Trapped Man Problem

[Hairnet]

Your premise is false. A man does not lose his right to life when he is not allowed to cross another's property. His right to life is not impeded when told that he cannot enter another's property. I think you should do some deeper thinking before claiming to speak for Objectivism.

Are you trolling?

Also, there are two threads on this topic right now.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Hairnet

[Jonathan13]

Are you trolling?

No, I'm not trolling, but you are. Notice that I'm contributing substantive arguments and analysis, where your post contributes nothing to the discussion.

Also, there are two threads on this topic right now.

Yes, there are indeed two threads. I said so in my post # 24. Here's a link to the other thread:

http://forum.objecti...wtopic=24217=

J

[Devil's Advocate]

The "Trapped Man Problem" pretends to legitimize siege as something other than an act of war. Doughnut properties cannot be legitimately secured without providing some egress for owners of property in the hole. The onus is on those who believe otherwise to cite actual law or precedent that allows the confinement of neighbors as a consequence of purchasing real estate.

[Jonathan13]

The "Trapped Man Problem" pretends to legitimize siege as something other than an act of war. Doughnut properties cannot be legitimately secured without providing some egress for owners of property in the hole. The onus is on those who believe otherwise to cite actual law or precedent that allows the confinement of neighbors as a consequence of purchasing real estate.

Citing "actual law" is irrelevant to the discussion. Citing Objectivist philosophical justification is what is relevant. You might begin by addressing the problem that I identified here, which is that a single owner of a "doughnut" property isn't the only case in which the surrounded owner needs egress, but every other landowner between him and his desired destination presents the same obstacle. So, your position amounts to the view that property ownership is "an act of war."

You're arguing against the Objectivist notion of private property, and in favor of public roads.

J

[Devil's Advocate]

Citing "actual law" is irrelevant to the discussion. Citing Objectivist philosophical justification is what is relevant. You might begin by addressing the problem that I identified here, which is that a single owner of a "doughnut" property isn't the only case in which the surrounded owner needs egress, but every other landowner between him and his desired destination presents the same obstacle. So, your position amounts to the view that property ownership is "an act of war."

You're arguing against the Objectivist notion of private property, and in favor of public roads.

J

No, I arguing that there is no legal or philosophical justification for denying egress to a rightful owner of property other than as an act of war. This is different than claiming a right to trespass, which only becomes necessary by someone denying egress to and from your property by confining you to it, which equates to a siege of your property, which is an act of war.

[Jonathan13]

No, I arguing that there is no legal or philosophical justification for denying egress to a rightful owner of property other than as an act of war. This is different than claiming a right to trespass, which only becomes necessary by someone denying egress to and from your property by confining you to it, which equates to a siege of your property, which is an act of war.

No, you were offering nothing but an argument from the reification of a metaphor. Basically: "Denying egress to a surrounded property owner is, metaphorically, kind of like a military siege, and therefore I want it to 'equate' to a siege, and therefore it IS a seige, and a siege is an act of war and only justifiable as such, and therefore denying egress during times of peace is not philosophically justified!"

J

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes, well that works better for me than trying to legitimize confining your neighbor to his property without any legal or philosophical premise that supports your argument. If this were done to me, I'd recognize it for what it was and respond accordingly.