JustaShooter wrote:If I understand the point of the above, it is still irrelevant. As you have *no* right to enter my property and can only do so at my pleasure, you must agree to my terms. If you do not, you have no privilege to do so and you violate *my* rights if you persist on entering. The concept that the definition of "inalienable" means you cannot willingly give up your rights is flawed - people do so all the time. However, - and I think this is crucial - that is irrelevant because your RKBA is *not* inalienable. Your right to life is, as is your right to liberty, but not your right to keep and bear arms. If it were otherwise, then our right to free speech would likewise be inalienable and I submit that is not the case and I do not see you arguing otherwise.
I can envision a scenario where this is carried out today: Amusement Parks, Concert venues, places that sell entry tickets. No outside food. Jacket and tie required. You assert that there's a contract for entry that is voluntarily entered into whereby I forego my exercise of my retained RKBA. I hear you and am not unsympathetic to many of these circumstances. I agree that commercial property owners get to set certain terms to ticketed voluntary entry of a venue. In the case of retail commercial establishments, there are no barriers to entry, generally. Other retailers, like Costco or Sam's Club, charge membership fees for entry. Again, not unsympathetic. In short, I'm not claiming a free right of entry.
I'm interested to hear the distinction between my Right to Life / Liberty and RKBA/Free Speech. How is one inalienable and the other not? What is the tier structure for these Rights and which are greater and which are lesser?
JustaShooter wrote:You say I'm banning an inanimate object. I say I'm banning a person who chooses to disregard my wishes - however flawed and uninformed they might be. You say I've no moral basis to object to the transaction - granted. The issue isn't the transaction. But as a pacifist, I have a moral objection to your presence in my property while armed.
I'll grant the moral and/or religious objection, but that does not diminish my property ownership of myself, my Rights to Life/Liberty/RKBA, etc. We can both exist in a place and not comprehend the tension between your active pacifism and my ability to defend my own life. The quick way to flush this out is to ask if the pacifist would call the police to his commercial property, as it would be reasonably inferred that they would bring guns to the scene.
Are you claiming that your mental health, however valid or sincere your pacifistic beliefs, is superior to what you consider some secondary tiered RKBA? Again, not claiming an absolute right to enter your property, assuming you've erected some barriers to entry. I'm asserting that the purpose of government is to defend my RKBA, in part, and your commercial property rights, in part.JustaShooter wrote:Ah! But your RKBA does cause me mental harm because it violates my fervently-held pacifist beliefs. On the other hand, I've not restricted your rights at all - you either voluntarily agree to set them aside and enter my property, or you go elsewhere. Again *you have no right to enter my property* - meet my conditions or go elsewhere.
JustaShooter wrote:2: I agree with you that the government has no business inserting themselves into the matter, it is in my opinion effectively a back-handed method of infringement of that right. You choose to deny RKBA on your property? Fine - but that should in no way affect your liability. If you actually have the courage of your convictions, then you don't need the support of government to stand upon them.
I agree wholeheartedly about the courage of one's convictions, hence the axiom "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
When you say "infringement of that right" are you asserting RKBA to be a right inherent in my humanity? My liability is not affected, agreed. The point of the FEE article was that by denying someone the ability to defend themselves, the commercial property owner, be it private or government, should have an increased duty and liability in the event that some bodily harm comes to the patron.
JustaShooter wrote:Again, and again, and again: a property owner has (or should have) absolute control over their property. You have no right to enter unless you meet their conditions. If you *voluntarily* set aside your RKBA or right of free speech because transacting business with the property owner is more important to you, then, that is your choice.
Again, I agree that I have no right to traverse whatever barriers to entry you've erected, but commercial property owners don't get to demand a kidney or my infant son in order to enter the venue. Whether or not i was willing to part with my kidney or my infant son, commercial property owners don't get to make that demand. For this purpose, government was erected. There is a line that is too far, impeding on my Rights, regardless of my desire and willingness to enter under your terms.
JustaShooter wrote:Yes! Yes you are! You want to use the force of government to strip me of the fundamental right to control my private property as I see fit.
As with all other Rights, they are properly limited by the Rights of others. (Again, the beauty of negative rights is that they impose nothing on others) You may not demand x number pints of my blood, because I own it. I have granted, and continue to grant many controls over your commercial property. However, there is a line you may not transgress. At that line, civil government is playing its proper role in punishing the entity making the demand, in an effort to uphold RKBA.
JustaShooter wrote:bignflnut wrote:I'm upholding property owners rights to self-defense.
I suspect you meant something different than what you wrote, otherwise this makes no sense to me.
I'm positing self-ownership and that your demand that I disarm is unreasonable. I uphold property rights by recognizing my life as my property and my ability to defend it as my responsibility, which I may not be denied.
I think of it as using the government to defend my Right to self defense/RKBA , of which I shall not be deprived, which imposes not on the Rights of the commercial property owner.JustaShooter wrote:bignflnut wrote:Furthermore, the proper role of government is to use force in upholding Rights
Again, I strongly disagree. You say the role of government is to uphold our rights, yet you want to use government to strip a right from property owners under the guise of a right you do not possess - that is, you have no right to enter that property without the consent of and under the conditions imposed by the property owner.
Once more, agreed, I do not have a right to enter private property. Commercial property void of entry barriers, perhaps. In general, I agree with you that I have no right to un-permitted barrier-ed commercial property entry. My right to posses an object flows from my ownership of my life and the right to protect my own bodily safety, which is a proper Right the government was erected to defend.JustaShooter wrote:Once more: You have no right to enter another's private property. Your right to possess an object does not give you the right to bring it onto another's property - regardless of how well-protected that right is *from government infringement*.
bignflnut wrote:I look forward to hearing your thoughts on government commercial property rights and how they differ from private commercial property rights, over and above the private commercial property owner's rights superseding personal ownership of one's body and RKBA.
JustaShooter wrote:I don't see how I can express it more clearly than I already have above. Unless we can agree that private property rights reign supreme and that a person has no right to enter another's property without their consent and unless they meet the conditions of entry imposed by the property owner, then I fear there isn't much we can discuss.
I appreciate your efforts to bring clarity and express your position. This is a healthy, edifying exchange.
I think we're on the same page as it relates to entry on private property. You can't come to my house without permission, I can't come to yours. You're not allowing my life to be my private property, which I own, however, and it befuddles me. I couldn't be a larger advocate of private property rights. I'm right there with you. Private property rights reign supreme. That's exactly why I can bring a gun onto any property where I've paid the fee or agreed to the terms of entry which do not diminish my Negative Rights.