Constitutional Rights vs. the rights of property owners

ATM said:

No, that concept is merely an artificial construct employed in an attempt to justify certain statutory limitations against property owners.

Click to expand...

+1.

None of those individual citizens nor even the whole of the collective could possibly delegate to the government any just authority or power to violate the rights of individuals to choose for themselves in every instance to whom and under what circumstances they may consent or refuse to provide property access or services. ....

Click to expand...

Some folks believe that individual rights are rightly subject to a vote.

I have been meaning to weigh in on this subject, however I was hoping someone else would make my argument before I did.

First off, corporations should never be considered to have 'private' property in the same sense that a man does. I will stop on that line to prevent me from de-railing this thread. If you to discuss it start a new social lounge thread.

After much thought, rights cannot crush each other. Also, in a free society, you would have to recognize and accept the, natural/god given/creator endowed, rights of others. The right to defend one's self is one such right. When a private man invites any other man (male/female/other) the recognition of those rights must be part of the invite. This means that you understand that if your guest is attacked that they have the right to defend themself and have their tools to beable to do this. This is part of the cost of being a host.

If you have the power to strip the rights of others while others visit then you must incure all liability for any injury that is suffered due to the stripping of any rights.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

I have been meaning to weigh in on this subject, however I was hoping someone else would make my argument before I did.

First off, corporations should never be considered to have 'private' property in the same sense that a man does. I will stop on that line to prevent me from de-railing this thread. If you to discuss it start a new social lounge thread.

After much thought, rights cannot crush each other. Also, in a free society, you would have to recognize and accept the, natural/god given/creator endowed, rights of others. The right to defend one's self is one such right. When a private man invites any other man (male/female/other) the recognition of those rights must be part of the invite. This means that you understand that if your guest is attacked that they have the right to defend themself and have their tools to beable to do this. This is part of the cost of being a host.

If you have the power to strip the rights of others while others visit then you must incure all liability for any injury that is suffered due to the stripping of any rights.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Again private business does NOT deny rights, they deny access/revoke the invitation. Which they can legally, and constitutionally do. If a person fails to leave when told, they are arrested for trespass.

There is no right to access.

Freedom1Man said:

I have been meaning to weigh in on this subject, however I was hoping someone else would make my argument before I did.

First off, corporations should never be considered to have 'private' property in the same sense that a man does. I will stop on that line to prevent me from de-railing this thread. If you to discuss it start a new social lounge thread.

After much thought, rights cannot crush each other. Also, in a free society, you would have to recognize and accept the, natural/god given/creator endowed, rights of others. The right to defend one's self is one such right. When a private man invites any other man (male/female/other) the recognition of those rights must be part of the invite. This means that you understand that if your guest is attacked that they have the right to defend themselves and have their tools to be able to do this. This is part of the cost of being a host.

If you have the power to strip the rights of others while others visit then you must incur all liability for any injury that is suffered due to the stripping of any rights.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

If you are invited to enter, yet your firearm is not, what then. The point behind private [not government/public owned property] property rights is that your rights do not trump the property owner's property rights while you are on his property. You are not compelled to remain if you disagree with the conditions of entry.

Freedom1Man said:

If you have the power to strip the rights of others while others visit then you must incure all liability for any injury that is suffered due to the stripping of any rights.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Originally Posted by Freedom1Man

If you have the power to strip the rights of others while others visit then you must incure all liability for any injury that is suffered due to the stripping of any rights.

Click to expand...

Nice thought.

As it relates to this thread, I don't recommend trying to cash that check just yet.

I would say there could be a case for some liability.

But a stronger case for the person recognizing there is a risk and still deciding to take the risk by accepting the invite.

Grapeshot said:

Nice thought.

As it relates to this thread, I don't recommend trying to cash that check just yet.

Click to expand...

I understand, I was just sharing my thoughts on this issue. I do not see it as open and shut as some of the others in this discussion.

Private property rights are open and shut, just as the 2A is open and shut...is it not?

OC for ME said:

Private property rights are open and shut, just as the 2A is open and shut...is it not?

Click to expand...

This is about actual rights crossing.

Since the 2A is open and shut, I am saving up for my very own nuclear device. [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

This is about actual rights crossing.

Since the 2A is open and shut, I am saving up for my very own nuclear device. [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Please list our actual rights as well as those not actual rights.

OC for ME said:

Please list our actual rights as well as those not actual rights.

Click to expand...

The actual righta are too great to list.

I can give a partial list of not actual rights.

