Owners' obligations to others on their land

Luke,

================
Keep your laws off my body and, by extension, my property.
================

So you'd say owners owe no obligation to others on their land?

Were laws to stop where private property starts and if everything were privately owned, that could be kinda scary and unmanageable.

Jordan

Post 41

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 10:11am

I'm having trouble understanding how such a system would be scary and unmanageable. Individual and property rights indicate to me that a property owner has an obligation to provide reasonable protection to INVITED individuals. That could be as simple as stating "Watch out, there are some hazards on the property." I think most people would do exactly what they do now, take reasonable precautions just out of convenience. If someone did decide to turn their property into a deathtrap, they would be pretty much ostracized and subject to prosecution in the case of accidents. Any private property owner with a commercial use in mind would have a vested interest in making the property as safe as possible. If you own and operated a toll road, you have no possible reason to make it into "Death Highway". You'd have no business and if anyone using it got hurt, you're going to jail.
That doesn't even go into what could actually be done and still respect the rights of surrounding property.
1. No projectile weapons or directed energy that have any chance of leaving the property. (implied threat to surrounding people)
2. No lures (intentional attempt to invite others onto the property and into the trap)
3. No excessive or loud noise that leaves the property (considered assault)
4. No pollution or poison that can leave the property (obvious)
5. Dangerous animals must be confined to property with 0% chance of escape. (you train an animal to kill and it escapes, you have murdered someone or recklessly endangered them at least)
So you have nearly everyone taking common sense precautions like fences if they're so inclined, or parents recognizing their responsibilities to protect children from INNOCENT OR UNINTENTIONAL threats (like pools). That leaves James Bond villains or truly crazy people living far from normal society.

(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 2/07, 10:31am)

Post 42

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 10:52am

Hi Ryan,

If owners owe no obligations to others on their land, then I'm at their mercy upon entering. I'm stuck abiding by their rules and suffering their hazards, with or without my knowledge of them, regardless of whether they change -- all at my peril. That's scary.

Maybe it's true that I could just not enter *that* guy's land, but if all land is private, then I'm stuck dealing with *other* people's goofy rules and hazards, regardless of how objective, consistent, and reasonable they are. It'd be lovely if each little fiefdom's rules and hazards were decent, but there's no assurance. *Hoping* for people to be decent is wholly unsatisfactory. As is the case with birth control, hope is not a method. Every step I take might give rise to another crazy rule or hazard unbeknownst to me but to which I am nevertheless subject. It's unmanageable to deal with each owner's fiefdom whimsies.

But it seems you aren't comfortable with the "anything goes" bit either since you suggested that owners are obligated to provide reasonable protection for invited guests. What's your basis for this proposition?

Jordan
(Edited by Jordan on 2/07, 10:53am)

Post 43

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 11:56am

Jordan, I'm a proponent of the standard that a right involves responsibility. The issue of individual rights has been addressed elsewhere, and I'll assume we are in agreement that property rights are an extension of individual rights. If I hold an objective standard to justify my own rights, then it applies to you as well. If you are invited onto my property, you aren't violating my rights. I have no right to violate yours by initiating force on you, which is what a trap is. If my rights are objectively sound then so are yours, even on my property, anything else wanders into subjectivity. In a totally free society you have the same protections from trapped property as you do from violence now. It would be no more moral or legal for me to invite you in and let you wander into the punji pit or deathroom than it would be for me to invite you in and then shoot you in the face. Your rights dictate that I simply can't invite you in and kill or maim you, by any means. You don't have to deal with each propertys whim's. You have to deal with their whims within the context of them not being able to violate your own rights.
As far as "hoping" people aren't crazy or indecent. Isn't that what we have now? More control certainly doesn't seem to be leading to a more educated or decent society. Even if you hold a bleak view of human nature, I would think that people would notice that turning your property into a house of horrors would swiftly lead to being almost completely cut off from human contact. Anyone crazy enough to accept that is going to do crazy stuff under any system of law.

