebody water or save somebody from drowning. Not violating property that way either.
This was one of the most lucid posts in the forum I’ve read on rights.
I don’t know that this is true. A system that allows you to put people in a position where they must, in either case, die - drink my water and I’ll shoot you! doesn’t seem to be the one that best enables living.