Trespasser Eviction

I (Guest author Shepard) debated with Patrick of Disenthrall about rape resulting in pregnancy, then the baby being aborted/evicted. I “lost” the debate.

I remained unpersuaded that it is morally acceptable to end the life of innocent children, however I am having trouble arguing rationally against it.. Patrick also very much wants a way out of this corner that consistent adherence to Anti-Subjectivism paints us into. After the show ended, Patrick and I continued chatting for another hour, and after that, we both continued contemplating. We argued a bit back and forth via text message, and I decided I should put my thoughts together and actually do the work to present a case, or at least explain what I am thinking.


December 16, 2022 thoughts

The Anti-Subjectivist moral principle of eviction, absent esthetic preferences, as I understand it, is:

A person who is on or in the property owned by another, if this person was not invited by the property owner, may be evicted by the property owner or their agent in any manner the property owner chooses.

  1. The well-being of the trespasser is not relevant in regards to how the eviction is done. 
  2. It is also not relevant if the trespasser was placed in or on the property without the trespasser’s consent.
  3. It is also not relevant what the status of consciousness or cognition is of the trespasser.
  4. It is also not relevant what the intent of the trespasser is regarding their staying or leaving the property, or whether they are making reasonable efforts to comply.

(Patrick, if the above is not accurate, let me know and I can update it. 🙂 )

(By the way, I view A.S. as a “club” of sorts. You get membership by reciprocating you lose membership if you don’t follow the club’s rules.)

While there is not a moral obligation, some people, including Patrick and I, think it would be sweet/nifty if the property owner:

      • I. Used as little force as was necessary to remove the trespasser.
      • II. Considered factors like
        • Cognitive ability of the trespasser, ie baby, unconscious adult, retarded person
        • That the trespasser came to be on or in their property due to no action or fault of the trespasser.
      • III. Affords the trespasser enough time to leave the property so that the trespasser would not be likely to die or be seriously injured as a result of the eviction.

I believe that according to Anti-Subjectivism (A.S.), the above facts/principles are correct. Most Anti-Subjectivists and I agree with each other on many of our preferences, specifically the Roman numerals above. I agree with the Anti-Subjectivist that according to their manifesto and belief system, that the Roman numerals are not relevant within their system’s limits, in other words, a violator of the Roman numeral preferences would not be returned to being a state of nature being if he did not adhere to the Roman Numerals.


Now I consider some edge-case scenarios in which, for this thought experiment, I will design with the property owner being a meanie-head, and not being cool about the Roman numeral things. After all, when a system is built, it ought to have some “problems” run through it.  For this reason, I will skip the myriad scenarios in which A.S. principles makes me “feel” like a good solution or outcome has been reached.

 


My Neighbor Joe – Evictor of Kidnapped Man (Updated)

I was looking across my ranch at my neighbor Joe’s ranch. Imagine my surprise when a car turned off of the road onto Joe’s quarter mile long private driveway, went down the driveway and dumped a kidnapping victim, Bill, out of the trunk. The car sped off as Bill regained consciousness and struggled to his feet, pulling the duct tape off of his mouth and dropping it to the ground. 

“Get off my property” yelled Joe as he walked outside and got into his truck. “Yes sir, I apologize” said Bill as he began quickly limping down the driveway toward the road, making every effort to comply. 

My neighbor Joe impatiently got into his truck, and sped toward Bill, striking him from the rear at 50 MPH. Bill’s head snapped backward and a distinct crunching sound could be heard as his brain was slammed onto the hood. Bill flew into the air and landed dead on the roadway in a pool of blood. 

According to Anti-Subjectivism, my neighbor Joe did not violate the NAP, and he remains elevated above “state of nature,” as the buzzards landed on Bill. With a contented smile, even knowing he might have been slightly aesthetically uncool, Joe drove back to his house. Bill, if he were still alive, would no longer be a part of the elevated A.S. Club, because he littered on Joe’s property with the duct tape.



As I run each of the above scenarios through the A.S. principle, all three receive a clean bill of health (absent consideration of aesthetic preferences).  I would not be permitted to use an ounce of force against any of the above people to prevent them from doing what they did, or to retaliate against them for what they did. For example, if I grabbed the Brandon and tried to pull his fingers free from Timmy so that I might take Timmy to safety, according to A.S., it would be me who had violated the reciprocated A.S. agreement, and I would be relegated to being a state of nature being.

That doesn’t seem right. I don’t like the (feelz) the results of the A.S. system to the above scenarios, and I admit that I do not have any valid arguments within that system against the validity of that system. Those of you who are familiar with my thinking can appreciate that this deviation from “just the facts ma’am” applied through logic and reason is rare. I don’t trust my emotional feelz, however I do have a bit of respect for the gut feeling I get after serious contemplation of issues.

Therefore, I am arbitrarily and subjectively, despite my dislike for including those wishy-washy non-objective things in my thinking, tempted to add something to my personal belief system. Like the principle of not initiating violence against other people, my proposed addition is a subjective preference based on my subjective values. I do not claim to be able to prove that my subjective preferences are universally true, “natural,” “Christlike” or that they must be held by other people.

How bad of a dude would I be if I chose to add to my belief / principles about trespassers, that:

If the trespasser did not trespass on purpose, is not conscious, is not able to safely be evicted, is making reasonable efforts to leave and is moving as quickly as reasonable, unreasonable violence may not be initiated against them.

Philosophy isn’t concerned with Shepard’s gut feelz or anyone else’s wishes or preferences. Philosophy is the science of thinking. Science. Gravity and property right theories must be tested. Whether or not I think gravity is “cool” does not matter to the apple. So, what if we give old Shepard a hall pass on being rational and consistent on this one?

Nah, let’s not. Let’s hold each other’s ideas to the fire and hash them out. Allow me to begin.


Problems that my subjective choice of adding preferences does not “solve” include:

  1. Who would build the roads.
  2. What is “reasonable?”
  3. Who would have a “positive right” to care for a trespasser until it is safe for them to leave the property. Is there a philosophic difference if this care is for 2 seconds or 9 months or more? Examples include: 
    1. A marijuana salesman felon hiding out in a property owner’s studio apartment from the cops for 3 years to avoid serious bodily injury (kidnapping) until the coast is clear and he can be safely evicted.
    2. A baby living inside a property owner’s body until she can be safely evited from the owner’s property. 
    3. An unconscious kidnapping victim who was dumped on a property owner’s land, and is in a comma for 50 years, with no-one else claiming responsibility for his care.
  4. Whether or not to, and if so, how to punish violators of my preference-based subjective preferences.
  5. If I coerce or take any action to stop a property owner from using “unreasonable” force in violently evicting someone, what should happen to me?
  6. If I start making exceptions to property rights, where does it end? Might I next make an exception to taxation so that revenue can be generated to pay for the coma victim’s medical bills?
  7. How to feed the poor.

I do not have good answers to the above. I am just having trouble wrapping my head around the result the A.S. system is spitting out after calculating the problem of property owner’s right to evict.

What are your thoughts?


P.S.

I also am not persuaded that we should use different terms for the same action.

Writing as I think here …

… when an innocent victim is attacked by a knife-wielding maniac, and the victim points his gun at the attacker and shoots him dead, we would call that action “shooting a man” and then we would explain why it was morally acceptable. Perhaps the victim shot the man to “stop” him rather than with the goal to “kill” him, but still, he “shot the man.”

Why then do we not say, “Aborting the baby” and then explain why. Why would we call it, “eviction?”

  • A person who shoots a man to kill him and someone who shoots a man to stop him both did the same thing. In one case, perhaps for good reason.
  • A person who aborts a baby to make their life more convenient and a rape victim who aborts a baby to evict him both did the same thing. In one case, perhaps for an acceptable reason.

We hold the word-choice-honesty of  “taxation” versus “theft” to high standards, and I suggest we should do the same in the case of “eviction” versus “abortion.”


December 22, 2022 – Update on my thinking

After a few days and nights of pondering, I remain stuck. I am thinking maybe I should narrow down the analogies to “My Neighbor, Evictor of Kidnapped Man.” I will set aside the issue of abortion for now, because it is more complex than this “problem.”


My Neighbor Joe – Evictor of Kidnapped Man

I was looking across my ranch at my neighbor Joe’s ranch. Imagine my surprise when a car turned off of the road onto Joe’s quarter mile long private driveway, went down the driveway and dumped a kidnapping victim, Bill, out of the trunk. The car sped off as Bill regained consciousness and struggled to his feet, pulling the duct tape off of his mouth and dropping it to the ground. 

“Get off my property” yelled Joe as he walked outside and got into his truck. “Yes sir, I apologize” said Bill as he began quickly limping down the driveway toward the road, making every effort to comply. 

My neighbor Joe impatiently got into his truck, and sped toward Bill, striking him from the rear at 50 MPH. Bill’s head snapped backward and a distinct crunching sound could be heard as his brain was slammed onto the hood. Bill flew into the air and landed dead on the roadway in a pool of blood. 

