Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My post was pretty clear, so Im not going to adress all your made up scenarios so you can contrive a "gotcha"
It's not made up. Landlords evict tenants everyday. No? I will even argue that he stands a better chance with the state owning it. I would argue that as a taxpayer, if he was doing no harm, let him stay.
It's not made up. Landlords evict tenants everyday. No? I will even argue that he stands a better chance with the state owning it. I would argue that as a taxpayer, if he was doing no harm, let him stay.
I have no say in privately held property.
if the island were privately held, I'd support the right of ownership to evict the man. That isnt the case here is it?
No, I argued why it is not that simple. Someone is going to own that island. They would have the right to force him off. They could get 10 men together, arm themselves and force him off. Correct?
He doesn’t want to answer because most statists believe in property rights and most people believe those property rights extend to the state and their property. Any owner of that property could and likely would excerise their right to remove the naked crazy old man.
State owned property is never going to end, so the argument is mute. As long as the state exists, there will be state property and since the state is always going to exist... the liability of a man committing suicide on state property is something to be considered. The state has a role to protect its citizens and its debatable how far that protection should go. I won’t fault the Japanese government for not letting the man die. That said, if the man really wants to die on that little island, then they can respect his wishes, but they didn’t know that when they rescued him.
if the island were privately held, I'd support the right of ownership to evict the man. That isnt the case here is it?
Nope but it finally furthers the conversation. You are OK with his removal as long as it wasn't by the state. Not a terrible position to hold but an unrealistic one.
Even on private property it's inevitable for the state to be involved. There are theories and then there are realities. Without the state there is no ownership of property and even though you believe you own the property, he can tell you to bugger off, he owns it.
He doesn’t want to answer because most statists believe in property rights and most people believe those property rights extend to the state and their property. Any owner of that property could and likely would excerise their right to remove the naked crazy old man.
State owned property is never going to end, so the argument is mute. As long as the state exists, there will be state property and since the state is always going to exist... the liability of a man committing suicide on state property is something to be considered. The state has a role to protect its citizens and its debatable how far that protection should go. I won’t fault the Japanese government for not letting the man die. That said, if the man really wants to die on that little island, then they can respect his wishes, but they didn’t know that when they rescued him.
You kidnapped and imprisoned him via your approval and willful support of the State.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
