On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:21:21 -0700, Zack Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Shirley"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:34:42 -0700, Zack Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Well 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.
>>
>> Doctrine of Competing Harms says he doesn't.
>>
>
> Private Property says he does. He may demand the utmost risk on your
> part; if you do not wish to comply, you do not have to enter his
> PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Private property be damned. Your life is also your property and
unlike this situation which essentially creates an easement and which
doesn't cost the SOB a damned thing, your life is irreplaceable and unless
he wants to assume full liability for your safety from the time you step
out the door until the time you get home again, the presence of a gun in
your car, which is your property, is none of his damned business.
>
>>
>> And if I've got a gun locked up in my car, it's none
>> of his damned business.
>>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I figured this one would separate the libertarians
> from the single-issue posers.
You're not a Libertarian. You're unable to operate in a situation
where there is a balance between your rights and those of other people.
What
you are, is an exponent of the tyranny of a minority. People who demand
license inevitably wind up being petit tyrants. There's a difference
between
being free and being childish and you've yet to distinguish between the
two.
BTW, if some SOB demanded that kind of risk from anybody I gave a
damn about, his life expectancy would be roughly the length of time that it
took me to draw a bead on him. The one thing that I really hate is some
pathetic clown that arrogates to himself the power to make safety decisions
on the behalf of others when he doesn't have to suffer the consequences of
being wrong.
That asshole doesn't have the right to demand that anybody risk
anything, especially their lives.
Your view of how rights are supposed to work, only creates a situation
where the guy with the biggest hammer wins, and real rights can't exist in
that
kind of environment. And that points out the genius of our Constitution--
the
theory is that law protects the majority and rights the minority and that
we keep
it in a rough balance. And the individual is the smallest minority.
This law, costs that employer nothing. It even gives him an affirmative
defense if something does happen on his property, which it didn't before.
You see,
under the law a property owner has a legal duty to protect those on his
property.
If he fails to do so, he's liable. Doublely so, if he takes steps to
prevent others
from defending themselves. And in the situation where it's a school or a
business
that has banned people from having the means to defend themselves, that
legal
liability goes from the time you step out the door to go to work until the
time
you set foot back on your own property. That's why Casinos and Strip Clubs
here,
have their security people transporting employees by shuttle if they so
choose.
Those shuttles are generally run by the security people from the
businesses in
question. And that's because those women are vulnerable, not permitted to
defend
themselves and are frequently the focal point of unwanted attention from
guys who
are looking to get laid. Those businesses wouldn't be doing that if their
liability
insurance didn't demand it and the underwriters wouldn't be making that
demand if
the law didn't make property owners liable.
This law isn't antilibertarian. Far from it. The smallest minority is
the
individual and this is a situation where if he gets killed, there's no
damned way
that you can make him whole again. You can't resurrect the dead. So,
because of
that, under the law, the right of an individual to his own life, and to
take the
necessary steps in order to protect it, trumps the right of a property
owner to
dictate whether he can have access to a gun or not. The law looks at it
this way.
You can't compensate a corpse. You can compensate a property owner, and
more
importantly, if he gets sued, ect, he has recourse. The guy who gets
killed,
doesn't. Which is why in law there is a Doctrine of Competing Harms.
And the first time somebody with a CCW permit gets hurt or killed
because
a
property owner or manager refuses to let him pack, legally it's gonna be
Katie bar
the door, because by the time that the legal system gets done with him,
he's gonna
be living in a cardboard box and begging for spare change at some highway
onramp.
And that, again, is because if you tell people that they can't defend
themselves,
you assume full responsibility and liability for doing so.
The bottom line here, Zack, is that all the political theory in the
world,
can't change the fact that a person has a right to his life, and you don't
have
the right to prevent him from protecting it.
It's kinda funny. Your view of things is both solipsistic and
intellectually
dishonest. Kinda reminds me of some of the arguements I've had with
Communists over
the years. Most of the crap that Marx and Lenin proposed were as
solipsistic as that
pseudolibertarian "property rights uber alles" mentality that you wave
like a bloody
red flag, every time somebody tells you that you have a legal obligation
to do
something that you might not want to do.
BTW, there's a real world example of how things actually work. A few
years ago
when Nevada went to "shall issue" CCW permits, a few businesses like the
banks started
putting up stickers saying no guns. That lasted about three days. What
happened? Two
things. First off a bunch of people started closing their accounts, but
something
funner happened. Their management was advised that they were assuming full
liability
for anybody who was unarmed pursuant to those stickers if something went
down and that
they'd couldn't dodge the legal requirement of a property owner's duty to
protect. At
that point, those pusilanimous managers had those stickers scraped off of
their doors,
post haste. Their lawyers made their point loud & clear.
And the funny thing is that nobody has had any incidents with a legally
carried
gun in a bank, and that's been over a period of about a decade since the
law passed.
You can whine all you want about the real world not adhering to your
solipsistic
theories, but in the end, it's a case of "thin may be in, but fat's where
it's at."
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans." Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN
