Ragnar Danneskjold said:
Yep. And you're still missing my point. I don't care. If the employer does not care about allowing me to keep myself alive, I don't care about his handbook, his rules, the agreement, or the paper it's printed on. Disregard my safety, I disregard you in return. Go ahead and fire me when you find out. That's your right, and I fully expect and accept it.
No, I get that. I also get that the person willing to hurt you to get what he wants is using the exact same thought process.
I don't care if it's wrong. I'm going to do it anyway. But why do you not respect their rights until you get fired? Why not just maintain your disregard for their rights and say, "Whatever. I'm going to keep working here anyway." You can't keep yourself alive if you don't eat, right? Let them fire you. Just continue showing up, working, and taking money for it at the end of every week.
mljdeckard said:
genuisiknowit is insisting that there is no overlap of rights when one person goes onto another person's property. It simply cannot be that way.
I've explained both
how and
why. If you perceive a conflict in rights, you've mistakenly identified an aggressor as someone exercising rights. It's a contradiction of terms to say that there can be a conflict of rights. You can have conflicting desires, but desires are not rights. Rights are the logical resolution of conflict.
What else could they be? I would very much like to hear a valid explanation for what a right actually is, if not what I've described.
Ragnar Danneskjold said:
They destroyed that when they gambled my life for a low insurance premium.
Do you always buy the safest car on the market regardless of cost, and spend 100% of your life within the safest neighborhood in the world regardless of cost? Or do you, like the company, sometimes make trade-offs for lower costs? Ever drive over the speed limit even though it increases the risk you pose to other drivers? The fact is that the company hasn't disregarded your safety. On the contrary, they warned you beforehand about the risk. You knew and understood this. Why bother trying to rationalize your decision to act out of a sense of resentment and do something you've already admitted you don't have the right to do?
Neverwinter said:
They're forced to go somewhere on a regular basis, unless they find that the feudalistic system doesn't accept them.
We're not talking about prisoners here. The fact that nature "forces" you to meet your basic survival needs will remain unchanged under any political or economic organization. The fact that the resources available to meet those needs are finite means they have to be allocated
somehow. Regardless of the political or economic organization, at some point in time a resource must be controlled exclusively by someone. That doesn't mean the person who is in exclusive control of the resource is forcing those not in control of the resource to do anything.
Neverwinter said:
I've been implicitly discussing these in almost every post I made in here.
Negative externalities = Violating someone else's property rights. Taking a firearm onto private property where it's prohibited creates a negative externality.
Neverwinter said:
Public means facilities other than private clubs and other establishments not actually open to the general public.
If admittance is conditional, then they're not open to the "general" public, are they?
Neverwinter said:
Society is as much of an entity as any other corporation in representing the interests of more than one person.
It's not an entity. Nor is a corporation. But a corporation refers to specific people (the owners) who have rights - and it's those people whose rights are violated when you trespass. Society refers to no one at all. Society is simply a term for the interactions of people.