Texas Parking Lot Bill Goes to Floor

[henschman]

BUT, there are limits to private property rights.

Can an employer prohibit black people or women? Can an employer fire somebody for joining a religion?

In a free society, an employee could quit because he doesn't like the religion/race/gender of the boss, and the boss could fire the employee because he doesn't like his religion/race/gender. Everyone would have maximum equal and correlative rights, and all human interaction would be voluntary (obviously a free society doesn't resemble our current society all that much).

And this bit about 'you don't have to work there' is wrong too. Many times, these large employers only exist because government regulation prevents smaller and more efficient competitors from entering the industry, often at the request of the big companies.

This whole recession thing was also caused by government, and often people have to take a job at one of these big employers to keep bread on the table after their small business tanked.

So now insult is added to injury when they have to make their commute unarmed for the privilege of earning minimum wage working for these big businesses who are only where they are because they collude with regulators to screw the competition.

Lord knows the government violates our rights billions of times per day in all kinds of ways. Yes, one of the many ways in which they do this is to steal our money and give it to failed businesses. However, one violation of our liberty is no excuse for FURTHER violations, just to "balance things out." That is how we got the massive leviathan state we have today... one government intervention causes problems, which requires more government intervention to fix, but which has its own unintended consequences, which requires more government intervention to fix... ad nauseum. It has to stop. It is time to start rolling back layers of government intervention, rather than adding more.

Forget about big government-subsidized corporations for a second and think of the impact of this law on a pure individual basis. One individual enters into an employment relationship with another, and then uses the power of the state to force the other person to accept terms to the employment relationship that the other person is not willing to accept voluntarily. It doesn't matter whether it is the employer doing it to the employee or vise versa -- no matter how you slice it, it is just plain wrong.

 

[paragrouper]

In a free society, an employee could quit because he doesn't like the religion/race/gender of the boss, and the boss could fire the employee because he doesn't like his religion/race/gender. Everyone would have maximum equal and correlative rights, and all human interaction would be voluntary (obviously a free society doesn't resemble our current society all that much).



Lord knows the government violates our rights billions of times per day in all kinds of ways. Yes, one of the many ways in which they do this is to steal our money and give it to failed businesses. However, one violation of our liberty is no excuse for FURTHER violations, just to "balance things out." That is how we got the massive leviathan state we have today... one government intervention causes problems, which requires more government intervention to fix, but which has its own unintended consequences, which requires more government intervention to fix... ad nauseum. It has to stop. It is time to start rolling back layers of government intervention, rather than adding more.

Forget about big government-subsidized corporations for a second and think of the impact of this law on a pure individual basis. One individual enters into an employment relationship with another, and then uses the power of the state to force the other person to accept terms to the employment relationship that the other person is not willing to accept voluntarily. It doesn't matter whether it is the employer doing it to the employee or vise versa -- no matter how you slice it, it is just plain wrong.

On the "pure individual basis" I would appreciate it if Texas would reaffirm my rights under the 4th amendment of the US constitution and let my employer know that he does not have the right to search my vehicle--my personal property.

 

[henschman]

The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with what a private employer can or can't do. If you read it, you will see that it is purely a restraint on the government (and only against the National government, at that -- the 14th Amendment places the same requirements on the States, but is also only directed at governmental action).

You have every right to deny your employer access to your vehicle, since it is after all your property. However, your employer also has every right to kick you and your vehicle off HIS property if he wants, and to terminate any voluntary relationships he has with you.

Just like if you invited your boss over to your house, you could kick him out at any time for any reason or no reason. If you want, you could even demand that he let you look in his car. If he refuses, you could tell him to leave. If he does not, you could use reasonable force to remove him from the premises... and you would be well within your rights. I don't deny that it is rude to treat somebody that way, whether its the employer doing it or the employee, but it is within the rights of a free individual to control access to his own property, and to enter and withdraw from voluntary, consensual relationships with others.

I believe that everyone is entitled to equal rights, regardless of which side of the money-for-labor transaction they are on. This Texas law would deprive some people of their rights while granting extra benefits to others. That is unjust and violative of the equal rights of free men.

