Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Freedoms on private property

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:38:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

I don't see how that relates to the last question I asked you. You cannot put a sign on my face because my face is (according to libertarian principles) my property. Just like you cannot put a sign up on owned land, only on unclaimed land.

But that does not answer, why does having private property allow you to violate my right (in this example, right to free speech) while on that property?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:40:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

Thanks, I need a new sig!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:45:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:38:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

I don't see how that relates to the last question I asked you. You cannot put a sign on my face because my face is (according to libertarian principles) my property. Just like you cannot put a sign up on owned land, only on unclaimed land.

But that does not answer, why does having private property allow you to violate my right (in this example, right to free speech) while on that property?

You can think of "owning" something as owning all the rights of other people on that said thing.

Otherwise owning anything makes no sense.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:49:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:45:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:38:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

I don't see how that relates to the last question I asked you. You cannot put a sign on my face because my face is (according to libertarian principles) my property. Just like you cannot put a sign up on owned land, only on unclaimed land.

But that does not answer, why does having private property allow you to violate my right (in this example, right to free speech) while on that property?

You can think of "owning" something as owning all the rights of other people on that said thing.

Otherwise owning anything makes no sense.

So that includes owning other people's right to life while on that private property?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:49:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:45:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:38:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

I don't see how that relates to the last question I asked you. You cannot put a sign on my face because my face is (according to libertarian principles) my property. Just like you cannot put a sign up on owned land, only on unclaimed land.

But that does not answer, why does having private property allow you to violate my right (in this example, right to free speech) while on that property?

You can think of "owning" something as owning all the rights of other people on that said thing.

Otherwise owning anything makes no sense.

So that includes owning other people's right to life while on that private property?

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:54:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

You have a choice to trespass, the govment is everywhere though :)
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:00:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM, Indophile wrote:

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".

Can they actually do the former? LOL What's the rationale behind allowing that to be legal?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:03:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:49:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:45:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:38:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

I don't see how that relates to the last question I asked you. You cannot put a sign on my face because my face is (according to libertarian principles) my property. Just like you cannot put a sign up on owned land, only on unclaimed land.

But that does not answer, why does having private property allow you to violate my right (in this example, right to free speech) while on that property?

You can think of "owning" something as owning all the rights of other people on that said thing.

Otherwise owning anything makes no sense.

So that includes owning other people's right to life while on that private property?

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".

Why does it have to be posted? Do you need to post outside your home what is not allowed to be said within your home by guests? I can invite someone into my home, and restirct their freedom of speech, so shouldn't I be able to invite them into my home and then restrict their freedom of life?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:08:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:00:30 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM, Indophile wrote:

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".

Can they actually do the former? LOL What's the rationale behind allowing that to be legal?

What's the difference between the former and the latter? You are just transferring the actual deed on something else. Why should it not be legal?

About the rationale, if you put your imagination to work, you can come up with lots of scenarios.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:13:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:08:24 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 11:00:30 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM, Indophile wrote:

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".

Can they actually do the former? LOL What's the rationale behind allowing that to be legal?

What's the difference between the former and the latter? You are just transferring the actual deed on something else. Why should it not be legal?

About the rationale, if you put your imagination to work, you can come up with lots of scenarios.

What's the difference between a human being and a dog?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:15:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:03:52 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:49:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:45:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:38:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

I don't see how that relates to the last question I asked you. You cannot put a sign on my face because my face is (according to libertarian principles) my property. Just like you cannot put a sign up on owned land, only on unclaimed land.

But that does not answer, why does having private property allow you to violate my right (in this example, right to free speech) while on that property?

You can think of "owning" something as owning all the rights of other people on that said thing.

Otherwise owning anything makes no sense.

So that includes owning other people's right to life while on that private property?

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".

Why does it have to be posted? Do you need to post outside your home what is not allowed to be said within your home by guests? I can invite someone into my home, and restirct their freedom of speech, so shouldn't I be able to invite them into my home and then restrict their freedom of life?

Actually, it doesn't have to be posted.

Even with regards to your freedom of speech thing, you are not disallowed from speaking at all. It's only when you speak of certain things that you will be told to stop.

Similarly, it's only when you do certain things that your right to life might get taken away, after warnings fail to make you stop.

But if you post such signs, maybe you can do away with the warnings also?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:16:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:13:57 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/20/2011 11:08:24 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 11:00:30 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM, Indophile wrote:

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".

Can they actually do the former? LOL What's the rationale behind allowing that to be legal?

What's the difference between the former and the latter? You are just transferring the actual deed on something else. Why should it not be legal?

About the rationale, if you put your imagination to work, you can come up with lots of scenarios.

What's the difference between a human being and a dog?

No. What's the difference between keeping a dog that is liable to tear a trespasser apart and actually shooting the trespasser?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:23:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:15:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 11:03:52 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:51:56 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:49:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:45:27 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:38:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:27:30 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:23:30 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 10:17:14 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

What does the government own?

Why does owning property allow for violation of rights?

I can put up a sign in an unclaimed piece of land. Can I do that on your face?

I don't see how that relates to the last question I asked you. You cannot put a sign on my face because my face is (according to libertarian principles) my property. Just like you cannot put a sign up on owned land, only on unclaimed land.

But that does not answer, why does having private property allow you to violate my right (in this example, right to free speech) while on that property?

You can think of "owning" something as owning all the rights of other people on that said thing.

Otherwise owning anything makes no sense.

So that includes owning other people's right to life while on that private property?

Yes.

This usually happens by the owner putting up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot" or "Beware of dog".

Why does it have to be posted? Do you need to post outside your home what is not allowed to be said within your home by guests? I can invite someone into my home, and restirct their freedom of speech, so shouldn't I be able to invite them into my home and then restrict their freedom of life?

Actually, it doesn't have to be posted.

Even with regards to your freedom of speech thing, you are not disallowed from speaking at all. It's only when you speak of certain things that you will be told to stop.

Similarly, it's only when you do certain things that your right to life might get taken away, after warnings fail to make you stop.

But if you post such signs, maybe you can do away with the warnings also?

True, but with free speech, I can tell you to "stop" for ANYTHING, since it it my property, if I don't want diner conversation to be on politics, or on the migration partern of the local humming bird, it's my call.

Is that true for right to life? While on my property can I take away your right to life or ANY reason? Or should it have to be a "good" reason?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:32:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:23:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
True, but with free speech, I can tell you to "stop" for ANYTHING, since it it my property, if I don't want diner conversation to be on politics, or on the migration partern of the local humming bird, it's my call.

Why so? Because right to freedom of speech is less relevant than right to life?

Is that true for right to life? While on my property can I take away your right to life or ANY reason? Or should it have to be a "good" reason?

Why the stress on good reason? It's as valid for me to tell you that you will be killed if you proceed thus, as it is for me to tell you to stop speaking about such and such.

In general, it's more practical and feasible to not fly into murderous rages for trivial reasons though. But the validity is still the same for all rights the "guest" has.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:52:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:32:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 11:23:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
True, but with free speech, I can tell you to "stop" for ANYTHING, since it it my property, if I don't want diner conversation to be on politics, or on the migration partern of the local humming bird, it's my call.

Why so? Because right to freedom of speech is less relevant than right to life?

Is that true for right to life? While on my property can I take away your right to life or ANY reason? Or should it have to be a "good" reason?

Why the stress on good reason? It's as valid for me to tell you that you will be killed if you proceed thus, as it is for me to tell you to stop speaking about such and such.

Is it valid for me to invite you onto my property, then kill you (take away your right to life) because [insert whatever reason I pull out of my butt at the time]?