Post 44

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:31pm

Jordan, if the government retained authority over highways and sidewalks, would that quell your concerns?

I am not advocating that ownership, but I am trying to narrow down the scope of your worries.

Post 45

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:37pm

Jordan,

Okay, here's my take on owners taking extreme measures...

First, I think it's still worth re-iterating that the attractive nuisance scenario still holds. Owners have a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to prevent unnecessary injuries to people or children who might enter their property unaware of potential risks.

That said, I think owners have an equal responsibility not to deliberately create hazards intended to injure either innocent or deliberate trespassers. There is a clear difference between creating a deterrence - i.e. protecting one's property - and exacting a punishment. It is a simple question of determining what is a rational, measured response to the act of trespassing.

What constitutes a measured response, of course, is situational. However, it is not so difficult - certainly within the intellectual competence of an average homeowner - to determine what is appropriate to their home or property. I can suggest a couple of (the many possible) examples.

You have a relatively expensive home, a nice community, and may be perceived by your neighbors to be financially well off. Yet your neighborhood is not so far from areas where home break-ins and thefts are occasionally experienced. Assuming you do have valuables you'd want to protect, a security alarm service would be appropriate, a protective, trained dog would be reasonable. Security cameras with warning stickers near doors and windows would be okay. Keeping a secured gun in your bedroom would also not be wrong. If permitted, even a fence could be added to further deter local thieves. However, under those circumstances, the idea placing an unattended device specifically intended to injure a would be trespasser would be the height of irresponsibility.

With the exception of the gun and the dog, all of the security devices mentioned were used solely as a deterrent. The dog also serves as a deterrent, but if properly trained is also capable of providing reasonable protection from intruders who were not already deterred. At the point that an intruder has ignored the other deterrents, they have demonstrated a potential to be dangerous. The dog is therefore still a reasonable measured response. If the dog is unable to chase the intruder away, the level of danger that intruder presents is clearly greater. The gun - hopefully ready by then - becomes a clear and necessary measure.

In the same relatively expensive home and neighborhood, but without the alarm system, without the cameras and stickers, without any fencing, and without the dog, the use of the gun becomes the only means of response for handling any trespasser. This gives rise to the possibility of the owner taking - either through fear, foolishness, or a combination of both - a wholly unnecessary and uncorrectable action. The intruder may be a serial killer, or may be a neighbor's stupid fifteen year old son trying to sneak in and glom your kid's iPod. Failure of the owner to take responsible deterrent precautions, appropriate to the property they own, can result in an inappropriate response.

The owner has first responsibility to protect their property - no one else. Such reasonable protection includes appropriate reasonable deterrents. Owners responsibility does not extend to include exacting punishment upon trespassers.

jt

Post 46

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:49pm

Hi Ryan,

I'm not clear on where you think the dividing line is between rights violations and owners' whims. What if the owners say they are allowed to grope anybody who enters their land, but they doesn't warn people about this in advance? Should visitors have recourse? By entering the land have visitors somehow waived their right not go be groped; have they implicitly consented; or is groping an initiation of force, and as such a rights violation, regardless of what land you happen to be on?

Why does it matter whether the visitor is invited versus uninvited, especially if the uninvited visitor enters for fairly innocent reasons (e.g., being lost or mistaken)?

Perhaps contrast "you might be groped" with something more benign, like the owner demanding visitors remove their shoes upon entering or pay a fine, and contrast also with something more malignant, which I'll leave to your imagination.

Anyway, I don't merely hope for owners to people decent. The law compels them to be, at least to some degree, so I can expect decency. I have recourse under the law if they totally blow it.

And to be sure, I'm not really concerned about the house of horrors, which is probably pretty easily avoidable, like you said. I'm worried about the more subtle differences per owner that could yield severe consequences, like owners' making various waivers of liability for any harm you incur while you're on their property, even if they caused it.

Jordan

Post 47

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:51pm

Hi Luke,

Nah. I don't want to lose the protection of law when I leave the sidewalk or highway.