 

[paragrouper]

Thanks for the law class. You make a poignant case for “equal rights,” Sadly, what you propose make the rights more equal for business interests than for the individual. The ambiguity currently in Texas code allows businesses to define for themselves what constitutes their ‘premises.’ In the case of my company that includes a public access parking lot. I can complain, I can refuse and I can lose my job for doing so. Further, by promoting the propoerty rights of businesses, you discard the interests of Texas CHL’s to defend themselves while traveling to and from work—as they would otherwise be allowed to under Texas Law.
That’s why this law is before the legislature, supported by the NRA, TSRA and many Texans. Despite your assertion in an earlier post, this is an RKBA issue, not a property rights issue—one that many of us hope will pass.

 

[walker944]

...you discard the interests of Texas CHL’s to defend themselves while traveling to and from work—as they would otherwise be allowed to under Texas Law.

Actually, Texas law allows anyone (not just CHL holders) to defend themselves traveling to and from work...or anywhere else for that matter, provided they are not in the process of committing a crime, or associated with a gang, etc. That law went into action 9/1/05. Unfortunately, the conflicting right of the business (currently at least) on their property trumps the rights of the individuals to defend themselves.

 

[Ironclad]

You have every right to deny your employer access to your vehicle, since it is after all your property. However, your employer also has every right to kick you and your vehicle off HIS property if he wants, and to terminate any voluntary relationships he has with you.

By your logic, your employer has the right to ask you for anything he wants, and then fire you for not complying. He could swat you on the butt, and tell you to go put on somethin see-through and meet him in his office, and then fire you if you refuse.
Is that a violation of your rights? Definitely. Just like illegal search of your property. An employer can say whatever he wants, but he can also answer for his violations of employee's rights in the courtroom.

 

[PTT]

It all depends in how important the right to self defense is to you vs property rights.

The ownership of property does not give anybody license to violate others' rights.

So, is defense a basic human right or isn't it?

 

[henschman]

Now some of you are claiming that an employer who makes such a policy is violating your individual right to self defense. This is not so. Nor is the right to self defense in conflict with any other right. True natural rights are never in conflict with one another, and there is never a need to "balance" the relative importance of one right against another. That is because the rights of one person end where the equal rights of another begins. Natural rights are the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally by all people. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." In other words, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If you ever come to the conclusion that two natural rights are in conflict, you need to check your premises.

You have an absolute right to self defense anywhere you go. You also have the right to enter into contracts with other people. As a free person, you can choose to voluntarily bind yourself to certain conditions, and give up things you have a right to do, in exchange for something of value from another person. For instance, you have a right to go to the lake, sit in a chair, and drink beer all day if you want. However, people voluntarily give up their right to do this, and promise to sit at a desk for 8 hours per day doing work for another person, in exchange for that other person giving them something of value. If you enter into this kind of arrangement, you cannot say that the employer is violating your right to freedom of action, by preventing you from going to the lake and drinking beer all day instead of doing paperwork. That is because you VOLUNTARILY chose to give up that course of action in exchange for payment from the employer. It is the same with a dress code. An employer can choose to condition his consent to employ people based on how they dress at work. This may have absolutely nothing to do with the job, and may provide absolutely no benefit to the employer, but he has the right to make such policies because 1) it is his property, and 2) as a free man, he can choose to contract with others based on whatever terms he wants. None of the people who choose to contract with him and accept his payment for their work can complain that he is violating their rights to wear whatever clothes they want while travelling to and from work... because THEY VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED THOSE CONDITIONS, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, ARE FREE TO TERMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP ANY TIME AND GO WHEREVER THEY WANT DRESSED HOWEVER THEY WANT. It is the exact same with carrying arms. You have the natural right to go armed anywhere and everywhere you have a right to be, but you can voluntarily give this up if you want to, as part of a contract with someone else. You can never claim that they are in any way violating your rights, because the relationship is completely voluntary and consensual, and you can terminate it at any time.

 

[paragrouper]

Now some of you are claiming that an employer who makes such a policy is violating your individual right to self defense. This is not so. Nor is the right to self defense in conflict with any other right. True natural rights are never in conflict with one another, and there is never a need to "balance" the relative importance of one right against another. That is because the rights of one person end where the equal rights of another begins. Natural rights are the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally by all people. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." In other words, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If you ever come to the conclusion that two natural rights are in conflict, you need to check your premises.

