[674] in libertarians
Re: Life Boat Scenario
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (----------------------------------)
Mon Feb 13 21:47:27 1995
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:46:20 EST
From: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <sybok@MIT.EDU>
>Their claim is that my right to property interferes with their right
>to life and property, since I have a surpluss and I refuse to distribute
>it, I am keeping them from being able to obtain what they need to live.
>The standard scenario is one of a life boat. If I own a life boat, and
>some people come floating up wanting on my boat, I have the right to refuse
>them. I can let them die. If they climb aboard against my wishes, I can
>then throw them overboard, thus killing them. But this killing is justified
>since they violated my right to property. But the big question is --
>was the killing justified, or have I violated their right to life, since
>the right to life clearly supercedes the right to property.
There is no conflict here. The key is the concept of negative rights,
and positive entitlements. The BOR is essentially a list of negative
rights--government can't prevent people from speaking their mind, can't
take their guns away, can't throw them in jail without due process, etc.
Negative rights apply to other people as well as the government; for
example, Joe can't kill you, take your property, etc., because these are
forms of coercion against you. Positive entitlements, on the other hand,
are not limits on government, but obligations on it which, because they
require money, ultimately must involve the use of force or threat against
citizens to collect that money. Welfare is an example. In order to provide
food, the threat of government jackboots kicking down your door must be
present in order to extort an income tax from you. Libertarians don't
believe that positive entitlements should exist.
In the case you present, the person climbing into the life boat is trespassing
on your property, and has *forfeit* his life by violating the social
contract. He has the right to life, but only so long as he doesn't violate
other people's rights. There is no question of whether "right to life
supercedes right to property." All rights are absolute. He broke the social
contract and thus forfeits everything, while he is in the act of the crime.
In general, one's set of negative rights is only in effect while the
individual is acting so as to respect the negative rights of others. When
I steal, rape, or kill, I have broken the social contract and my life,
property, etc. are forfeit.
Case closed.