Jordan

Post 48

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:53pm

Jay,

Your view mostly maps to current law. But I don't see that you've relied upon Objectivist principles to support it.

Jordan

Post 49

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 1:38pm

Suppose that I decide to have a party at my house, and the invited guests are told that some people will be smoking, so that if someone doesn't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, he or she should not attend. How is that any different from posting a sign outside my restaurant, saying "Smoking is allowed"?

In the latter case, if a person doesn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, he doesn't have to eat there. If I can't allow smoking in my restaurant, then presumably I can't allow smoking at my own house in the presence of consenting adults. Does that seem reasonable?

- Bill

Post 50

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 2:18pm

Jordan disclaimed:

I don't want to lose the protection of law when I leave the sidewalk or highway.

"Tough titty," said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

I'm not convinced an owner of a piece of land owes you anything when you enter it uninvited, especially when you have a public highway or sidewalk on which you can freely travel.

As the title character told one of his victims during the final scenes of The Stepfather, "Oh, and next time--call before you come over."

Dark humor and murderous lunatics aside, I expect the courtesy of an invited and forewarned visit as well, or face my wrath as a result.

I am not advocating murder of non-threatening trespassers, but I am not advocating the coddling of them, either -- not even children who have no business there.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/07, 2:30pm)

Post 51

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 2:35pm

Luke,

Are you suggesting that sidewalks and highways are the only areas where law should apply? Beyond that it's deuces wild? That's some narrow jurisdiction ya got there!

Jordan

Post 52

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 2:43pm

All right. Let's start with first principles of political discourse in Objectivism:

1. No physical force.
2. No fraud.

Now let's assume that all land has been made private except a "commons" area of highways and sidewalks.

This means people can travel freely from private land plot to private land plot.

Let's also assume that such a society accepts the two aforementioned political premises as common knowledge and knows how to apply them to private property rights.

Given those core assumptions, it follows that no one may trespass (initiate physical force) his way onto the land of another.

It also follows that anyone who does faces immediate removal by force from that land.

It also follows that no land owner may lie to others (initiate fraud) to trick them into entering his land to harm them.

It also follows that a person who wanders onto that land without benefit of the owner or steward monitoring his actions takes his chances with whatever hazards he may encounter.

It also follows that an "invited" guest may assume the owner will grant him protection from the aforementioned threats of force and fraud unless the owner informs him otherwise.

So, for instance, a bar owner running a business who allows smoking would post a sign stating "smoking allowed" to warn non-smokers not to enter.

I am still chewing whether this would extend to "brawling," however. My initial answer is, "No." But then that would outlaw voluntary fight clubs, etc. that some might enjoy. I think a basic series of warnings to those entering the property, including signing waivers, would suffice.

A bar owner who catches prowlers on his property after hours would have the right to defend himself with deadly force given the nature of such forced entries.

In no situation I have outlined have I suggested a property owner needs to coddle uninvited guests and protect them from their own ignorance, childishness, and stupidity!

I really think your worries are overblown, Jordan.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/07, 2:53pm)

Post 53

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 3:05pm

Jordan, Groping is a form of assault, a violation of another's rights. There is no such thing as the right to violate rights, that is why an owner can't arbitrarily determine that other's rights don't apply on his property. You have the right to expect the law to protect you if you are respecting the property rights of another. You have no right to that protection if you are violating the rights of another in the commission of a crime.
It matters if someone is invited or not because in one case the person is fully respecting property rights, in the other a person is violating those rights with a probable intent to further violations. As to the innocent reasons thing, name any possible manner a person could use to determine that sort of thing objectively. How do you prove you violated my property rights with no further ill will? Because you say so after the fact? You left a note with your mom? You informed law enforcement that you planned to violate my rights just a little tonight?
As to the argument of innocent children, when was it deemed that my rights to use and defend my property should be further constrained because there is a statistically small percentage of the population who may not personally be able to understand those rights, but who nature issued TWO guardians with the job of teaching them such things and protecting them. So on top of doing my job of protecting MY family and my property as I see fit (within the bounds of respecting others rights) I have to plan for the possibility of failure for all of those parents?
As to the decency thing, you're going to define your terms on that because most damaging indecent things involve violations of rights, which we've discussed.
As to the waiver thing. If I tell you you're welcome in my house, but don't go in the attic, I expect your compliance. If I've my terminator prototype in there and you go in anyway, who's at fault? I had a responsibility to inform you of hazards when I invited you in. You had the responsibility to use my space in the manner I indicated was acceptable. Who acted irresponsibly? As to whatever extreme gray area that might be conceived, thats why we have a court system.
As to the deuce's wild thing. If the law is there to enforce basic rights and that only, we've already discussed that you have the right to protection of your rights, as long as you aren't violating the rights of others, regardless of property.
(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 2/07, 3:06pm)

