No, that concept is merely an artificial construct employed in an attempt to justify certain statutory limitations against property owners.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I trust that by "strike out" you mean only lawful conduct.
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.
Possibly. But maybe not.
Of course not, Liberty rests upon the individuals' free will to choose, to reap or suffer the natural consequences of every choice.
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.
Of course you do. Consider me shocked.
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.
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?
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.
I find your violation of both logic and principle disturbing. Rights do not trump rights.
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