Human Shields, Missiles, Negative Homesteading and Libertarianism

• Autorzy: Walter E. Block
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

When a bad guy throws one innocent person against another, or uses one as a body shield so as to facilitate murdering the other, or is in the process of bashing in the heads of two such people, what are the rights and responsibilities of each of these latter two victimized parties vis a vis each other? The concept of negative homesteading is introduced in an attempt to shed light on these legal puzzles. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Freedom; Social philosophy; Economic freedom; Law philosophy; Libertarianism

PL

Wolność; Filozofia społeczna; Wolność gospodarcza; Filozofia prawa; Libertarianizm

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review
• Rocznik: 2019
• Numer: tom 25, nr 1
• Strony: 9--22

Twórcy

autor

Walter E. Block

• Loyola University New Orleans, United States

Bibliografia

• Alexander, L. (1993). Self-defense, justification, and excuse. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(1), 53-66.
• Block, W. E. (2010). Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: A critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 22, 127-70. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdf.
• Block, W. E. (2011). The human body shield. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 22, 625-630. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf.
• Clark, M. (2000). Self-defense against the innocent. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17(2), 145-155.
• Di Nucci, E. (2013). Self-sacrifice and the trolley problem. Philosophical Psychology, 26, 662-672. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2012.674664scroll=top&needAccess=true.
• Diamond, A. M. (1980). F. A. Hayek on constructivism and ethics. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 4(4), 353-366. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_4/4_4_2.pdf.
• Edmonds, D. (2014). Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us About Right and Wrong. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Feser, E. (2010). Reply to Block on libertarianism is unique. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 22, 261-272. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_13.pdf.
• Hayek, F. A. (1973-1979). Law, Legislation and Liberty, 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Heinlein, R. (1961). Stranger in a Strange Land. New York, NY: Putnam.
• Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 551-560. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400?src=recsys.
• Liao, M, Wiegmann, A., Alexander, J., Vong, G. (2012). Putting the trolley in order: Experimental philosophy and the loop case. Philosophical Psychology, 25(5), 661-671. Retrieved January10, 2017 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2011.627536?src=recsys.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
• Otsuka, M. (1994). Killing the innocent in self-defense. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 23(1), 74-94.
• Otsuka, M. (2003). Killing the innocent in self-defense. In M. Otsuka, Libertarianism Without Inequality (66-85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rothbard, M. N. (1984). Eric Mack and the anarchist case for war. Libertarian Forum, 18(5-6), 3-7.
• Sinhababu, N. (2014). Review of Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us About Right and Wrong by David Edmonds. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(4), 818-819.
• Statman, D. (2006). Supreme emergencies revisited. Ethics, 117, 58-79.
• Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395-1415.
• Thomson, J. J. (1991). Self-defense. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20, 283-310.
• Wasserman, D. (1987). Justifying self-defense. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16(4), 356-378.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.19195/2084-4093.25.1.1