Post 54

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 3:45pm

As a high school age boy one of my preferred summer activities was exploring the open land near my home. The rural road that bordered the open land was about 1/4 mile from our house and stretched for many miles. Most of the land immediately adjacent to this land was private property. Some farms, some quite large houses with several acres. Some fenced land, some not. My access to the open area was EBMUD (municipal utility) land. They had a short road to a water tower, the open land on the other side. Given as I was exploring, searching for places I hadn't been previously, I occasionally got lost. This alone was not a major problem because I knew I only had to head east and I would eventually run into the rural road (which I was very familiar with) and head home. The problem: several times I was forced to traverse private property in order to get to the rural road. Question: should I have been shot? Did I have any right at all NOT to be shot?

Post 55

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 4:21pm

Where were your guardians? Shouldn�t you have been leashed?

Post 56

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 4:50pm

Mike asked:

The problem: several times I was forced to traverse private property in order to get to the rural road. Question: should I have been shot? Did I have any right at all NOT to be shot?

Jon retorted:

Where were your guardians? Shouldn't you have been leashed?

Mike, you had no business on private land.

I would not argue you should have been shot, but the land owner would have been within his rights to file charges of trespassing against you and your parents.

Yes, your parents should have "leashed" (restrained) you until you had the right education not to wander onto the land of others.

My father told me of a story many years ago of a man who owned a house by the river. On at least one occasion some hoodlums had used the river access to invade his land and home. Some time later, another young man swam across the river only to have the man chase him back into the river with a shotgun. The young man drowned and the older man faced criminal charges. I have to question the moral rightness of those charges as the young man should have considered whether he had lawful access to the land across the river before he began swimming. I do not know the outcome of that case.

Speaking of my father, on our farm for many years he would leave the keys in his pickup truck with no worries, especially if he left it by the barn a good tenth of a mile into our private property on a private dirt road. So imagine his surprise when he got a call one morning from law enforcement.

"Mr. Setzer, do you know where your truck is?" they asked.
"Well, it's out at my barn as far as I know," he replied.
"No, sir, we found it abandoned by Murray's Mill," came the answer.

Sure enough, he looked out to the barn and saw no truck. He and my mother drove to Murray's Mill to recover the truck -- undamaged, thankfully. The police speculated that some young hoodlums had taken it for a joy ride. In today's twisted, litigious world, I hate to think what would have happened if they had involved it in an accident. Needless to say, the times have changed and he now removes the keys from his vehicles. He even has to lock his workshop now and keep his tools inside under lock and key. (He has had several items such as a single-piston motor and battery charger "walk away" in the last couple of years.) He would never have had to do this two generations ago. "People just didn't do that in my day," he would explain.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/07, 4:57pm)

Post 57

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 6:09pm

Drowned teens, a swine carcass in the pool, missing trucks, oh my!

While such debauchery occurs, how could any of you argue for fences around pools for those too young to be aware of the risk, or those lost in the dark, or those with Alzheimer�s? Don�t you see that you advocate dead pigs in pools or missing trucks, or something?

Post 58

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 6:21pm

Jon, the negative effects you describe result from fool trespassers, not fool property owners.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/07, 6:25pm)

Post 59

Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 6:31pm