[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ck / girltalk / imouto / leftpol / lovelive / maka / sonyeon / tijuana ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 882b420c3fc6663⋯.webm (7.92 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Castlevania Theme.webm)

 No.64397

I was walking back from work today, when I saw a moving van get towed down the street. I'd assume that the towing company would claim that they have a legal right to charge money for the van's return. However, there was also probably stuff inside the van, belonging to people unaffiliated with the moving company (except as clients). This got me thinking:

Can somebody explain what differentiates stealing a car and holding it ransom vs towing a car and charging for its return? Is it the fact that the car was on private property without permission? If so, what stops people from claiming "towing rights" over anything on their property? Can I hold someone's shoes for $100 because they walked on my carpet without wiping their feet? Can I lock people in my basement until their family gives me $10,000 because they trespassed on my property? How would property rights be enforced with regards to towing in an minarchist society? Would you imagine it being different in an ancap society?

 No.64403

>>64397

Typically towing is done for fire lanes and because the state said so. There's two legitimate reasons to tow a car:

1)They didn't make payments and had their car repossessed.

2)They violated the NAP by parking somewhere explicitly labeled or implied "no parking" such as a fire lane or a no parking spot.

In both cases, the owner of the goods are responsible if they gave consent to the driver's whims knowing the situation that was going to occur and the potential consequences. If they were unaware of the situation (such as the driver not telling them he was late on payments or parking somewhere after dropping the individual off), then it is theft, but the driver is the one who effectively committed the theft, not the towing company, as the driver violated the contract (implied or written).

It's complex insomuch as equality of opportunity is complex or a machine is complex. That is to say it's the cumulative result of simple scenarios added together to produce a result.


 No.71973

>>64403

> 2)They violated the NAP by parking somewhere explicitly labeled or implied "no parking" such as a fire lane or a no parking spot.

How is parking somewhere where you are not supposed to aggression?


 No.71985

>>71973

Restricting the rightful owners' exclusive control of their property.


 No.72013

>>71973

It's trespassing as you're violating the owner's land-use policies. See >>71985




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ck / girltalk / imouto / leftpol / lovelive / maka / sonyeon / tijuana ]