The Problem of "Crime"

Robert Malcom wrote,

A little nit-picking here perhaps, Bill, but have to side with Hardesty on the DUI bit - you're trying to do a "one size fits all" crap - no go - we're all individuals, with all that implies, including physiological differences of sustainability.....

Observe that I didn't specify the standard. My only point is that you must have some measure of sobriety. Admittedly, some people can handle alcohol better than others, in which case, they could remain sober given the same amount of alcohol that might cause someone else to be drunk. But, remember, we are talking about drunk driving here, which is what I understood "Driving Under the Influence" to mean. If someone is clearly not drunk, then, yes, he should be allowed to drive. But you need some objective criteria for ascertaining relevant sobriety. Blood alcohol level may not be the best, but until and unless a better method is available, it will have to do. And the standard will have to be uniform; I don't think it's practical to require a different threshold for every driver, depending on his or her unique tolerance for alcohol. How would you implement that? In any case, what I'm unalterably opposed to is having no standards and allowing anyone to drive, no matter how drunk the person is. You don't support that do you? If not, what would you recommend as an alternative to our present laws?

- Bill

Post 41

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 8:52pm

Hi, I'm Mike Hardesty, you pathetic excusers of mass-murdering rogue regimes. You and your toilet paper Atlas Shrugged reading comrades should all join hands and sing kumbaya. Go read the Unibomber's Manifesto man and understand what it all really means. By your logic we all should all go back to slavery days. I am sorry, I have to spend another 45 minutes to shit out 50 paragraphs more of bilge. Be right back, you fascists.

Post 42

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 10:18pm

"I have to spend another 45 minutes to shit out 50 paragraphs more of bilge"

Paragraph? Does Mike even know what a paragraph is?

Post 43

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 1:52am

Kurt, I love it! Man, that's hilarious!

- Bill

Post 44

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 12:17am

Kurt, are you the same Kurt who was reduced to obscenities on another post ?

The same Kurt who was ignorant of the gold standard and thought the statist Greenspan
managed the economy ?
Even Forbes and the business press thought that Greenspan was a major screwup.
Aaron, you have yet to find one error in my comments, you don't like my style but why should I care ? Substance is my forte and I'm
still hoping to find some non-lightweights here.

Post 45

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 9:12am

Mike, you are the same Mike that after Bill posted a reasoned response to your post resorted to obscenities and name calling?

I think that to say Forbes and other Economists (for instance, Milton Friedman) felt that Greenspan was a "disaster" is a lie. I have yet to see any proof that Milton Friedman's theories are false. I am still of an open mind on the subject and trying to learn more about it from both sides.

Post 46

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:53pm

Mike Hardesty,

I don't know you -- but you've just peaked my interest (and that can be a very good thing, or a VERY BAD THING). If you're looking for trouble -- well, you've found it brother. You've probably never dealt with the likes of me (and pray that you never have to!).

Ed
[flexing his mental muscle -- attempting to appear 'ominous']

Post 47

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 9:08pm

That would be entertaining to watch, Ed. But I don't think Hardesty is going to be coming out to play anymore.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1380_3.shtml#64

Post 48

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 9:25pm

Oh, er, ah ... thanks, Aaron!

:-/

Ed

Post 49

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 4:58am

Ed - it is piqued, not peaked unless you are reaching the top pf a mountain :)

Post 50

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 9:11am

Hey guys, I am new here. I am not sure exactly how the fourth amendment has been interpreted, and how it would apply here, but as I understand it, wouldn't objectivism hold that a hotel guest has no right to privacy? Bear with me here. Yes, the police cannot bust down his door without a warrant, but don't the property rights of the hotel owner trump everything else here? Unless the guest signed a contract in which the owner agreed not to let the police in without a warrant, it should be completely at the owner's discretion as to whether the police enter or not. After all, it his property, and if he wishes to allow the police in, then that is his right. Am I wrong?

Post 51

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 9:19am

When you choose to associate with other people, you accept the metaphysical fact that your freedoms end where their rights begin.

One of your less astute comments, Michael.

I would disagree. Ayn Rand herself talked about this herself. My rights end where my neighbors' begin. I am free to do whatever I like, as long as I don't violate anyone elses rights. I would say however, that these limitations apply whether you choose to associate or not.

Post 52

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 9:38am

Hi Jonathan, allow me to tackle this question as I am an innkeeper.

Hotel guests do have a right to privacy as essentially when someone rents a room from me, the renter, it is a temporary transfer of some property rights to the customer, the rentee. The transfer of property rights is for a specified amount of time for an agreed upon price. The rentee does not retain ALL property rights to the room, only specific rights that are transferred as part of the agreement. Essentially, the rentee is buying his right to privacy when renting a room from me. This is the same as a rental agreement for an apartment. The 4th amendment does not exclude people who are not a homeowner, as it states you are secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects". There are 4 specific circumstances when an innkeeper can enter a room as part of this agreement of the transfer of property rights.

(I'm now cracking out the hospitality law book)

1) when it is necessary to perform maintenance of the room, including cleaning and repair.
2)imminent danger
3)nonpayment
4)when requested to enter by the guest to respond to a guest's room service order

If none of the above four circumstance are met, the guest retains his right to privacy. For the police to conduct a search or perform an arrest, a warrant is needed just like if you rented an apartment or rented a home. If you think about it, how many people mortgage their homes? Essentially there is an agreement between bank lender and lendee. The lendee still retains rights to the property he is mortgaging, as long as the lendee does not default on a loan.