You have an absolute right to self defense anywhere you go. You also have the right to enter into contracts with other people. As a free person, you can choose to voluntarily bind yourself to certain conditions, and give up things you have a right to do, in exchange for something of value from another person. For instance, you have a right to go to the lake, sit in a chair, and drink beer all day if you want. However, people voluntarily give up their right to do this, and promise to sit at a desk for 8 hours per day doing work for another person, in exchange for that other person giving them something of value. If you enter into this kind of arrangement, you cannot say that the employer is violating your right to freedom of action, by preventing you from going to the lake and drinking beer all day instead of doing paperwork. That is because you VOLUNTARILY chose to give up that course of action in exchange for payment from the employer. It is the same with a dress code. An employer can choose to condition his consent to employ people based on how they dress at work. This may have absolutely nothing to do with the job, and may provide absolutely no benefit to the employer, but he has the right to make such policies because 1) it is his property, and 2) as a free man, he can choose to contract with others based on whatever terms he wants. None of the people who choose to contract with him and accept his payment for their work can complain that he is violating their rights to wear whatever clothes they want while travelling to and from work... because THEY VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED THOSE CONDITIONS, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, ARE FREE TO TERMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP ANY TIME AND GO WHEREVER THEY WANT DRESSED HOWEVER THEY WANT. It is the exact same with carrying arms. You have the natural right to go armed anywhere and everywhere you have a right to be, but you can voluntarily give this up if you want to, as part of a contract with someone else. You can never claim that they are in any way violating your rights, because the relationship is completely voluntary and consensual, and you can terminate it at any time.

You are almost right. I have entered into a contract with my employer and I currently abide by that contract. However, that agreement is subject to the laws of Texas and we are trying to change that law--much like your neighbors in Oklahoma did. If passed, my employers interest in what happens outside his premises, aka my vehicle in the parking lot will no longer be his concern.

 

[Classified00]

I'm always stunned at the controversy over this. Here's the way I see it:

One property owner's rights end where another property owner's right begin. The interior of my vehicle is my property and not anyone elses. This law is meant to clarify and enforce that.

If you hire me to do work some work for you and I park my SUV on your property then your property line ends at the shell of my vehicle.
- If the police come by and want to search my vehicle, who are they going to ask for permission? Me.
- If they find contraband, who are they going to charge? Me.
- If you pry open a door and get inside my vehicle, who are they going to arrest? You.

You can have my SUV towed from your property if you wish but the vehicle itself and the contents are mine.

 

[ghitch75]

we had the same bill come up and now it's law.....

 

[PTT]

I'm always stunned at the controversy over this. Here's the way I see it:

One property owner's rights end where another property owner's right begin. The interior of my vehicle is my property and not anyone elses. This law is meant to clarify and enforce that.

If you hire me to do work some work for you and I park my SUV on your property then your property line ends at the shell of my vehicle.
- If the police come by and want to search my vehicle, who are they going to ask for permission? Me.
- If they find contraband, who are they going to charge? Me.
- If you pry open a door and get inside my vehicle, who are they going to arrest? You.

You can have my SUV towed from your property if you wish but the vehicle itself and the contents are mine.

There are too many employers who don't understand this. They think they are God and that their employees are subhuman.

I don't mind letting the legislature knock their cocky butts down a notch. Somebody call a friggin wambulance.

Decent employers who deserve respect aren't going to be affected by this, because they already allow guns in cars or on their employees' person.

 

[henschman]

You are almost right. I have entered into a contract with my employer and I currently abide by that contract. However, that agreement is subject to the laws of Texas and we are trying to change that law--much like your neighbors in Oklahoma did. If passed, my employers interest in what happens outside his premises, aka my vehicle in the parking lot will no longer be his concern.

Think about what you are saying... you are saying that it is OK for the government to make laws that violate the natural rights of individuals, and if some people don't like others having rights, they can just get together and get a law passed stripping them of rights and it is all OK. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Remember, in a system where people's rights are up for a vote, NO ONE'S rights are safe. Voting away people's rights is all fun and games until YOU are on the wrong side of the majority, and a bunch of people decide that they do not like you having a liberty that you hold dear.

On the topic of the law and its relationship to rightful liberty, I can't say it any better than Thomas Jefferson. This is the full quote that I quoted part of in my last post:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.

I'm always stunned at the controversy over this. Here's the way I see it:

One property owner's rights end where another property owner's right begin. The interior of my vehicle is my property and not anyone elses. This law is meant to clarify and enforce that.

If you hire me to do work some work for you and I park my SUV on your property then your property line ends at the shell of my vehicle.
- If the police come by and want to search my vehicle, who are they going to ask for permission? Me.
- If they find contraband, who are they going to charge? Me.
- If you pry open a door and get inside my vehicle, who are they going to arrest? You.

