On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:49:40 -0700, Zack Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Dead wrong. Your life is a property too, and that means that the
Doctrine of Competing Harms governs on this one. If somebody gets killed
because you denied him the means of self defense, you can't make him whole.
And that's why self defense trumps control over events on real property.
>> And I've read that legal opinions suggest that an employer
>> that makes such demands is actually liable for anything
>> that might happen to you on your way home, even if you
>> make stops along the way
>
> Well. U.S. Law. There you go. Has nothing to do with
> libertarianism, more's the pity.
Sure it does, assuming that you think that your life is worth
something.
> You can like The Law, or you can like libertarian Principles, you
> can't do both. Not everyone is meant to be a libertarian.
The trouble Zack, is that you're not a libertarian. You do,
however, present a wonderful example of a sociopath trying to
rationalize destructive narcissism. