About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I brought up the follow topic in the Second Hand Smoke thread. I need to reword it a bit, but here it is:

What obligations, if any, do owners of private property have to others who enter their property? Or: What rights to you necessarily retain in the land of another? Is it anything the owner says goes? Do the owners need to have rules? Are their limits to what gets to be a rule? Do they need to post them so people know? Which people?

If you're curious, the law generally carves sets of obligations that owners' have toward a few categories of individuals. Here's a list of categories and the owners' corresponding legal obligations thereto:

  • Undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers:  No obligation.
  • Discovered/anticipated trespassers: Obligation to warn about humanmade death traps.
  • Kid trespassers: Obligation to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable humanmade risks to kids.
  • Licensees (e.g., friends and family): Obligation to warn about dangerous conditions that would create an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee that the licensee isn't reasonably going to discover.
  • Invitees (e.g., customers, employees, delivery guy): Obligation to inspect premises for risks; obligation to make those risks safe unless the risk is super obvious.

Jordan


Post 1

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Those who own pools and other attractive hazards are normally required to have fences. This makes sense as a precaution to protect children.

Post 2

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 6:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm curious about the different set of legal obligations for discovered/ anticipated trespassers. Its seems to me that if someone is found up to no good on my property or informs me that they intend to violate my rights, its highly likely that I will be the humanmade death trap...

Post 3

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 6:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan wrote:

Kid trespassers: Obligation to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable humanmade risks to kids.

Ted wrote:

Those who own pools and other attractive hazards are normally required to have fences. This makes sense as a precaution to protect children.

Where are the parents?

Why are their kids trespassing onto my property?

Why do I have to inconvenience myself with protecting their kids?

"Do it for the children." --Hitler, Clinton, etc.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/05, 6:09am)


Post 4

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is completely off-topic, but I didn't know how to do it, so please excuse the interruption. I'm having surgery tomorrow, Friday. (Torn rotator cuff.) And I don't know when I'll be posting again. Hopefully just a week or so. I thought I'd let people know.
Til then,
Mindy


Post 5

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 9:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke,

“Why do I have to inconvenience myself with protecting their kids?”

Because the law requires you to provide reasonable protections from the hazards you create—just as you may not leave your fireworks factory unlocked or your loaded shotgun leaning against the mailbox post.



Post 6

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nor walk about harboring lethal but innoculable diseases, nor feed the bears.

Have fun, Mindy.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I sharply disagree with the line of thinking that says my hazards on my property that stay on my property create hazards for others.

Trespassing laws already do this.

My swimming pool does not pay a visit to your kids.

Keep an eye on your kids and keep them off my property.

All you really advocate is a variant of welfare in which the problems of others become my problems whether I like it or not.

Rubbish!

Post 8

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Lord, Luke, your avatar looks like it is going to have a stroke.

Just answer this. If you do not fence your property, how do we know where the commons ends, and it begins?

You have the right to private property if you wish to defend it. This does require that you take certain actions. The mere fact that you can formulate an argument in your head does not institute real protections for rights in the real world.

People have to go to the horribly burdening effort of putting copyright notices on their intellectual property, and make minimal efforts to defend their trademarks. Is this unfair? No, because there is a cost to all real world actions, and you have to bear part of that cost yourself. Your arguments do not impose a duty on others to defend your rights for you without cost to you but at a real cost to them.

Ownership of private property places a burden upon the owner to develop the property and to define it.

A fence is one very easy and objective way to do that. In the state of nature, all land is commons. Only when a person defends his land or institutes and supports a state to do it for him does a real mechanism exist to defend that land. We are not obligated to pay taxes to set up a government for you to prosecute trespassers if you do not pay your share of that cost yourself. To imagine that an argument alone, but no effort on your part actually instantiates real rights in the world is the essence of pacifism and anarchism. The defense of rights, like all human actions, occurs in the real world and hence requires some real action and comes at some real and finite non-zero cost.

You can pay taxes. You can hire police to handle tresspassers. They will require you to define where your property exists, and to show it by some means. A fence is one of those means. An idea in your head is not.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 9:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, at least I have the courage to post my real name and photograph.

Property rights are no mystery.

