On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:23:29 -0700, Zack Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Shirley" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> the Doctrine of Competing Harms elevates my right to >> defend my life above an employer's interest in keeping >> his insurance rates low >> > > So defend your life on YOUR Property. Not his. Wrong. The second he says "no guns", he assumes total liability for protecting your life from the moment that you step out your front door to the moment you cross your threshold again. That's why casinos and strip clubs offer their female employees a shuttle or limo ride handled by their security departments. Tell me, did you sleep thorugh Business Law 101? You've got two competing property rights, the right of a property owner to dictate actions on his property and the right of the individual to his life. And since it's a whole lot harder to resurrect the dead than it is to compensate a property owner, the Doctrine of Competing Harms is fully in the corner of the guy who wants the means to defend himself. -- "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans." Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN