Defend your right to trespass!

[Eleven Mike]

Spinoff of this thread:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=374753

Yes, I suppose you could demonstrate a right to carry a gun in Disney World. If you could demonstrate that you have a right to be there at all.

 

[divemedic]

Your underlying statement was that the state has no right to pass the law that they did. Where in the constitution is the state prohibited from passing such a law?

If there is such a provision making property rights absolute, then explain:

1 If an employer passes a workplace rule that specifies that all employees are required to submit to physical beatings, can the state outlaw such a practice? After all, the employees are free to quit.

2 If a store owner mandates that all females who enter the store are required to have sexual intercourse with the owner, is this legal?

3 A store fails to maintain its sprinkler system, and a fire starts in the building due to poorly maintained electrical wiring. Since the emergency exits were chained shut to prevent theft, 63 people were killed in the fire. Since the property owner can do as he wishes, he is free from legal liability, right?

The fact is, property rights are not, and never have been, absolute.

ETA:

Once you open your property to the public, you lose many of the protections that you have in your home.

 

[bubba1]

Do cars in a private parking lot become the property of the owner of the parking lot?

 

[Eleven Mike]

Where in the constitution is the state prohibited from passing such a law?

How would that help us to determine whether such laws are a violation of property rights? The rights guaranteed by the constitution are not an exhaustive list. But surely, states must not violate the rights of their citizens. No?

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by absolute. I didn't use that word.

Once you open your property to the public, you lose many of the protections that you have in your home.

I understand that the above quotation is a description of current legal realities. My question is why this should be so, or to what extent. As I have said, no one can claim a right to enter another person's business, against that person's wishes. So how can anyone claim the right to carry a gun therein?

1 If an employer passes a workplace rule that specifies that all employees are required to submit to physical beatings, can the state outlaw such a practice? After all, the employees are free to quit.

2 If a store owner mandates that all females who enter the store are required to have sexual intercourse with the owner, is this legal?

As you have said, employees are free to quit. And female patrons are free to avoid the store in the second example. I'm assuming the women have the choice to leave, rather than have sex. (Did you have to provide such an absurd example? ) Given that, so long as there is no breach of contract, who's rights are violated by the above examples, and how? Do you have a right to work for employer number one? Do women (or men) have a right to shop at the store in number 2?

While the first two examples are very clear cut choices, number three is much different. I suppose the full-on libertarian would say, "You went in there without fully inspecting the wiring, the doors, and the fire suppression systems. Now you're dead. Boo-freakin-hoo." But I don't think that's realistic. I don't know how to answer number three. Which is fine, as it is a very different situation from a no-gun policy.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I think that businesses should be able to set whatever rules they want. Social engineering is not the job of .gov If a shop doesn't want to cater to gun owners or women or white people or whatever, let the market shrivel their business up like a prune.

 

[divemedic]

I was merely establishing that no property rights are absolute. Now that we have established that, the question becomes one of degree.

Nowhere in the constitution is there a right to property such as you are describing. In fact, the constitution specifically spells out that your property can be taken from you, as long as you receive just compensation. Google the "Takings Clause"

My question is why this should be so, or to what extent. As I have said, no one can claim a right to enter another person's business, against that person's wishes. So how can anyone claim the right to carry a gun therein?

The Florida law does no confer the right to carry a gun in your business. It allows me to be free from punishment from my employer from having a gun on MY property, and allows me to deny my employer the ability to enter and search MY property.

As you have said, employees are free to quit. And female patrons are free to avoid the store in the second example.

and just to be clear, you are specifically stating that an employer should have a legal and moral right to beat and sexually assault invitees and employees, simply because they are on his property?

If a shop doesn't want to cater to gun owners or women or white people or whatever, let the market shrivel their business up like a prune.

What you are talking about here is pure democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. The difference is that the constitution protects the rights of the minority. If this were not the case, we would not have the protections of free speech or of religion.

 

[H088]

I think if your place of business is open to the public then it needs to conform to state laws regarding CCWs, if its private, IE my house then no it doesn't.

 

[Cosmoline]

Ho88 is right. As a business held open to the public, Disney's property is not the same as your private den or living room. Land owners who have commercial ventures open to the public have in the process changed their legal status. They are typically held to a higher standard of care than ordinary land owners, for one thing. Further, if you are an employer you have limited ability to tell your employees how to behave and live. This would come as news to some of the more "little dictator" employers out there, I know. Including Disney. However in this case I take it they had enough dictatorial muscle to get an exemption. I won't be going to that sweltering pile of plastic excrement anytime soon anyway.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well divemedic, I am not sure you can establish that any rights are absolute. All have limitations.

Property rights may not be absolute, but they certainly may be legally binding.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

So when do we get a system that also protects the rights of the majority? Cause looking at America as it is now, we're lacking in that regard for sure.

 

[Cosmoline]

Property rights may not be absolute, but they certainly may be legally binding.

Property rights do not prevent the government from heavily regulating the employer-employee relationship. They do it all the time, right down to rewriting contracts.

 

[mec]

Tomorrow Land ought to be pretty empty anyway with the present and future curtailment of motor traffic. Best bet for their survival is to run Amtrack rails right into their facility. That would put two anti gun entities in delicto incursio ani
They seem to be following the example of certain movie chains that have begun posting their theaters. The trend is that people are inclined to hate going to movie theaters any more anyway and now they have one more reason not to go.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I understand that the above quotation is a description of current legal realities. My question is why this should be so, or to what extent. As I have said, no one can claim a right to enter another person's business, against that person's wishes. So how can anyone claim the right to carry a gun therein?

Can a business force me to wear a certain color of underwear into their establishment?

Why not?

What's the difference in wearing underwear or wearing a gun.

Both are concealed unless something really bad goes wrong, and one is MUCH more likely to come in handy if there's a crime.
Both are very much personal property.

So should Disney be allowed to:

a) dictate the style and color of underwear worn to their park and
b) search those entering to verify correct underwear?

 

[Eleven Mike]

and just to be clear, you are specifically stating that an employer should have a legal and moral right to beat and sexually assault invitees and employees, simply because they are on his property?

Not at all. Simply because they agreed to be beaten, or to have sex, as a condition of entering the property, or as a condition of continued employment or patronage.

Can a business force me to wear a certain color of underwear into their establishment?

What do you mean "force"? So long as you are free to take your business elsewhere, a blue underwear rule would not be a matter of forcing anything on anyone.

 

[Eleven Mike]

I must ask again (and probably again and again) do I have a right to enter any place of business, even if the owner doesn't want me to?

Do I have a right to any job for which I'm qualified?

Property rights do not prevent the government from heavily regulating the employer-employee relationship. They do it all the time, right down to rewriting contracts.

While precedent can be very informative, this is not a court of law. We are not bound by precedent, nor is it an infallible guide in this discussion. That is, we are discussing what ought to be, not what is.

 

[divemedic]

Not at all. Simply because they agreed to be beaten, or to have sex, as a condition of entering the property, or as a condition of continued employment or patronage.

I could easily flip your absurd argument around and say that by opening a business, you agree to be bound by the laws prohibiting those activities. If you don't like it- well no one is forcing you to open to the public.

I must ask again (and probably again and again) do I have a right to enter any place of business, even if the owner doesn't want me to?

No, but as the owner, you do not have the power to violate the rights of others as a condition of license to enter that property. If you keep your property private, then you can (mostly) place the conditions on it that you please.

 

[Tyris]

Not at all. Simply because they agreed to be beaten, or to have sex, as a condition of entering the property, or as a condition of continued employment or patronage.

Must be interesting to lead a sheltered life. I suggest you look up "dominatrix" in your local area and make the proper arrangements to further your education.

-T

 

[ptmmatssc]

But surely, states must not violate the rights of their citizens. No?

Am I missing something? Since when has a corporation been a "citizen" . I see in the constitution/bill of rights "the people" , but can't seem to find "corporation,business,LLC, inc. " etc.

 

[Eleven Mike]

divemedic,

Could you provide an example of an absolute right?

 

[TexasRifleman]

What do you mean "force"? So long as you are free to take your business elsewhere, a blue underwear rule would not be a matter of forcing anything on anyone.

If there is a sign stating all patrons entering agree that they are wearing blue underwear and as a condition of admittance they prove it, is that OK?

Oh, what if we put up a sign that says that Black people are not welcome. That one will work too for you I guess?

I mean, who does it hurt right? Black people would be free to just go to another business, no one is "forcing" them to go in, their rights are hardly being violated. I mean, think of the rights of the business, they shouldn't have to allow those Blacks in if they don't want to right?

Try that one and let me know how it works.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Am I missing something? Since when has a corporation been a "citizen" . I see in the constitution/bill of rights "the people" , but can't seem to find "corporation,business,LLC, inc. " etc.

I can't find it either. But someone owns the property and the shares of a corporation, and those people have rights.

But are you implying that an unincorporated business should be free to operate as I describe?

 

[Eleven Mike]

I could easily flip your absurd argument around and say that by opening a business, you agree to be bound by the laws prohibiting those activities. If you don't like it- well no one is forcing you to open to the public.

No, that would be absurd. As a private citizen, I have a right to dispose of my property as I please, so long as no one else's rights are violated. A govt. has no such right to make rules like "If you open your business to women, you must also open it to men," or "If you hire someone, you must allow them to store their gun in your parking lot." Such laws are a plain violation of property rights. If you don't believe in property rights, just say so.

No, but as the owner, you do not have the power to violate the rights of others as a condition of license to enter that property. If you keep your property private, then you can (mostly) place the conditions on it that you please.

For the millionth time, you have no right to enter my property, business or otherwise. If you wish to enter it, you have no right to enter, except under my terms. If you agree to my terms, in what way have your rights been violated?

 

[Eleven Mike]

Oh, what if we put up a sign that says that Black people are not welcome. That one will work too for you I guess?

I mean, who does it hurt right? Black people would be free to just go to another business, no one is "forcing" them to go in, their rights are hardly being violated.

Try that one and let me know how it works.

I would hate to see any such sign. But black racists and white racists also have rights, just as you and I do.

Anyone of any race should have every right to exclude ME from their business, for any reason whatsoever, provided all contracts are fulfilled. This is basic. How can any of you claim to want freedom, but disagree with this?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Anyone of any race should have every right to exclude ME from their business, for any reason whatsoever, provided all contracts are fulfilled. This is basic. How can any of you claim to want freedom, but disagree with this?

If you really believe that it would be acceptable for Disney to post a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed" and there be no problems, under the guise of "freedom" then I guess the debate is ended. There's no place left to go after that. You win.

I guess it would be OK to have segregated water fountains in Target?
I mean it's fair, everyone gets a waterfountain so why not a White and Other restroom in the malls? That would be fair too.

This is basic. How can any of you claim to want freedom, but disagree with this?

Wow.

 

[Cosmoline]

Anyone of any race should have every right to exclude ME from their business, for any reason whatsoever, provided all contracts are fulfilled.

I'm not sure all contracts would be fulfilled. If you offer to sell, and I accept this offer with green cash, you cannot reject my acceptance because you don't like my race. It's not in good faith.

Besides, there are certain public policy considerations that trump commercial property rights. You may not like this, but it's been that way since the founding of the Republic.