A pool is clearly a man-made item.

A child is the responsibility of a parent whereas a bear is a natural hazard.

Parents have a positive obligation to inform their children where they may travel and where they may not travel and to enforce those instructions.

I see absolutely no point to inflicting a de facto tax above and beyond the costs of filing a deed with the government to document actual property lines via standard surveying methods.

You just want to have welfare without calling it welfare.

You're being an asshole again.

The knowledge of private property rights in a free society -- including survey lines, etc. that anyone can access in a courthouse -- amounts to common knowledge that needs to pass between the generations.

People who trespass and experience injury get what they deserve and should enjoy no compensation for that injury.

If it happens to kids, blame the parents.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/05, 10:02am)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with the principle that Luke is bringing up - that it isn't his job to protect people that might wander onto his property. But the real world is more complex, like Ted points out, and there is a reason that I would put up a fence around my pool, even though I agreed with Luke, and even though my property boundaries were clearly marked.

I wouldn't want to experience the horror of finding a toddler drowned in my pool. Forget about liabilities or legalities or blaming the parent for what have been a moment of inattentiveness - I would just never want to see that irreversible loss.

When I grew up, the open pool, and riding our bikes to any part of the city, climbing trees, playing in the streets and many other potentially dangerous things were normal - so parents, reacting to the possibilities, exercised care and we kids grew up tougher - in a street kind of way. Today, the environment is supposed to be child-proof. I wouldn't want to assert my right, go against the prevailing patterns, and find a little floater in my pool.

Post 11

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, exactly! Another sanction for you, my man! That's two from me to you in one day! Congratulations!

Yes, I never said I "would not" put a fence around my pool (if I had one).

I said the government "has no place" forcing me to do so.

This is just like the discussion in the "Altruism Against Freedom" article thread from three years ago about the starving baby in the woods.

The problem with all this "child-proofing" is that it has created multiple generations who now "expect" it and scream and howl at anything "unsafe" -- at the expense of freedom.

I need to write an article about this.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/05, 10:16am)


Post 12

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And that explains why some of the fenced property around here have barbed wire on the top, because having just a fence is not enough - and the blame still falls on Lukes...

Post 13

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I'd suggest that name-calling not be a part of our posts at RoR. Ted can take care of himself, so this isn't by way of taking sides. Rather that this forum is better for all of us when it has a higher level of civility.

It is funny, in a way. We become accustomed to certain names, because of how frequently they are used, like "asshole." But it really is an ugly term when you think about it and it usually can't be issued without making the user look bad for doing so.

Personally, I can tell you that I'm much happier here now that I've practiced raising my level of civility and ignoring the people I've decided don't add anything to my life.

Post 14

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Luke,

Would it matter if owners *purposely* create on their property a human-made danger to kids?

Jordan

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, I reserve the right to call a spade a spade, especially when he refuses to recognize his own jaded spadeness.

Post 16

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan, prove it.

I get images of the evil candyman character in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang."



Post 17

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Funny. But let's say for the sake of argument that the owners' actions were on purpose.

Jordan

Post 18

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan, I'm having trouble imagining a concretization of your abstraction.

Tell us a story.

I'm getting images of "never talk to strangers" and child molesters and Freddy Krueger and, of course, deliberate harm to kids, a criminal offense.



Post 19

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I will let the cogency of your arguments, and the health-threatening emotionality of your posts speak for themselves. I am surprised at you, "rubbish" and "asshole" indeed. You do need to chant some mantras or pop a valium.

The fact remains that you have to define where your property begins in order to protect it. Your imagining/saying/arguing that you have rights does not place a positive burden on others to defend them for you. That sort of belief that ideas establish facts is called the primacy of consciousness. There is a physical cost involved, and you yourself must pay part of it.

You have not addressed this argument at all, here or elsewhere (where you resorted to mind reading) and if "asshole" is all you can muster, then I think I will accept that as your concession of the point under debate.

As for name and avatar, who doubts that that is my real name, or thinks that I am pretending to be a time traveller? That you reach for this is childish silliness, you may as well bring in the kitchen sink.

I can keep this on the issue if you can. Please address why a property owner has no obligation to act to defend his own property.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.