You can have my SUV towed from your property if you wish but the vehicle itself and the contents are mine.

The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make.

 

[Ironclad]

A person owns the area inside his vehicle. Heck, in Texas the castle doctrine even applies in your vehicle. An employer dictating what you can have in your vehicle is no different than dictating what you can have in your own home.

 

[Classified00]

"The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make."
- henschman

Let me tag onto Ironclad's point. Look at it this way, suppose your employer insists that you give them permission to search your home (and they want to do this with all employees) because they are missing equipment / tools / product / etc... Should they be able to fire you if you don't consent? I would say no because it's my property, same with my car. If my employer believes I have broken the law (in any way), they can call the police, present evidence and statements, and if the police have cause they'll search my property. My employer has no right to search my property (or fire me for not complying) simply because they want to.

The critical difference here is that we're not talking about company owned property like an office, cubical, desk or wall locker that they allow you to use. Can they search those areas, absolutely! That's their property. The building, their property. The parking lot, their property. The interior of my vehicle, not their property. Why on earth should they be allowed to threaten me to make me give them consent to search my property?

 

[henschman]

A person owns the area inside his vehicle. Heck, in Texas the castle doctrine even applies in your vehicle. An employer dictating what you can have in your vehicle is no different than dictating what you can have in your own home.

True, but like I said, everyone has the right to enter into a contract or relationship with another person based on whatever conditions the 2 of them agree to.

Remember, you are not a slave... nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work at a company whose policies you don't like.

Why should the government get involved in telling people what conditions they can and can't voluntarily agree to? Isn't an employment relationship supposed to be a voluntary and consensual relationship between 2 parties? If two people want to agree to an employment relationship on the condition that one of them gets to search the other's home or car or person, what business of the government's is it to tell them they can't agree to those terms? Whose right is being violated if an employer decides to withhold his consent to continue paying someone for his labor, regardless of the reason why he does so? There is no way anyone's rights can be violated by one party choosing to end a mutually voluntary relationship!

 

[Classified00]

henschman,

1. A contract that violates the law is not legally enforcable.

2. When two entities dispute property rights, it is absolutely the government's reponsibility to resolve the dispute. Isn't that what Rule of Law is all about?
* Here's yet another way of looking at this; when I accepted my job, I agreed (by signing the company handbook) not to carry a firearm onto their property. The very heart of the legal dispute is whether or not having a firearm in my car violates that agreement. I do not believe it does because the firearm is not on their property. It's on my property. Therefore, I support this legislation to make the state define the legal boundries once and for all.

3. For reasons I can't fathom, it appear that you believe that the interior of your car should have no legal protection.

 

[Ironclad]

nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work at a company whose policies you don't like.

True. However, nobody should be able to make policies about what is contained in my vehicle.

 

[paragrouper]

Think about what you are saying... you are saying that it is OK for the government to make laws that violate the natural rights of individuals, and if some people don't like others having rights, they can just get together and get a law passed stripping them of rights and it is all OK. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Remember, in a system where people's rights are up for a vote, NO ONE'S rights are safe. Voting away people's rights is all fun and games until YOU are on the wrong side of the majority, and a bunch of people decide that they do not like you having a liberty that you hold dear.

On the topic of the law and its relationship to rightful liberty, I can't say it any better than Thomas Jefferson. This is the full quote that I quoted part of in my last post:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.


The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make.

I have thought about what I'm saying. It's like this; you think an employers's natural rights are more 'natural' than mine.

I disagree.

 

[henschman]

True. However, nobody should be able to make policies about what is contained in my vehicle.

And how does it violate any of your natural rights for someone to make such policies when you can freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell your labor to them?

I have thought about what I'm saying. It's like this; you think an employers's natural rights are more 'natural' than mine.

No, I just think you do not have a natural right to use a threat of force and violence to compel someone to accept terms to an agreement that they do not wish to enter voluntarily. That is exactly what is occurring when the government passes a law like this.

 

[paragrouper]

No, I just think you do not have a natural right to use a threat of force and violence to compel someone to accept terms to an agreement that they do not wish to enter voluntarily. That is exactly what is occurring when the government passes a law like this.

Now that is just a bit melodramatic.

