Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are missing that even the definition of "voluntary" is fluid. If you assault me, was I "voluntarily" assaulted? If you yell insults at me, was I "voluntarily" insulted? If seeing black people on my bus offends me, was I "voluntarily" offended if you are black and get on a bus I am riding?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to say it, but the above attempt at argument appear to be nothing more than a form of intellectual gamesmanship, devoid of real merit. You appear to be playing a definition game or dividing line game but are ignoring the commonsense interpretation of such things.

If someone assaults you and hits you very hard, they aggressed against you and caused you injury, and objectively so. If someone merely insults you, though, you are free not to be hurt (it may be difficult, but you can realize that it it is their problem not yours, and choose not to nurse hurt feelings for long). If some punches you in the nose, though, you cannot avoid being hurt, and objectively so. A bloody nose is not just a perceived injury.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then, if someone trespasses on a remote part of my property and sets up camp, has he done anything to hurt me, assuming he isn't damaging the value of the land? He hasn't done anything to physically harm me, but maybe seeing him there annoys me. Have I been aggressed against? How is the offense I take to this any less voluntary the the offense I take if you hurl insults at me?

I think the answers here depend on a particular definition of "ownership" and "property" that are not necessarily common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the property owner is typically much harmed in your example, especially if he owns a very large tract. If he has plans or usage for the spot of land the squatter's camp is on, the answer could change, and it could change if many similar squatters set up camps on his land.