This is a "cold case" that will, statistically, never be solved.

Stop global warming!
Snowmen lives matter!
Stop global warming!
Snowmen lives matter!
Stop global warming!
Snowmen lives matter!

This is an interesting question because it could be rephrased to the following:

Let's say Tom builds a robot named Al. Al is programmed to be a conscience being like a human. One day Tom decides that he does not like Al and wants to reprogram him to be Sally. Al learns Tom wants to reprogram him. He runs to authorities and cries Murder. Tom claims Al is his property and he should be allowed to reprogram him.

The question from Objectivist point of view who is right? Tom or Al. Base on which you chose here you could apply the same reasoning to the question.

Personally I find it is a tough question and I need more think to about it.

One might be tempted to think this is a question of the prioritization of right to life vs right to property. One might even be tempted to invoke the right to Liberty upon potential assumption that Frosty (being "not fully man") might actually belong to the Magician, (as the hat was, in point of fact, the magician's hat at one time). However, possession being 9/10 of the law (under the "finders keepers" ruling est. 1492) , and with full knowledge that the hat itself has a prior history of being passed in ownership... from haberdasher to 2nd owner (whether this be magician or not is unclear)... but from the magician to the children is indeed clear then, subsequently, the children placed it on Frosty's head, another obvious transfer of ownership under the 9/10 possession provision (est. 1776). All observable. As such, one might infer that the hat must belong to Frosty under the related provision "all men are created equal" (est but simultaneously ignored 1776) AND this would include snowmen (questioned and denied under Dread Scott v Sanford 1857 and later established under The Civil Rights Act of 1866). IF the magician truly wants his hat back and wants to avoid further protest, incarceration, or extradition under current "law", his only potential legal recourse would likely require either (a) the need to lure Frosty to a non-Hague participating country with a warm perhaps tropical climate. or (b) find something of value that Frosty would take in trade. Of course, Frosty likely won't take anything in trade for his life giving hat, so it's likely that the magician will ultimately appeal to some non-Objectivist potentially violently oppressive group invoking the argument that "might makes right."

All in all, I'd venture to say that the Objectivist thought favors Frosty and his rights to life, liberty, and property on this one.

Does the fact that Frosty is just going to melt away anyway factor into the decision? His usage of the hat is only temporary.

This discussion is combining two separate issues, and introducing a theory as a fact:
1. Putting the hat on Frosty's head is what made him transition to an inorganic sentience. There is no indication that the had must remain on his head in order for him to continue in his aware state - that is a theory, not a fact.
2. The possible transition from Frosty to Melty is a separate issue. It is not hat/lack of hat that is responsible for the phase transition of Frosty to Melty. Melty is produced by the possible senticide of Frosty by the Sun.

There are some additional issues. I agree that the Magician's hat has passed through several hands/twigs and thus changed ownership. If the hat is capable of point-of-contact introduction of sentience into an inorganic creature, then a whole race of Frostys or Granitys or perhaps even Meltys could be possible. The Hat of Abiogenesis might be responsible for entire new races of various non-nucleic acid based life-forms.

This is very exciting.

Jan

This question opens some very real world issues. For example computer science is rapidly approaching the creation of a sentient, sapient, self aware computer. If this becomes reality should the computer entity have the same rights as its carbon based counterpart? How does the computers ability to perform tasks that humans cannot affect these rights? Is ownership of a self aware computer a form of slavery? Lots of questions that we may have to face sooner rather than later. Frosty and his magician creator or more real than we would like to accept.

What magician wouldn't want a snowman that comes to life? He should have signed Frosty to a big contract. He does have some negotiating leverage.

Is this a case of advanced technology (rational) appearing to be magic?
I think I have to witness and understand the technology in order to answer.

The magician participated in a pleasurable act and by injecting the hat into the process, created a living Frosty. The maximum lifespan of a snowman is from first snow to first thaw and short as it is, it is his natural life. If the magician had interrupted his act that would ultimately create a snowman, this abortion would be legal. After the fact, taking an action to eliminate the snowman is frostycide. The hat was given to frosty and cannot be taken back but may be willed to the magician, less an inheritance tax by the government upon the snowman's passing.

Magician relinquished hat of his own free will. Too bad. It is now the property of Frosty, or Anyman.
If he had given it to Goodwill, he would have to pay to get it back. That's how capitalism works.

Snowmen have no rights. And, besides, all that thumpedy thump thump, thumpedy thump thump, will drive you nuts after a while.

In the spring Frosy becomes Meltsy. He can delay the outcome by taking a job at the Popsicle plant.

Without a doubt, one of the best discussions I have ever seen on a serious forum. While humorous...okay, hysterically funny to me...it does hit on various points concerning property rights, et al. A marvelous discussion and suitable for the season!

But a truly driven entrepreneur would add flavored syrups to handfuls of Frosty and sell them in paper cones.

Uh, the rational answer is "Go away and come back when you have an actual ethical issue to discuss."

Actually, the Hat became the property of the city (Waste Management), when the Magician discarded it.

Frosty is guilty of theft of city property...30 days in jail (poor Frosty...).

The Magician is guilty of littering (1 day of community service...mopping up Frosty's cell).

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

You left out one character whose presence in the scenario makes all the difference: Santa Claus. Santa Claus agrees to take Frosty into his custody and remove him to an environment where he will never melt. He also is the source for all the magician's tools. So what he says, goes.

Besides which, the magician, in a fit of pique, disposed of his hat. In such a case, finders are definitely keepers, and losers--not just losers but those who throw things away--are weepers.

Since Frosty is not human and so is not an American Citizen he is not covered by the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution and because he is not human by the Law of God he is under our control; so if the Magican wants his property back it is his to take...that is if he can catch frosty!

You're not serious?

mspalding is this post tongue in cheek or a serious question for discussion? if tongue in cheek fine, if serious why introduce mysticism in to a discussion on an objectivist forum?