NRA stumping for edicts to tell people what they can and cannot do with their private property. [More]
As loathsome as it might be, if I own a piece of property and you want to access it, and as long as I'm not forcing you to do so, I have a right to set the rules. You then have the right to tell me where to stick those rules, bypass me and mine in your commercial dealings, and rally people of like mind to do the same.
You do NOT have the right to impose your rules on my property under force of government arms.
The proper response to corporate anti-gun policies is exposure and consumer activism. I fear the use of state-enforced coercion over private property decisions provides too much potential to blow up in our faces, what with precedent and legal penumbras and all.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Well, my car is my property.
-SayUncle
Absolutely. But if I have a rule that says you can't park it on my property unless you paint it blue--and you don't wish to do so--then don't park it on my property. I'm not forcing you to park there, am I?
My car is MY property. Can I park it on your business parking lot in violation of YOUR terms and conditions?
Which of us is introducing state-backed coercion into the mix?
What I have in my car or in my pockets when I am on your property is none of your business. You don't own me or my property just because I am on your property.
You are so wrong on this, it's not funny. Just use your common sense!
This computer is my property and you are forbidden to post your opinion where it will appear on my computer. The first amendment doesn't apply on my property nor do your rights to exercise free speech. So close this blog or keep it off the internet where it will be visible on my computer. I pay for this access to the internet, that makes it my property at least for the term of the lease. You are not allowed to post your opinion where it will appear on my private property.
Does that seem right to you? It doesn't to me, but it is in keeping with your stance on this issue. There is a valid argument to be made from your viewpoint, however, it must lose to the greater wisdom of not allowing a private entity to, in all practical manner, rescind constitutional rights in violation of law. Would you have hunters or CCW holders lay their weapons beside the road for retrieval when the workday is through? If your answer is no, then you must realize that company policy, in these cases, in effect, negates the constitution and state law. Thereby, placing the employer in a superior position to the constitution and the law. I don't think we should tolerate that. I am surprised that you do. Really surprised, since you have held my guidon.
Look at this another way. I own a business, if you work for me , part of the rules for access to my private property and your work station requires sexual favors. If you don't like it, you don't have to do business with me or work here. You have no rights on my property.
Yet, we as a society recognize that an employer does not and cannot be allowed to exercise such dominion over the rights of employees in this area. That is why we made it illegal for employers to violate these particular basic rights. I fail to see the difference in principle here.
This is the same exact principle you are espousing, just a different area of rights,and it is the first time I have ever thought you didn't understand the issue.
Wish I didn't think that.
"This computer is my property and you are forbidden to post your opinion where it will appear on my computer."
That is patently ridiculous-I'm not posting on your computer, you have chosen to access my opinions.
My position is simple--free people have the right to voluntarily associate with each other on terms they find mutually acceptable.
One party does not have the right to impose himself on another party.
You are saying that he does--and can summon the force of the state to coerce an involuntary relationship under force of arms.
You think giving the state more control over private relationships and property than it already has is the path to freedom?
Is that what you really think?
In re: "Really surprised, since you have held my guidon."
What's a "guidon"?
A guidon is a pennant, banner or flag,usually the regimental colors that are carried at the front of the column for the following troops to "guide on". Since the following troops can't see the front of the column the colors carried on high are helpful. The person carrying the guidon is often referred to as a guidon, also.
"One party does not have the right to impose himself on another party."
Agreed, but since in this case the employer has made imposition unavoidable, it is better to impose in defense of individual rights.
The employee's personal property is not subject to the approval of the employer. By allowing the employer to dictate what may or may not be acceptable in the employee's personal property (his car) we will have granted that employer the right of approval over the private property of the employee. It is undeniable that we have two levels of private property here. The absoutely personal private property of the employee, and the semi-public access but privately owned parking lot of the employer. If the employee keeps his privacy private, it is no business of the employer.
