/liberty/ - Liberty

>>65311

retarded fucking bullshit.

>>65311

That's not just a non-issue when roads are private, you also didn't mention the problem of attribution, when that's one of the main problems whenever A causes B to harm C. Obviously, you're not responsible for the actions of every single person you come into contact with. There must be some criterion to limit your liability for what other people do.

>>65317

>Limited liability

Well that's a given, a private institution is not 100% liable for all negative externalities on their doorstep, but poor planning on their part (such as a college with only 10,000 dorm beds available accepting 15,000, maybe 25,000 out-of-city students) should be liable for some damages or should be liable for showing their plans and actions to try and mitigate those damages. This is part of the liability of ownership. While convoluted as a whole, it's a bunch of micro-NAP violations that create such a complex issue as liability for property. It's not much different than letting your pets roam free in the front yard.

>When the roads are private

It can be depending on how the roads are private. A private road on the side that goes into a private institution wouldn't have this issue. A main road that the institution buys land and builds along has a more contractual relationship with the road where it might be owned by someone else, it might be owned by the institution, or it might very well be commonly owned by a collection of businesses or private actors who each have to contribute X towards its maintenance (not the same thing as socialist or public roads, fyi to any anons who aren't private property libertarians reading this).

>>65312

Those who make claims without backing up their opinion with logic or rhetoric can be dismissed without logic or rhetoric.

Go fuck yourself with a cactus.

>>65323

The liability statement was using XOr logic, not Or logic. That is, either liable for some of the damages if they won't correct the mistake they caused as determined by a court of law or liable for showing a plan to mitigate it in the near-future such as an overhead bridge to redirect pedestrian traffic in this scenario.

>>65323

>It's not much different than letting your pets roam free in the front yard.

It's completely different, because you're not letting pets roam free, but are inviting human beings who have free will and are responsible for their own actions, and in your OP, they didn't even break anything. If you create a flashmob of ten thousand people in a rural neighborhood and they set a truck on fire, then we can talk about your responsibility, but that wasn't your scenario. Your scenario was that the streets would have way too much traffic and so driving would become riskier, but no single person could be held liable for that result. So basically, you're held liable not for the actions of others, but for the aggregate result of their actions.

Again, if you invite too many people over and then they violate the NAP, we can talk about your liability for their actions. When they instead cause damage by their aggregated actions which they cannot be held responsible for, when the individual actions are all lawful, and when the property owners involved took no measures to lower the risk for themselves or those on their property (by limiting the number of drivers on the road), then I don't see strong grounds for liability. It's possible, like when you cause a stampede by not organizing a festival correctly. That happened in Germany during a Love Parade, but in that case, the visitors didn't know what was happening, while the organizers could've anticipated the stampede.

>>65311

>>65323

Imo, In front of this higher demand, prices will raise too. Maybe this can discourage people to come and subscribe to the university, same about the roads.

in the other hand, businesses can take advantage of the situation and make higher profits that allow them to expand their business in order to absorb the demand efficiently.

The only reason you should be punished if your pet bites someone is that you 'are' your pet. I'm not responsible if I piss someone off and he goes out and kills someone. He is.