Quote from: FredericBastiat on August 31, 2011, 04:11:26 PM

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:13:42 AM

You might feel you have the right to set up a factory on your lakeside property, ... See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3
You might feel you have the right to sell meat from hormone-pumped animals .... See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.4, and 7.2
You might feel you can drink your alchohol and then drive your old broken car at high speed... See 'The Law' 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 7.1
And many many more... See 'The Law' above: post #23

your country might think to take all the water from the river ... See 'The Law' 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3

[to much to quote all. please click above for the rest]

Section 4 of your law relates to "UPA", Unprovoked Physical Agressions of "BoCs", Breaches of Contract leading to a loss of rights. Where is the agression or contract in any of these scenarios? I presume the rights lost refer to section 2 - right to defend and control one's life and property.

So, you're saying, you can't pollute in your part of the lake because that would also pollute my part of the lake, even though there is no agression and no contract between us. Fair enough. But I'll be generous - suppose you own *all* the lake, and you even own *all the river* right down to the sea. But your industry emits really nasty pollution and kills the fish in the sea. Are you still prohibited from building? Does someone have to own the sea as well? And all the ocean? Do you have to enter into a contract with people on the other side of the ocean in the event your pollution should cause damage there? Suppose you want to build a nuclear power-plant. First of all, you'll have to be sure not to impinge on others' property rights by emitting radioactive waste. But then wait, what if there's a meltdown and you end up accidentally destroying the country for 100 miles around?

Section 7.1 says force can be resolved to resolve a rights violation. I presume here you mean to say that a drunk driver can legitimately be beaten up, or have property confiscated, or maybe assassinated, if he kills someone. An eye for an eye, eh? We're really moving civilisation forward here, aren't we? But suppose he doesn't have property? Suppose the accident kills him as well? Suppose I'm a very successful artist and I earn my living through painting things with my fingers; and the accident is slight, no damage apart from breaking all my fingers such that I can no longer work. Am I entitled to confiscate the drunks arbitrarily valuable property to compensate my loss of earnings? I freely admit that current legislation does not bring people back from the dead, but I can't see how libertarianism will improve road safety, or food safety, nuclear safety, etc.

Lastly, and here's a critical point.

Quote

4. Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in ones Rights.

What if it's a controvertible diminishment in one's Rights? Suppose I feel that your action diminshes my rights, and yet you think otherwise? Either in the absence of a contract, or where the perceived diminishment has not been foreseen by the contract and hence, the appropriate compensation has not been specified. Resolve this conflict please.