Cue-Ball
Regular Member
imported post
This topic got started in another thread (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=3612&forum_id=52), and has been touched on in many threads on this forum. So, I figured that we might as well bring it up for discussion. Here's the gist of the argument: Where does one person's rights end and anothers begin?
We have essentially three broad-based rights in this country: The right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property. Where do these rights begin and end, and how do we manage the overlap? Before we can answer these questions we first must determine what these rights actually mean. My definitions are as follows: The right to life means that you cannot be hurt or killed by another person against your will. The right to liberty means that you can do anything you want to yourself or to another consenting person. This includes the right to free speech, the right to assembly, freedom of religion, etc. The right to property means that you are free to do with your own property as you like, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
The question comes down to, in the event of two clashing rights, which one is the more important? I would maintain that the right to life outstrips all others. While I have a right to practice my swordfighting technique, that right ends as soon as I harm a non-consenting person. I have a right to property, but I cannot murder you for walking up my driveway and knocking on the door. For these reasons, I think most everyone can agree that right to life trumps all.
So, now we must decide which order to put the other two rights in; property then liberty, or liberty then property. If we say that liberty trumps property, then that means that my right to move about freely is more important than someone else's right to property. So, I could essentially stand on your front lawn and shout obscenities (freedom of speech). I could walk into your house, sit down on your couch, and watch your TV (freedom of travel). I could enter your church and begin preaching a different religion (freedom of speech and freedom of religion). Basically, anything would go, as long as I don't harm another person or prevent them from speaking, belieiving in a different god, etc. Now, personally, I don't think these are things that any normal society would be willing to put up with, so we need to look at the other option, which is property over liberty. In the case of property over liberty, if you say something I don't like, I can force you to leave and practice your freedom of speech elsewhere. If I run a church and you choose to practice another religion, I can force you to leave and practice your freedom of religion elsewhere. If I own a few acres of land, I can let my friend Joe hunt on my land, but make you go elsewhere. To me, it seems like property overrides liberty in the sense that you have to make the choice between coming on my property and possibly forfeiting some of your liberties, or keeping all of your liberty but having to go somewhere else (your own property or the property of someone willing to tolerate your behavior).
Now, in both of these cases we have undesireable side effects. If we let property override liberty then people can be discriminated against. If we let liberty override property then there is no way to be safe and secure in your property and posessions, nor is there any way to remove undesireables from your property. It would appear that the bad effects of having property override liberty (again, you're always free to do whatever you want on your OWN property) are not as bad as letting liberty override property.
I'm curious what other people think about this and how it applies in certain situations. Do you think that the right to carry a weapon is the same as the right to life, or do property rights overrule the Second Amendment (I believe the latter). If property rights are higher on the totem pole than other liberties, doesn't that mean that store owners would be able to discriminate against people they don't like? Are there cases where these rules should not be hard and fast, but that we need to curb the right to property? Examples of this would be anti-discrimination laws (ie: I can own property, but can't keep you out simply because of gender or race). What about private property versus public accomodation? Are these one and the same, or is my private residence held to a different standard than a shopping mall or pub? If these things are different, how and why are they different and what laws apply?
This topic got started in another thread (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=3612&forum_id=52), and has been touched on in many threads on this forum. So, I figured that we might as well bring it up for discussion. Here's the gist of the argument: Where does one person's rights end and anothers begin?
We have essentially three broad-based rights in this country: The right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property. Where do these rights begin and end, and how do we manage the overlap? Before we can answer these questions we first must determine what these rights actually mean. My definitions are as follows: The right to life means that you cannot be hurt or killed by another person against your will. The right to liberty means that you can do anything you want to yourself or to another consenting person. This includes the right to free speech, the right to assembly, freedom of religion, etc. The right to property means that you are free to do with your own property as you like, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
The question comes down to, in the event of two clashing rights, which one is the more important? I would maintain that the right to life outstrips all others. While I have a right to practice my swordfighting technique, that right ends as soon as I harm a non-consenting person. I have a right to property, but I cannot murder you for walking up my driveway and knocking on the door. For these reasons, I think most everyone can agree that right to life trumps all.
So, now we must decide which order to put the other two rights in; property then liberty, or liberty then property. If we say that liberty trumps property, then that means that my right to move about freely is more important than someone else's right to property. So, I could essentially stand on your front lawn and shout obscenities (freedom of speech). I could walk into your house, sit down on your couch, and watch your TV (freedom of travel). I could enter your church and begin preaching a different religion (freedom of speech and freedom of religion). Basically, anything would go, as long as I don't harm another person or prevent them from speaking, belieiving in a different god, etc. Now, personally, I don't think these are things that any normal society would be willing to put up with, so we need to look at the other option, which is property over liberty. In the case of property over liberty, if you say something I don't like, I can force you to leave and practice your freedom of speech elsewhere. If I run a church and you choose to practice another religion, I can force you to leave and practice your freedom of religion elsewhere. If I own a few acres of land, I can let my friend Joe hunt on my land, but make you go elsewhere. To me, it seems like property overrides liberty in the sense that you have to make the choice between coming on my property and possibly forfeiting some of your liberties, or keeping all of your liberty but having to go somewhere else (your own property or the property of someone willing to tolerate your behavior).
Now, in both of these cases we have undesireable side effects. If we let property override liberty then people can be discriminated against. If we let liberty override property then there is no way to be safe and secure in your property and posessions, nor is there any way to remove undesireables from your property. It would appear that the bad effects of having property override liberty (again, you're always free to do whatever you want on your OWN property) are not as bad as letting liberty override property.
I'm curious what other people think about this and how it applies in certain situations. Do you think that the right to carry a weapon is the same as the right to life, or do property rights overrule the Second Amendment (I believe the latter). If property rights are higher on the totem pole than other liberties, doesn't that mean that store owners would be able to discriminate against people they don't like? Are there cases where these rules should not be hard and fast, but that we need to curb the right to property? Examples of this would be anti-discrimination laws (ie: I can own property, but can't keep you out simply because of gender or race). What about private property versus public accomodation? Are these one and the same, or is my private residence held to a different standard than a shopping mall or pub? If these things are different, how and why are they different and what laws apply?