So in a metaphysical sense, property rights are not so stringent, but can be flexible to facilitate peaceable trade.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/15, 10:20am)

Post 53

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:27pm

John, thanks for setting the record straight. I understand what you're saying, and on the surface it sounds good, however I can't shake the feeling that something is not right with that situation. I am not an expert on objectivism, however I have heard alot said about the supremacy of property rights. Set aside how our government enforces the fourth amendment in this specific case, after all we know not everything our government does is automatically right. Doesn't objectivism/laissez-faire capitalism dictate that as a property owner, I can do as I please, so long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else? Now, of course this would mean that I could refuse a warrantless search, but it should also mean I can consent to a search of my property, regardless of who is inhabiting the rooms. After all, the idea that the renter somehow had a right to that property is very similar to the fallacious notion that one has a right to healthcare, or cheap oil. Obviously if he had entered into a contract with the hotel owner, which explicitly stated he would be secure barring a warrant, then he would have every right to privacy. However, my impression was that this agreement is implicit, and not explicitly stated. Hopefully I haven't misunderstood you. I have been studying objectivism for about a year now, but this is my first oppurtunity to actually discuss it with anyone. You'll have to excuse any naivete on my part.

Post 54

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 7:41pm

==============
Ed - it is piqued, not peaked unless you are reaching the top pf a mountain :)
==============

Oh, er, ah ... thanks, Kurt!

:-/

Ed

Post 55

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 8:36pm

Of course it also depends on what kind of 'mountain' ye be referring to......

Post 56

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 8:42pm

Doesn't objectivism/laissez-faire capitalism dictate that as a property owner, I can do as I please, so long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else? Now, of course this would mean that I could refuse a warrantless search, but it should also mean I can consent to a search of my property, regardless of who is inhabiting the rooms.

I don't think even as an ought that should be right though Jonathan. 4th amendment protects you from unreasonable search in seisure which includes your persons, papers, etc. Which is why information about say your phone calls that the phone company keeps records on, are your papers, and you are secure in that privacy unless a warrant is established for that information. Even though those "papers" are the property of the phone company, you as a customer retain certain property rights to that information. (Well I guess the NSA would disagree with me)

After all, the idea that the renter somehow had a right to that property is very similar to the fallacious notion that one has a right to healthcare, or cheap oil.

Not quite, in the case of a rentee, he is essentially purchasing the right to privacy as part of that agreement of a transfer of property. If it makes it more clear, think of it as the hotel customer essentially "renting" the innkeepers rights to the hotel room for the day. A right to health care or cheap oil implies one is forced to provide a good or service against their will. I don't think I would call that similar. The renter and rentee peacably entered into an agreement.

However, my impression was that this agreement is implicit, and not explicitly stated.

It doesn't have to be explicit because the hotel room is a form of dwelling, and the Supreme Court, which I agree with their descision, decided a hotel room is just a valid a dwelling as a house or apartment is a dwelling. Because of the very nature of the product I'm selling/renting it doesn't require the agreement to be explicit.

Hopefully I haven't misunderstood you. I have been studying objectivism for about a year now, but this is my first oppurtunity to actually discuss it with anyone. You'll have to excuse any naivete on my part.

No problem Jonathan! How else would you know if you didn't ask! I hope I was of some help! :)

Post 57

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:08pm

John, aren't we dealing with an issue of contractual agreement here. If the hotel owner specifies that when you rent from him, you agree to allow a search of your room should the police request it, and you consent to that as a condition of renting the room, then aren't you in effect consenting to the search? Of course, if the owner made it clear that he did not allow his guests' rooms to be searched without a warrant, and you rented from him on that condition, then if he reneged on the agreement and allowed a warrantless search, he would be guilty of a breach of contract.

What about cases in which there is no explicit agreement either way? Then I think the presumption is that the guests are entitled to privacy unless otherwise specified. And, as you noted, the Supreme Court saw it this way as well.

- Bill

Post 58

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:53pm

What about cases in which there is no explicit agreement either way? Then I think the presumption is that the guests are entitled to privacy unless otherwise specified. And, as you noted, the Supreme Court saw it this way as well.

I actually don't think there can be an explicit agreement between innkeeper and guest on whether the police can search the guest's room without a warrant. What I was trying to convey was that a room rental is a transfer of property from innkeeper to customer, with all the caveats that go along with that of course, and that essentially renting/buying property means you get the property rights to that property, hence these property rights are transferred. You have the property for an allotted time, you agree not to damage the room, etc. Someone else may retain some property rights to your dwelling, but you are still secure in your persons from unreasonable search and seisure.

I'm not aware of any innkeeper asking their guest to sign an agreement that would allow a search of their room by the police without a warrant, actually even if you did, that still doesn't grant the police power to search the guest's room without a warrant. An agreement to have a room searched by the police I believe could only be met between guest and police, not between guest and innkeeper. Whenever you wish to waive any rights to due process I think you can only make that agreement with the state.

And as mandated by state law, there are instances where an innkeeper can enter the room without the guest's consent whether there is an explicit agreement to this or not. Innkeeper's laws as they are called, are found on the back of a guest room door. I'm sure you've probably noticed them when you rented a hotel room.

Post 59

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:59am