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