According to Anti-Subjectivism, my neighbor Joe did not violate the NAP, and he remains elevated above “state of nature,” as the buzzards landed on Bill. With a contented smile, even knowing he might have been slightly aesthetically uncool, Joe drove back to his house. Bill, if he were still alive, would no longer be a part of the elevated A.S. Club, because he littered on Joe’s property with the duct tape.


I don’t like that a neighbor who is an adherent to the A.S. club may shoot or run over an innocent person who is doing their best and who has never initiated violence against anyone or any other person’s property.  I also don’t like that some dude has 1,000 loaves of bread in his pantry that will rot by week’s end, and he will only use 2, and meanwhile his neighbor is starving to death.   In the latter, I 100% “get” that need or want does not rightfully transfer property rights, and that the man without bread has no right tot he property of another. I suspect that if I carry this logic to the prior example, that my “solution” should be the same.

I am coming up with a contradiction though.

  1. No person in our A.S. Club may initiate violence against another person.
  2. A  person in our A.S. Club may initiate violence against another person if that other person is on the property of the club member, even if that person had no control over arriving there.

I am not sure how to deal with this.

….

Is a moral philosophy essentially a “system” kind of like math is a system? If I am trying to equally divide 100 grapes between me and my 10 friends, division would be a good system. Rolling dice would also be a system, though I subjectively judge it not to be as good.  If a system does not “do the job” of dividing grapes equally, or in the case of A.S. as it relates to trespass, if it produces a result that, “ain’t right man” should I continue using that system? Is “that ain’t right man” simply a feelz, and screw Bill, life ain’t always fun?


Thought experiments posted on January 5, 2023

Jack, Jill and I didn’t like some of the arbitrariness in Anti-Subjectivism (A.S.), so we created our own moral philosophy/club, and with the help of Bitwarden’s club name generator, named it: ClubFFUFe&P@jRnC4KDBDPHJbx9sxyr#GWcajfog4vUTGGUsE$R3%. We agree with A.S. that all moral philosophies inherently have some arbitrariness, so fasten your seatbelts as we introduce ours. 

Regarding the issue of trespass, I wonder if perhaps there is a distinction between voluntary and involuntary trespassers. This is a foundational assumption, which is arbitrary and possibly necessary.   After contemplating, Jack, Jill and I decided the following will be the position of ClubFFUFe&P@jRnC4KDBDPHJbx9sxyr#GWcajfog4vUTGGUsE$R3%. about trespassing:

There are two categories of trespassers.

Category 1

The first category of trespassers are people who do so when they should have reasonably known they were not allowed on the property. 

I do not know how we would decide “reasonableness.” For example, in rural areas throughout the world, property owners are generally benevolent and want to help other people who are having trouble. An edge case example would be a motorist whose battery dies, and another motorist stops to help them, but neither of them have jumper cables. Hanging on the inside of the ranch gate beside the road is a pair of jumper cables. On the gate is a note saying, “we are gone for the week, please hold UPS deliveries.” 

It could be argued that reasonableness in this situation would be to assume the property owners intent would be to allow his property to be entered by six inches, and his jumper cable property borrowed for 5 minutes and returned undamaged. These are assumptions though, not an explicit agreement. 

Walking up to the ranch house and shop and searching around and finding a hide-a-key, and using it to access the shop to retrieve a pair of jumper cables might be assumed to be unreasonable, especially if there were not exigent circumstances like a car full of little children, and predicted sub-zero temperatures that night, in which case, a reasonable country boy would assume that people would find the key and grab the pair of jumper cables.

A problem: With the first example of getting the  jumper cables, the assumption is that 99% of the time, the rancher would be OK with this. What about the other 1% of the time, when the rancher’s neighbor(agent) puts a bullet through the skull of the man grabbing the jumper cables, who is the bad guy?

There are probably other edge cases that would bring to light some gray areas relating to reasonableness. Generally, if a property has a fence around it, that is a signal not to trespass. If a property without a fence is obviously owned, one should not trespass. 

 

Category 2.

Now let’s examine a second category of trespassers, when one trespasses due to no fault of their own. This category of trespassers include several scenarios. 

  • A kidnap victim being dumped. 
  • A person with down syndrome and Alzheimer’s who wanders onto a property.
  • A human being being created inside a woman when the woman did not consent to the process. (pregnancy from rape)
  • An invited guest, who, after entering the property, is ordered to leave by the property owner. (You invite your neighbor for dinner, and he ends up being a jerk and you tell him he needs to leave)
  • A person falls off his balcony and lands balanced (without grabbing onto) the flagpole of the separate property under him.

 

The allowable options for removal/evictions are different for each category of trespassers. The reason that there is a difference has to do with our club’s reciprocal agreement being that we will not initiate violence against those who have not initiated violence. This principle is examined when deciding the category of trespasser. 