To state otherwise lends credence to the argument that one's home being surrounded by property owned by others subjects one's home to mandatory compliance with the decrees of the surrounding property owners. If you don't think that is a real danger, move to a neighborhood with a Homeowners' Association and see the sins against liberty and private property promulgated there and supported through state intervention. But at least, in that case the homeowner had to sign a contract surrendering his rights.
I have never seen an employment application that required the signing away of legal rights, except for patent clauses and those almost are always a loser for the company. Ask Sears.
In the particular instance, imposition is impossible to avoid through the policies of the employer. It is an imposition to demand one surrender his right to legal activity that is his right under law, and it is an imposition to invade one's property and privacy of that property to force that surrender. It is an imposition to terminate an employee for issues unrelated to his work, service, performance or other things for which he is being paid. It is not a crime, nor even usually a tort, but it is an imposition.
Since at the companies' intiation imposition is unavoidable, they should, rightfully, be the ones to suffer it. As were they minding their own business and honoring the private property of others (even though that property be surrounded by property owned by others, much like you home?)there would be no issue.
Something I forgot to mention. The guidon is always in the proximity of the commanding officer, so that subordinates will know where he can be found if needed.
Will post replies later today.
David Codrea
David,
I have to give a hat tip to straightarrow.
It may be the company's property, and as anonymous said, what is in my car is my business, just like what is in my pocket.
With that said, I do not like having the state dictate this as it is common sense, or should be. Do I think that this is the path to freedom, absolutely not!
Moreover, I do not think that any politicians, or groups of politicians, are going to get us back to freedom and liberty- we are too far-gone, and shortly, very shortly I think, Jefferson’s dictum will be the only avenue left for us to take.
WP
Here's my whole point--you and I have the absolute right to associate on terms we find mutually acceptable. If one of us does not find the terms acceptable, we are free to go elsewhere.
If I say you can not bring your car or person onto my property without undergoing a cavity search, you are free to tell me to go to hell and deal with someone more to your liking.
If my demands are egregious enough, more and more people will tell me to go to hell to where I must either mend my ways or be one deservedly lonely sob.
As long as I don't employ coercion and you are free to reject me, we will ONLY associate under mutually acceptable terms.
And before you say it, yes, I know and stipulate "the law" probably says you're right and I'm wrong, and people can't set up such unregulated t's and c's. I don't even pretend to argue from that position.
StraightArrow, I never asked to be anyone's standard bearer and don't consider myself anything more than someone with an opinion. I'm sorry if you now think my feet are made of clay--but truthfully, if you demand of a "guidon" (thanks for educating me about that) to always be in agreement with you, you will forever be disappointed--no one will ever be able to achieve that level of reliability for you.
I write for me--if anyone else wants to read my stuff, that's fine--if they actually agree with me, that's an even rarer occurrence. Writing about 2A automatically guarantees I'll be unpopular with a large chunk of Americans and most of the world--and I find I'm at odds enough with NRA management policies (and btw, I'm a Life Member) that I also find myself frequently at odds with most gun owners.
So be it.
I do believe the purpose of a debate is not to win, but to explore relevant arguments to help get closer to the truth.
I don't perceive that any of us are going to change any minds here. Believe me, guys, I understand where you all are coming from. I'm attracted to your arguments.
About all I have left in me for this is posted here:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/08/and-there-was-war-in-heavens.html
"Under my argument, if you don't bend to my will, the worst that can happen is that our association is terminated. By entering government into the mix, the element of coercion is also introduced. Now, if I don't bend to your will, you can call in the JBTs to seize me and my property, and to destroy me if I resist."
That's everything I know how to say for this round, fellas. Thanks all for your kind participation in this and for making me think. I'll continue to monitor for comments and chime in if I think I have anything to add. If you have anything more you want to say to me directly, you have the email address...codrea4 at adelphia dot net
David said:
"StraightArrow, I never asked to be anyone's standard bearer and don't consider myself anything more than someone with an opinion. I'm sorry if you now think my feet are made of clay--but truthfully, if you demand of a "guidon" (thanks for educating me about that) to always be in agreement with you, you will forever be disappointed--no one will ever be able to achieve that level of reliability for you."
