Quoting Zack Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Roy J. Tellason" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Friday 11 April 2008 23:34, Zack Bass wrote: >> >> > the parking lot IS the employer's property, and he has >> > a moral right to demand whatever terms he chooses to >> > place upon entry thereto, including what weapons are >> > in the car and what color the driver is. >> >> I disagree with this, >> > > Then you disagree with the libertarian principle of PRIVATE PROPERTY. > The whim of th eProperty Owner is king. He may be a flaming bigot, he > may hate the sight of guns, whatever, it is HIS property. > Your interests are of no consequence. You may even be starving TO > DEATH, and you have no right to intrude upon his peace there. > >> >> as what the employer might demand with regard to what's >> in your car or not is going to have an effect on you >> before you get to work and after you leave. >> > > Yup, that may be what he demands. It's HIS property and he didn't > have to let you onto it at all, so any conditions that do allow you on > are his to make. > I think that both of you are missing the point. If I understand correctly, the employer's concern is almost certainly that he'll be sued---and be likely to lose, given the current climate and the fact that people with lives run from jury duty like it was the True Cross and they were Dracula---if some employee of his does something with a gun while it can be construed that they are in his service.
If you want this changed, change the liability laws. The ghods know they need changing. As things stand, if I have someone working for me and he shoots someone _while actively in my employ,_ I can be sued. Just like if I hire someone to drive a truck for me, he goes nuts with the truck and hurts someone. I may have had nothing to do with it, but under the law, I'm liable. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