You do not have the right to strip others of their rights (except in cases of punishment), nor do you have the right to police protection, nor the right to destroy the property of others, ....

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

This thread is becoming more interesting for example, corporations that deny employees and customers (we known who they are) the right to defend themselves and their families from bodily harm or death due in part to the corporations rules and regulations could be held liable in the event some crazy person walks in and starts shooting at people, people that are unable to protect themselves because they were following the rules and regulations of the corporation. Think of all the GFZ places that would be civilly accountable in the event of some mad man shooting up the place... Unless of course they post signs stating GFZ enter at your own risk of bodily harm or death at the hands of a madman because we do not allow people to protect themselves and their families in our establishment...

Possibly if there is more civil action against the anti corporations for denying folks proper defense of life and limb, the rules and regulations will get changed.

My .02

CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

This thread is becoming more interesting for example, corporations that deny employees and customers (we known who they are) the right to defend themselves and their families from bodily harm or death due in part to the corporations rules and regulations could be held liable in the event some crazy person walks in and starts shooting at people, people that are unable to protect themselves because they were following the rules and regulations of the corporation. Think of all the GFZ places that would be civilly accountable in the event of some mad man shooting up the place... Unless of course they post signs stating GFZ enter at your own risk of bodily harm or death at the hands of a madman because we do not allow people to protect themselves and their families in our establishment...

Possibly if there is more civil action against the anti corporations for denying folks proper defense of life and limb, the rules and regulations will get changed.

My .02

CCJ

Click to expand...

Good luck with that. The corporate money to fight that is far greater than what I would expect could be raised by us and friends IF we could get standing to pursue.

Freedom1Man said:

...If you have the power to strip the rights of others while others visit then you must incure all liability for any injury that is suffered due to the stripping of any rights.

Click to expand...

You keep returning to this 'stripping the rights of others' without explaining what you mean.

Making property attendance conditional does not strip me of any right. I may choose to exercise my rights elsewhere or volunteer to not exercise certain rights in order to enter or remain on their property.

They can't just disarm me (strip my right to keep and bear arms) when I show up, but they can make me leave. No rights get crushed or even cross if I choose to meet their conditions of entry or if they don't allow me to remain on their property for any reason since I have no right to be there.

ATM said:

You keep returning to this 'stripping the rights of others' without explaining what you mean.

Making property attendance conditional does not strip me of any right. I may choose to exercise my rights elsewhere or volunteer to not exercise certain rights in order to enter or remain on their property.

They can't just disarm me (strip my right to keep and bear arms) when I show up, but they can make me leave. No rights get crushed or even cross if I choose to meet their conditions of entry or if they don't allow me to remain on their property for any reason since I have no right to be there.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I guess what it boils down to is the nexus--if any--between exercise of rights, and government enforcement of rights.

For example, incurring liability means government involvement. Also, it is basically saying the property owner didn't actually have the right to control access to his property. He could only control access to the extent he was willing to accept government-imposed liability.

"You gotta accept the liability if you restrict rights" sounds good on the surface. But, a closer look reveals the folly--relying on government to determine liability, and which rights can be denied, and which rights are senior in order to determine whether liability exists, and...etc., etc., etc.

ATM said:

No, that concept is merely an artificial construct employed in an attempt to justify certain statutory limitations against property owners.

Click to expand...

Within your anarchist paradigm, sure. Or maybe it is a perfectly legitimate, constitutional limitation on conduct that best promotes a functional, thriving society. I'm not ignorant of, nor necessarily hostile to using the NAP as the foundation for understanding rights theory. I'm just not convinced it is the only legitimate construct to use.

ATM said:

None of those individual citizens nor even the whole of the collective could possibly delegate to the government any just authority or power to violate the rights of individuals to choose for themselves in every instance to whom and under what circumstances they may consent or refuse to provide property access or services.

Such clear abridgement of individual rights by threat of force violates the limitations of individual and government action rendering these statutory impositions illegitimate.

Click to expand...

Again, that is true within the anarchist/libertarian/NAP-based view of rights. But what if a different paradigm is legitimate? The constitution allows explicitly for eminent domain. "Just compensation" may not be what any individual wants. He may want continued ownership and control of his property. Yet the constitution permits eminent domain takings. When clear constitutional language (especially original constitutional language) conflicts with the requirements of any single construct of how rights should be understood, I start to question whether that construct is as good as some proponents claim it is.

ATM said:

Public opinion simply cannot legitimize this violation of fundamental rights. The only "change" necessary for one to advocate in restoring this fundamental individual right is to strike out the illegitimate government acts which infringe upon it.