Category 2 trespassers did not initiate violence against the property, they became trespassers due to no fault of their own, and since they did not therefore initiate violence, they may not be treated as a person would be treated who did initiate violence against property by trespassing.

 

Thus, members of our ClubFFUFe&P@jRnC4KDBDPHJbx9sxyr#GWcajfog4vUTGGUsE$R3% agree to the following:

  1. Category 1 trespassers may be removed by the property owner or their agent using any amount of force the property owner desires, and the safety of the trespasser is absolutely irrelevant.
  2. Category 2 trespassers may be removed by the property owner in any manner that is reasonable, taking into consideration the well-being of the trespasser. This category of people must leave in a “reasonable” amount of time. Reasonableness is determined by a number of factors, including age, physical ability, etc and the spirit of the rule is that reasonableness is, “As fast as one can safely exit the premises, causing the least amount of harm to the property owner.”

A Category 2 example of reasonableness, as would likely become part of case law as various DRO’s and their juries handled cases over the years, might be that on a 100-ft flat driveway in pleasant weather, the time allowed for a trespasser to leave would be based off of the following approximate schedule:

  • 1 minute for able bodies persons aged 10 to 70 – no damage to driveway
  • 2 minutes for able-bodied old folks  – no damage to driveway.
  • 3 minutes for people in wheelchairs – ruts in the gravel allowed from wheelchair wheels
  • Etc

Next, I worked on challenges and edge cases to destroy my above 1-5-23 ideas.

If various clubs like ClubFFUFe&P@jRnC4KDBDPHJbx9sxyr#GWcajfog4vUTGGUsE$R3% or the Anit-Subjectivists are able to set arbitrary rules for their members, what is the limit?

  • I feel like it is not good to initiate violence.
  • I feel like it is reasonable for a wheelchair trespasser to take three minutes to leave.
  • I feel like we all ought to chip in 38% of our income to help cover club costs.
  • I feel like club members should avoid the baggage-laden terms “eviction” and “abortion” when discussing the dismembering of babies in the fetus stage of their life, and instead use the term, “Suck the head off a human baby’s body with a sterile suction hose” in place of abortion or eviction.

 

An edge case that plays the devil’s advocate to my suggestion is as follows. A hospital in Houston makes the wonderfully  moral choice to stop accepting tax money grants, and grows tired of dealing with its expensive orphan quadriplegic population, so they evict these these non-paying patients as follows. They  initiate violence against the property of a West Texas rancher, air dropping a dozen quadriplegic orphans onto the ranchers headquarters each day. This case calls into question the moral philosophy questions that the rancher faces.

  1. According to ClubFFUFe&P@jRnC4KDBDPHJbx9sxyr#GWcajfog4vUTGGUsE$R3% rules, the rancher may evict them, but only in a way that does not unreasonably harm the people. What rules or codes are members of the Anti-Subjectivist Club bound by?
  2. Is it then a moral obligation for the rancher to purchase a bunch of ambulances and higher medical staff to safely evict the people? 
  3. Since it is probable that if the rancher simply deposits the quadriplegics just beyond his property line onto the highway that only has one car drive by each day, that the quadriplegic orphans will not survive, does this put an onus on the rancher to be caretaker for this growing multitude of quadriplegic orphans for the rest of their lives? 
  4. Would it be acceptable for the rancher to humanely euthanize the quadriplegics  with his sword and dump them in a ravine a half-mile from his house? (The rancher would not want to litter on a private highway, which is a 3-hour bumpy ride away to his closest property line.)
  5. If it is a 3-hour drive over bumpy roads causing wear and tear and fuel expenses for the rancher’s vehicle to drive the trespassers to the edge of his property, why must he do this? “Positive rights” don’t exist, do they?

 

If there are not separate categories for trespassers, and if I invite someone into my property or onto my property, and I decide that I would like them to leave, why may I not evict them using whatever means of force I choose to use? 

I may evict the kidnapped victim who was dropped off at my house, and I may also evict the neighbor who I invited over for dinner, who,  after an argument I decided that I wanted him to leave. What if I waited a tenth of a second after ordering them to leave, and then blew them to smithereens?  

What if I evict a child that I begged my husband to impregnate me with, when the child was only 4 days from being naturally born?

First of all (at the end) can A.S. and ClubFFUFe&P@jRnC4KDBDPHJbx9sxyr#GWcajfog4vUTGGUsE$R3%. rightfully be called “clubs?” In other words, are “clubs” and “moral philosophies” different in terms of how I think of them above.