In general, it's more practical and feasible to not fly into murderous rages for trivial reasons though. But the validity is still the same for all rights the "guest" has.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 11:53:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If it's your property, speaking on it in a manner against your known will is a violation of your rights (it is an initiation of force against your property), hence force to stop it is not initial but retaliatory. Since libertarianism forbids only initial and not retaliatory force (alternatively phrased, since people who violate someone's rights lose theirs and hence no longer have nay to violate)...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 12:01:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now in regards to "why do you have to post", if you don't post or otherwise inform them that it's your property or if any unusual things (such as speech) constitute a violation-- then they haven't initiated force, you've consented to the courts' default presumptions about what constitutes a violation (It's likely a reasonable presumption that standing on the hood of a car violates the will of the owner in regard to that car for example, given the expense of cars and the scratchability of paint). In the case that it isn't clear to a reasonable observer it's property, you've consented to it not being treated that way by not making it clear. Consent negates force.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 1:30:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 11:52:02 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/20/2011 11:32:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/20/2011 11:23:12 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
True, but with free speech, I can tell you to "stop" for ANYTHING, since it it my property, if I don't want diner conversation to be on politics, or on the migration partern of the local humming bird, it's my call.

Why so? Because right to freedom of speech is less relevant than right to life?

Is that true for right to life? While on my property can I take away your right to life or ANY reason? Or should it have to be a "good" reason?

Why the stress on good reason? It's as valid for me to tell you that you will be killed if you proceed thus, as it is for me to tell you to stop speaking about such and such.

Is it valid for me to invite you onto my property, then kill you (take away your right to life) because [insert whatever reason I pull out of my butt at the time]?

No. You have to provide reasons for that and give me a chance to get the hell out of there.

Now, if you did not invite me in the first place....

In general, it's more practical and feasible to not fly into murderous rages for trivial reasons though. But the validity is still the same for all rights the "guest" has.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 3:27:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

It's not that the owner can stop them from speaking, they can't, but the owner can request and enforce that the person leaves their property. Nobody has the right to take away rights. Private property is to be respected by others as a natural right of civil nature. Someone encroaching on that right is just asking to be banished or punished by the person who was disrespected.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 3:29:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

I don't believe the owner of said piece of land doesn't create his own laws/rights for his tidbit of land; the State also enforces its laws as well. You know, like the one that kind of states "NO TRESPASSING ALLOWED"?
turn down for h'what
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 3:52:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
With freedom of speech, you must make clear what the rules are regarding speech on your property, or else the rules will not be followed. If, during conversation, you impose a rule of no political discussion, and they refuse to oblige, then you can ask them to leave, and they must leave or be forced out.

If you tell someone that they are not allowed to live on your property, the same rule applies. They must leave or be forced out. If you invite someone onto your property, it is assumed that you are giving them permission to live on your property, so they must be warned when you choose to rescind that permission.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 4:53:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

No because you are on their property. When you are on Government property, you are on Public Property, thus you own it, if you are on private property, someone else owns it.

When you go on someone else property, and you insult the property owner, you are infringing on their individual liberty, because you have become hostile to them, on their property.

People have a right to privacy, by going on someone's property to insult them you are invading that right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jamesofthecommons
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:58:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about recently as it relates to libertarianism and property rights. Most libertarians would agree that on public land, one has the right to free speech (as Rags would say, you always have the right, whether the government oppresses it or not is a different matter). But when you walk onto someone's private property, all the rules change. Rather than having all those rights, you are now subjected to what the owner deems as acceptible. If they don't want you to talk, you don't have the right to talk on their property (or is it that you do have the right, they just have the right to oppress that right).

Why is it the case that it is acceptable for property owners to oppress someone's rights, but if government does it, it is bad? Shouldn't it be bad or wrong in all cases?

Very good;yet another individual is discovering just why it is that the private ownership of land does not 'nessecarly' promote freedom,and in fact should be restricted in such a way as to promote the liberty of the collective,while yet preserving the rights of any given individual. When all is said and done it is what we own,'or rather share together' which makes the greater part of freedom possible.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:02:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
liberty of the collective,
A contradiction if I ever heard one.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:26:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 3:02:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
liberty of the collective,
A contradiction if I ever heard one.

I agree. Collectivism is always statist.

Collectivism is the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

Individualism is a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control

Liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:51:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have to deal with this sort of thing all the time.

I play music on the street to make a bit of money, and every place I go, after a little while I get kicked out.

I personally feel that anyone who kicks someone off of their property when they aren't being intrusive, and are just trying to make an honest living is reprehensible.

Property rights actually get in the way of economic freedom more than people realize.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp