- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for Libertarians Regarding Interdiction
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:42 pm to Zach
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:42 pm to Zach
In one of the earlier posts, there is a link to the 'version' we're talking about.
I wouldn't imagine this is something unique to Louisiana. Other states may call it something different, though.
I wouldn't imagine this is something unique to Louisiana. Other states may call it something different, though.
0
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:44 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
I can't conceive of how interdiction in its current form could exist. My hunch is that either exile or involuntary internment arising from criminal arrest would be the alternatives.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
I've had some conversations with some libertarians where they advocate the use of private courts or agreements on the front end to arbitrate.
Just curious how this would work. You'd essentially have a free market of private court systems. One has a standard that is hard to reach and one has a standard that essentially rubber-stamps all applications. Which would have legitimacy? How do you even get a person in a mental state suggesting interdiction to cooperate?
I just think it presents some interesting questions.
Just curious how this would work. You'd essentially have a free market of private court systems. One has a standard that is hard to reach and one has a standard that essentially rubber-stamps all applications. Which would have legitimacy? How do you even get a person in a mental state suggesting interdiction to cooperate?
I just think it presents some interesting questions.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:46 pm to Joshjrn
Can you explain the 'exile' comment?
The community coming together and agreeing amongst themselves to not do business with the person or an actual, physical exile?
The community coming together and agreeing amongst themselves to not do business with the person or an actual, physical exile?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:46 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:
Just curious how this would work.
it couldn't, and i debate the anarchists on this board about it all the time
it would reduce to a system of money/force. i call it the "nino brown problem", but it could also be a "simon phoenix problem"
quote:
Which would have legitimacy?
whoever had the biggest/best guns/thugs
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
whoever had the biggest/best guns/thugs
Seems like we're teetering dangerously close to warlords in that situation.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:49 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
involuntary internment arising from criminal arrest would be the alternatives
So the person is allowed do devolve until they commit a criminal act and then that serves as the impetus to detain them (and essentially take away their ability to manage their civil affairs)?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:49 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
oh you mean like nino brown or simon phoenix?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:51 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
Your question asks for a distinction without a difference. In a libertarian paradigm, there is no such thing as "public" property. Functionally, a community deciding someone isn't welcome is identical to your deciding that someone isn't welcome on your lawn. If you ask them to leave and they refuse, you have the right to have them removed.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
haha I googled those names because I had no idea who you were talking about
I've not seen those movies, but I'd imagine something like that.
I've not seen those movies, but I'd imagine something like that.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:53 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
A person is never removed from their civil affairs. There is no concept of protecting someone from themselves. They would manage their affairs, for better or for worse, until they had no affairs left to manage.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:53 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
you don't know who simon phoenix is? you aren't that much younger than me
a guy who has 2 names on this site with rappers hasn't seen THE PRODIGAL RAP MOVIE?
fake arse bitch
quote:
I've not seen those movies,
a guy who has 2 names on this site with rappers hasn't seen THE PRODIGAL RAP MOVIE?
fake arse bitch
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:55 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:Forced interdiction would exist if there were a severe and direct threat to life.
How does the idea and the reasoning for an interdiction mesh with libertarian thought?
Would interdictions exist in a libertarian society?
Other than that, interdiction could only be imposed contractually, similar to a living will. In lieu of a contract, no seizure.
I imagine this would encourage more contracts accounting for such.
This post was edited on 1/19/14 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:55 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Your question asks for a distinction without a difference. In a libertarian paradigm, there is no such thing as "public" property. Functionally, a community deciding someone isn't welcome is identical to your deciding that someone isn't welcome on your lawn. If you ask them to leave and they refuse, you have the right to have them removed.
I'm not talking about "public" property that everyone would have a right to be on. I'm talking more day-to-day interactions.
If there are 10 houses in the 'community' and each individual owns his house, would the 9 just agree to ignore the 1 with the mental issues? That'd be more of a de facto exile and I can see how that meshes with libertarian thought. If it were a physical, "leave your house and go somewhere else" exile, then I don't see how that meshes.
But more about a possible interdict managing his affairs- absent some agreement amongst the community, is there any other mechanism that can be used to help a person who shows he cannot manage his affairs?
ETA: see you've answered some of my questions as I was typing this post
This post was edited on 1/19/14 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:57 pm to Roaad
So a person with dementia or whatnot without an interdiction clause in a contract would be free to mess their stuff up until they have no more assets/income to support themselves?
Then we get to the social safety net question... Or are we just going to allow the mentally ill (and now destitute) to wander the streets?
Then we get to the social safety net question... Or are we just going to allow the mentally ill (and now destitute) to wander the streets?
This post was edited on 1/19/14 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 1/19/14 at 12:59 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:Yes.
So a person with dementia or whatnot without an interdiction clause in a contract would be free to mess their stuff up until they have no more assets/income to support themselves?
quote:Responsibility of the family, imo
are we just going to allow the mentally ill to wander the streets?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:00 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
If the individual owns property, then of course, the community cannot forcibly remove him. In that case, you would have de facto exile as you've described.
As for the civil ramifications, again, there is no saving from one's self. If the person is incapable of handling their own affairs and unwilling to hand those affairs over to someone else voluntarily, they will have to live with the outcome.
Libertarians never promise utopia. We promise freedom. Nothing more, nothing less. That said, on a level of personal morality, I consider allowing someone to piss away their affairs as less bad than locking them in a room for no reason.
As for the civil ramifications, again, there is no saving from one's self. If the person is incapable of handling their own affairs and unwilling to hand those affairs over to someone else voluntarily, they will have to live with the outcome.
Libertarians never promise utopia. We promise freedom. Nothing more, nothing less. That said, on a level of personal morality, I consider allowing someone to piss away their affairs as less bad than locking them in a room for no reason.
This post was edited on 1/19/14 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:00 pm to Roaad
That seems like an incredibly harsh society to live in.
And I understand why the "responsibility of the family" line makes sense in theory, but I don't trust that it would be that clean in application.
And I understand why the "responsibility of the family" line makes sense in theory, but I don't trust that it would be that clean in application.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:02 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
That said, on a level of personal morality, I consider allowing someone to piss away their affairs as less bad than locking them in a room for no reason.
Interdiction does not necessarily mean physical confinement. I don't think it's an either/or situation as you've described above.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:03 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
Harsh in theory. Would you not be willing to donate to charities that would be willing to house and feed those wanderers? Would the religious not taking that yolk upon themselves?
Page 2 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News