I don't think your feet are made of clay. I simply think on this issue, you are wrong. I have thought you were wrong on other issues,also. But, just as in this case, I have never thought you were hypocritcal or morally lacking. Further, I have always noted that you strive to individual liberty. As to reliability, I find you quite reliable. You must live to your lights, I must live to mine. That does not mean either of us are unreliable. We may not be able to rely on the other doing or saying what we wish, but as for me, I believe I can rely on you to honestly state your position by your standards and to be true to your code. I have no problem with that, in fact, I admire it. One of the best friends I ever had was a cranky cantankerous sort that you absolutely couldn't trust to do what you wanted, but you could always count on him to do exactly what he said he would. You can't rightfully expect more than that of any man.
So I will continue to check where your banner doth fly, for that is the general direction of freedom. I do not require complete agreement, I merely state my opinion and try to state why it is my opinion. Hopefully, I will cause others to see it my way, if not, still, there may be something of use. Not to mention, that I glean much of use from the divergent opinions of others also. Our brains should atrophy, I think, if we never had cause to discuss differences, after all, same old, same old needs no discussion. We could all sit around like lumps. I prefer to learn from others or to at least, let them guide me to an entrance of a pathway of thought I may not have previously considered or been aware of.
As to this discussion, though my posts may sound emphatically sympathetic to one side and not at all to the other, let me tell you, it is a very close run thing. There is great merit in your viewpoint and at most times it is a viewpoint I share.
I think the state has no authority telling business owners whether there is smoking allowed on their property. I don't smoke, so I don't actually have a dog in this fight. But I don't think the business owner has a right to search your vehicle in his parking lot to determine if you have cigarettes, either.
I see much merit in your position, just not enough to agree that "mutually acceptable terms" means one side dictates and the other submits despite the violation of his rights. That is coercion. In the business world it would be called a "contract of adhesion" because all the power to set terms adheres to one side, there by making a sham of any 'negotiated acceptable terms', and is generally annulled when challenged in court because one side used its greater power to force that which it has no right to do.
I could see your side of it, if there were not laws preventing me from physically attacking, without penalty, someone that would attempt such a coercion. The bent nose guys in NYC don't get that level of immunity from punitive actions when they run their 'protection rackets'.
If the measure is to be who can bring the most force to bear, then we must allow for localized intensity of force in addition to application of total force. Coercion is a use of force.
That would be a term I would find acceptable, if the other side did not, they would be free to change their behavior or leave their property as anything less wouldn't be "mutually acceptable" since I wouldn't tolerate anything less than their surrender of their rights. Where is the difference? There is none, with the exception of who believes he can demand surrender of the others' rights. And they both are wrong. If it MUST be that way, why shouldn't they surrender?
Done properly, the employer doesn't invade my private property and I don't remove anything from that property to his property while my private property is surrounded by his. My way, everybody's rights are respected, and the state has no say in it. The same strictures against violation of private property that make home invasion illegal should apply to everybody. Employers should not be exempt from that basic tenet of law.
If an employee did take a prohibited item from his private property while surrounded by the employer's private property, he has then violated and invaded the private property of another and should not be subject to any protections from termination, or other penalties as properly provided.
Anyway that's my dollar and a half to get my 2 cents worth in. I will stop now. Thanks, though for the opportunity to discuss this. It will be one of the important issues of our day, and the right of it leaves a very thin margin for proper outcome.
I have a slightly different take on this: Individual people have rights and corporations, being a creation of the state, do not have any "rights" beyond due process. This view leads to individuals may restrict what you have in your car if you wish to bring it onto their private property but that corporations only have such authority if granted such by the state. In as much as the state has no authority to abbrogate a "right", it cannot delegate such authority to another entity.
Note that this view has nothing to do with the "business" status of the people involved: operating a business does not deprive an individual of control of his personal property.
Bob Reynolds, very good point and not at all inconsistent with my view, but even more relevant.
Post a Comment