Employer diarming question

[DanM]

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

Imo, the sole and final arbiter of who or what is allowed on the property ought to fall to one person only: the property owner.

Private property used for non-public activity (e.g. a residence): yes. Private property used for public activity (e.g. a business): no. An owner of the latter may own the property, but he does not own hiscustomers or hisemployees. As long as they are conducting themselves lawfully and peaceably, such an owner is not ethically justified to dictate things at whim to those who are on his property in the course of the mere economic exchange that all are engaged in. Put another, more succinct way: consent toeconomic exchange does not automatically confer any powers beyond that sphere, for any of the parties.

As I've mentioned before, some states' legislators grasp this ethical principle and push for rightful protections for customers' and employees' fundamental rights. A recent example of this is the airline passengers' "bill of rights". No longer can an airline be "the sole and final arbiter of what is allowed" on their property (the airplane) and keep customers or employees held in a delayed airplane on the ground for more than a couple of hours. Another example closer to home is here in Michigan, proposed legislation to prohibit employers frombeing"the sole and final arbiter of what is allowed" on their property andbanning their employees from lawfully storing firearms in employees' vehicles parked on the employer's property.

But, according to your view that property owners should be"the sole and final arbiter of who or what is allowed on the property", we would not have these fundamental protections for our individual rights from the purely irrelevant, unnecessary, and dictatorial whims of the property owners. If you do not see the folly of your view, you should give it more thought.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

People working hard for a buisiness, VS. People dying for their counrtys freedoms. Doesnt exactly balance the scales does it?

If you get kicked out of a buisiness for being boisterous, nude, or dry fire practice in the produce section, I agree, thats fine, and expected. There is no amendment for being an imbusil, so there is no protection for it.

OK , I'm gonna throw up my *Food For Thought Disclaimer* again...

Did not people die for their fellow citizens' right to own and administer their property as well?

*/Disclaimer*

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post


666 posts

 

[DanM]

imported post

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

Did not people die for their fellow citizens' right to own and administer their property as well?

No. I'm sure people did not sacrifice their lives to defend the idea that anowner of private property used in the course of public business hasdictatorialpower over his customers or employees. See my post above asserting the ethical argument againstthat andciting two very relevant examples of that ethical argument as the foundation of real life legislation toattempt torightfully reign itin.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

DanM wrote:

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

Did not people die for their fellow citizens' right to own and administer their property as well?

No. I'm sure people did not sacrifice their lives to defend the idea that anowner of private property used in the course of public business hasdictatorialpower over his customers or employees. See my post above asserting the ethical argument againstthat andciting two very relevant examples of that ethical argument as the foundation of real life legislation toattempt torightfully reign itin.

I am aware, and your examples are sound. I was merely referring to Stainless' wording... and using 'administer' in a more general way than your post is referring to.

As I have said, I'm conflicted on this issue, so I'm not taking sides, merely offering observations to help drive the conversation in an effort to reach a personal conclusion.

 

[CoonDog]

imported post

DanM wrote:

Put another, more succinct way: consent toeconomic exchange does not automatically confer any powers beyond that sphere, for any of the parties.

It's precisely because economic exchange must be based upon mutual consent, that the owner has the say. He is merely removing his consent to the exchange! One cannot be forced to enter into trade. So he declines to trade and asks the person to leave. This is about control over one's property, which is an extension of his labor, which is an extension of himself. Who controls me? Can you force me to trade with you? Imo, that would constitute theft.

No, I disagree. If I meet you on the street, I can decide to trade with you or not based upon any number of factors, whether these factors are known to you or not. This is freedom of association. No government or entity can dictate to me with whom I must associate and/or trade in the scenario of the public street. How does this weaken when I enter my own private property? It doesn't, so I decide not to trade with you and ask you to leave my property. Or, I can decide not to employ you and ask you to leave. The reason is irrelevant. We're talking about the control and disposal of private property. If I own it, I control it. If state dictate controls it, then there is only the illusion of private property ownership.

As I've mentioned before, some states' legislators grasp this ethical principle...

The logical extension of your "ethical principle" is that the state owns all private property because it controls the disposal of all private property. To that I would suggest that you be careful what principle you support, as you might just get it: state ownership of all private property.

 

[DanM]

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

DanM wrote:

Put another, more succinct way: consent toeconomic exchange does not automatically confer any powers beyond that sphere, for any of the parties.

It's precisely because economic exchange must be based upon mutual consent, that the owner has the say. He is merely removing his consent to the exchange! One cannot be forced to enter into trade.

This is true, and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about, once the business ownermakes the decision toopen his property up and takeon customers and/or employees, there do ethically exist ground rules as torightful limits on his power over their fundamental rights. Again, see my examples of the airlines and Michigan employers above, and the actual or proposed laws to limit their intrusive, unnecessary dictates on their customers and employees fundamental rights. This is not about taking away their freedom to associate. This is saying, "If you so choose to associate in business on your property, you cannot unjustifiably trample on the fundamental rights of your customers and employees." Codified law at the federal and state levelis chock full of restrictions on employers with respect to what they can do with employees and customers. Many restrictions I do not agree with, however I have no bones with clearly justifiable restrictions on businesses with regard to unnecessary infringement on their customers' and employees' fundamental rights.

The logical extension of your "ethical principle" is that the state owns all private property because it controls the disposal of all private property. To that I would suggest that you be careful what principle you support, as you might just get it: state ownership of all private property.

No. Ownership of private property is not questioned, and neither is disposal of it. The ethical principle is, "If an owner so chooses to dispose of his private property in the conduct of business engaged with customers and employees, he may not unnecessarily abrogate the fundamental rights of customers or employees."