You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, 9-15 June 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Tenoke 09 June 2014 01:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (239)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 June 2014 03:12:30PM 5 points [-]

Did the mere presence and values of Charlie hurt Alice? In this scenario I'm inclined to say yes. Does this mean Alice has a claim to be compensated by Charlie (and Bob)? I'm inclined to say no.

Why is this a problem? The mere presence of a bunch of people who are trying to use the road at the same time as I do hurts me. That doesn't mean I have a claim against them. Or just look at any markets.

The general rule is that for Alice to assert a claim against Charlie, Charlie must have some sort of legally recognized duty towards Alice. Just showing loss is not sufficient.