Click to expand...

I trust that by "strike out" you mean only lawful conduct.

ATM said:

If the only thing prohibiting this necessary correction is a fear of labels and public name-calling, you'd think that those same techniques should suffice to largely curb unpopular (but completely legal) individual choices without defaulting to the force of government infringement.

Click to expand...

Possibly. But maybe not.

ATM said:

Of course not, Liberty rests upon the individuals' free will to choose, to reap or suffer the natural consequences of every choice.

Click to expand...

I recall a very fine poet praying that the same God who refines all this nation's gold would confirm the nation's soul in self-control and our liberty in law. I do not believe that maximum liberty is achieved in an anarchist (non)-society. I know others disagree with me. I simply point out that there are other points of view.

I believe that both totalitarianism and anarchy tend to result in the same end effect: bullies running roughshod without restraint. I believe a constitutional republic, with some limits on "individuals' free will to choose" tends to result in a greater degree of actual, operational liberty. This view does not result in the easy, perfectly consistent boundaries found in libertarian NAP or NIFF theory. But I think it works better in securing real, functional liberty.

ATM said:

Of course you do. Consider me shocked.

Click to expand...

It is a shame that some anarchists here have taken to treating every difference of opinion on their social/political beliefs as some kind of heresy rather than good faith disagreements.

ATM said:

What about folks who don't want to go in the direction of government controlling and limiting yet another aspect of what should be consensual contracts between individuals? Even if this particular step would benefit them personally in some way, what if they still consider it fundamentally wrong?

Click to expand...

Such persons should advocate their position passionately and civilly, knowing that part of living in a society is that we will win some and lose some. I wish I had some easy way to draw bright clear lines of where individual rights end and community interests expressed democratically start. I don't. But I'm reminded of the old saw about every complex problem having a simple answers...that is wrong. I've come to believe that NAP/NIFF (as interpreted/applied by many libertarians and most all anarchists) is that simple, but wrong answer to the complex question of how a diverse society respects individual rights while also functioning as a society.

ATM said:

I find your violation of both logic and principle disturbing. Rights do not trump rights.

Click to expand...

I respect your right to be disturbed by all kinds of things, even as I respectfully reject your characterization of my handling of logic and principle.

Charles

Citizen said:

Agreed.

I guess what it boils down to is the nexus--if any--between exercise of rights, and government enforcement of rights.

For example, incurring liability means government involvement. Also, it is basically saying the property owner didn't actually have the right to control access to his property. He could only control access to the extent he was willing to accept government-imposed liability.

"You gotta accept the liability if you restrict rights" sounds good on the surface. But, a closer look reveals the folly--relying on government to determine liability, and which rights can be denied, and which rights are senior in order to determine whether liability exists, and...etc., etc., etc.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what they are saying.

They excuse government existence as protecting rights then accept erasing of the rights as an acceptable action by government.

To me extortion doesn't count. We want to feed and cloth ourselves and have nice things. The state will ultimately kill people if they refuse to cooperate in cutting them in on that right to do so. Then folks will claim that since we capitulated to that extortion we somehow now have surrendered our control in all other areas too.

rightwinglibertarian said:

depends on what you call valid. In the sense police and judges will persecute a person for violating it and commit crimes against them, yes. In reality it certainly is not

Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution says quite clearly:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

This immediately nullifies not only this ruling but any and all rulings contrary to the Constitution. Which backs up my long held views that the firearms infringements are not laws, do not need to be obeyed and we should defend against any and all attempts to oppress free citizens

Click to expand...

Couldn't the same be said about private property owners infringing upon the right to bear arms?

I can see the disallowing of firearms, provided there's a "warranting alarm" (Person waving firearm around, brandishing, etc.) but not if a person is just going about their business with the firearm on their hip in a holster.

The Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2: SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

Also, the Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Section 3: PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Isn't a firearm considered one's property & these businesses who say "No Firearms", is that not considered to be deprived of property?

mnrobitaille said:

Couldn't the same be said about private property owners infringing upon the right to bear arms?

I can see the disallowing of firearms, provided there's a "warranting alarm" (Person waving firearm around, brandishing, etc.) but not if a person is just going about their business with the firearm on their hip in a holster.

The Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2: SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

Also, the Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Section 3: PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Isn't a firearm considered one's property & these businesses who say "No Firearms", is that not considered to be deprived of property?

Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution/BoR restricts what the government may do, not the private property owner.

Even on a state level, one's rights stop where another's begin. If a property owner says no guns, you have the choice to not enter armed or face trespass.