Notwithstanding your views on natural law, the bill is before the legislature and I, along with other Texans, will continue to follow it's progress and encourage our elected leaders to pass it.

Have a nice day.

 

[henschman]

Describing this law as a threat of force and violence is not at all melodromatic. Force and violence are the only real powers the government has, and they are what backs up every law in existence. I just happen to believe that force and violence are only justified in DEFENSE of threats to someone's rightful liberty, and should never be initiated against someone to force them to accept terms to an agreement or relationship that they do not want to voluntarily accept.

You have a nice day too, but don't come complaining to me when your neighbors decide to vote one of YOUR cherished liberties away.

 

[Ironclad]

Force and violence are the only real powers the government has, and they are what backs up every law in existence.

So you don't think we should have any laws?

don't come complaining to me when your neighbors decide to vote one of YOUR cherished liberties away.

One of my cherished liberties is not having others tell me what I can and can't have in my vehicle, which is MINE, and doesnt effect anyone else.

 

[JohnKSa]

I believe that everyone is entitled to equal rights, regardless of which side of the money-for-labor transaction they are on. This Texas law would deprive some people of their rights while granting extra benefits to others. That is unjust and violative of the equal rights of free men.

This sounds good until you realize that it applies to the current situation as well.

Currently employers are allowed to deprive some people (employees) of their rights while leaving other's benefits (non-employees) alone. They can't restrict non-employees from carrying in their parking lots because they can't fire them and they can't prosecute them. But they can fire employees. In other words, if your argument is valid as it applies to the potential law then it is equally valid when applied to the current situation.

Therefore the current situation is also unjust and violative of the equal rights of free men. So which is worse, the company telling me what I can and can't do in my property (my car is an extension of my home per TX law), or the government telling the company that the legal items in my car are none of their business.

The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make.

Again, this sounds good until we realize that the REASON you say that an employer has the right to do these things is because of his property rights.

If property rights are that powerful then they don't suddenly become invalid when they're employee property rights instead of employer property rights.

Again, it comes down to balancing things, not a black & white situation. Which is a worse violation of property rights? Telling a company that they can't control the legal contents of privately owned vehicles in their public parking lots or telling a person that he can't control the legal contents of his own private property?

By the way, the former obviously isn't too odious given that companies are already unable to control the contents of non-employee's cars in their parking lots.

Besides, it's not REALLY about property rights, that's just how it's been couched to try to obfuscate the situation. It really about what an employer can and can't force an employee to do as part of an employment contract.

And how does it violate any of your natural rights for someone to make such policies when you can freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell your labor to them?

This argument works only if you consider labor to be a commodity like a lemon or a gallon of gas. Two people meet, seconds later the transaction happens, the buyer is happy, the seller is happy, another few seconds later they go their merry way.

The problem is that not all jobs are as common or as interchangeable as one gallon of gas is to another or one lemon is to another. And a person doesn't invest decades of his life in the gallon of gas he sells. Nor does a lemon buyer enter into an ongoing relationship with the lemon seller.

So let's look at how reality can work.

I spend most of a decade getting an expensive and specialized education. I then sign on with a company that happens to be in a gun friendly state and that happens to have gun friendly policies. I spend another 2+ decades developing a specialized skill set that the company needs but that isn't quite as easy to find buyers for outside the company as a gallon of gas might be. Somewhere along the way, the company decides that their liability concerns outweigh my concerns for my safety and change their policies to prevent me from having a gun in my car AND to prevent me from parking off campus.

It's all well and good to say that I could "freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell my labor to them" but I think it's pretty clear to all of us that a rational person in that position and in the current economy/job market is obviously not going to make a decision like that. The companies know that. They formed those policies knowing that most employees couldn't afford to give up employment. The company doesn't want to run off the employees who carry guns for self-defense. They just want to control the contents of privately-owned employee vehicles.

The bottom line is that this, like all gun control, is about control. The company wants to extend their control into other people's property and business. They want to invalidate the property rights of others in the name of property rights. In the name of controlling what happens on company property they control what is stored in other people's property and not just on company property but also while traveling to and from company property. They want to decrease their own liability at the expense of increasing the liability of others.

It is the nature of people and organizations to continue trying to expand their power and the area that they control unless they are forced to stop. It's time for these companies to stop expanding their area of control and to draw back a little. What they're trying to control isn't any of their business and should never have been any of their business in the first place.

 

[Ironclad]

Very well said. Thank you.