/liberty/ - Liberty

>>87151

It's also unenforceable.

No. You are not obligated to save others' lives, especially if their situation is not a direct result of your own actions.

>>87161

>It's also unenforceable.

<Purchasing a service for X fee is unenforceable

your system is totally retarded anon stop shilling it in every thread

>>87161

>In my shitty made up legal system its not enforceable

>>87179

>>In my shitty made up legal system its not enforceable

Which legal system is not made up?

>>87178

>every thread

Nobody has brought up Kinsella in like months.

>>87188

>Months

This asshole brings it up at least every week (slow board) >>87161

>>87187

The moral code of the NAP.

>>87195

NAP is not a moral code

>>87151

Yeah, it's called "don't be a dick". It doesn't mean that you are required to help them without demanding compensation, or even to help them at all - just that everyone's going to realise that you're a complete shitbag if you take advantage of someone like that.

>>87243

is it an ethical principle instead?

>>87247

Yes, it is. I was gonna post a snarky remark about morality and ethics not being interchangeable, but then it got me thonkin'.

>>87247

No it is not, instead, it is a practice or a strategy that requires least 3rd parties involved for individuals to function effectively while retaining abilities to interact with each other.

Anything can be argued for with ethics, as it does not make practical arguments, so calling NAP this way reduces it to the level of theories like labor theory of value or sins against god as a basis of your system.

Try to understand, ancaps do not design the system, just merely describe the principles of economics, and the system which would allow for these principles to function best, or with least disruption. Leave it to socialists of any kind to make decisions abut others, as well as forcing them onto others. To ancaps any of them, no matter the cause, are no different from another, as they are viewed not as a goal, but a practice, and treated accordingly.

>>87151

Does the second party being under duress void any agreement they may sign, as well as the fact the first party would be in the shit for negligence if they were to let them drown?

>>87305

>Does the second party being under duress void any agreement they may sign,

If that's the case I just won't dedicate resources to saving them and they can die. Good job socialists, you killed a man with regulation.

>>87305

Yes otherwise you could duress someone into giving up all they own, go to jail for kidnap, but still have a moral right to his stuff

>>87305

IF they really are under actual duress. Negligence would have no place in a situation in which the two parties engaged have no formal business connection. Nobody has a right to medical attention no matter the circumstances. The whole point of the Law is to always consider the circumstances. The mistake of another or bad luck is not another man's fault just because they're in close proximity. It puts one in a guilty until proven innocent status.

>>87151

It's pretty evil, feel free to ostracize that person, but you can't hurt him.

>>87342

>evil but not immoral

strange system you got there ancap

>>87151

>moral wrong

Maybe. I mean, if you consider the fact that people who are drowning have been known to also drown other people with them during their panic to stay afloat then it might not be that unreasonable, a person risking their own death to save someone in exchange for some undisclosed amount of money is a pretty good deal for the person on the brink of dying imo. But I really doubt someone drowning could actually do anything coherent, people who are drowning tend to just be gasping and flapping their arms and probably wouldn't be able to answer, much less understand, some person screaming at them about getting their life savings.

>>87486

>But I really doubt someone drowning could actually do anything coherent

Remember guys in any stressful situation no person is ever ever responsible for their action no matter how they got into it. Drunk? Not responsible. On fire? Not responsible.