Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. Let's say a section of the New Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a private company, which now owns and operates this section.
So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm blond-haired and blue eyed, and the asshole in the squad car doesn't like that, because his wife's been bangin' a surfer. So...he should be able to toss me off the freeway just because of the way I look? (Or the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or whatever.)
Not if he wants to keep his job. This is supposed to be a profit-making operation, remember? Pissing off or outright throwing out paying customers is a good way to make the company lose money, which is bound to get the owners quite upset.
Let's suppose, however, that the owners are such extreme bigots that they prefer nursing their prejudices over making money. Should the owners be able to arbitrarily deny certain people access to their property? In the absence of a valid contract to the contrary, OF COURSE. Anybody for whom this is not blindingly obvious still hasn't grasped the fundamental concept that most children acquire by the age of three or four: the difference between MINE and YOURS.
The way I see it is there's private property, there's public property, and then there's reality with lots of stuff in between.
No, there's private property, there are unowned (unclaimed) resources, and that's it. I don't consider the State to have any valid property rights at all, as everything which it claims as its property was obtained by theft, violence, or both. Your "stuff in between" is just a bunch of hooey invented in order to justify violations of property rights. Sort of like this "compelling state interest" test invented by the frauds in the Supreme Court to weasel their way past the clear and unambiguous wording of the First Amendment; no trace of the concept exists in the Constitution.
