How would you handle exceptional cases in a free society?

[Libertus]

So, if he wants to be able to do something that anyone is allowed to do, he must enter into a contract with someone else to "earn" that freedom?  A person's freedom depends on how physically imposing they are?

 

In a free society, I would assume, roads are privately owned - so, no, not everybody is allowed on roads (get caught driving drunk once and you're out - because insurance companies won't cover you) and yes, you need to enter into a contract in order to use other people's property, anything else would be taking away another person's freedom - the road owner's. Are you saying road owners shouldn't have any rights?

[Des]

4) He's kind of a pet, kind of a slave.  He's a member of the species, and can reproduce with their queens/princesses, but before the human interference he wasn't really self-aware.

If he is aware enough to start an uprising which threatens my life, I want to treat him as a moral agent. My preference is that we each make treaty with each of them. In that case he is a slave and I advocate his freedom. If he is no threat to me (but the females are), I want a treaty with the females and to specify non-cruel treatment of their pet males in that treaty. Yes, this is about my self-preservation (and about my distaste for cruelty to animals). Is that wrong?

 

If we don't have a treaty and you were cruel to your pet, I'll keep your pet, if I have him and can defend him from you. How would you make your case against me doing that?

[AncapFTW]

In a free society, I would assume, roads are privately owned - so, no, not everybody is allowed on roads (get caught driving drunk once and you're out - because insurance companies won't cover you) and yes, you need to enter into a contract in order to use other people's property, anything else would be taking away another person's freedom - the road owner's. Are you saying road owners shouldn't have any rights?

Are you saying that the road owner would have to do things your way, IE, require superhumans to have "handlers"?

[Merrifield]

So, in your opinion, no harm was done, despite the extreme chance of harm, therefore no punishment is warranted?

No.

When the threat has passed you cannot retaliate using violence.  The drunk driver that hit you still violated you and you may seek restitution. Restitution may take on a form other than monetary payment.  An example would be an agreement to have no future contact enforced by a monetary bond.  

Restitution, not retaliation, must satisfy any need for revenge.

[Libertus]

Are you saying that the road owner would have to do things your way, IE, require superhumans to have "handlers"?

 

No, I'm predicting that it would not be profitable for any road owner to allow a loose canon type of superhuman on their roads. A guy that can flip over a truck and is known for his temper would most probably not be allowed on most private roads where paying customers are concerned about their safety. This is a very basic economic argument.

[AncapFTW]

No, I'm predicting that it would not be profitable for any road owner to allow a loose canon type of superhuman on their roads. A guy that can flip over a truck and is known for his temper would most probably not be allowed on most private roads where paying customers are concerned about their safety. This is a very basic economic argument.

You're assuming that he has a history of this, but yeah, that makes sense.

[Libertus]

Thanks. I admit I'm assuming, but dealing with comic book characters isn't an exact science anyway.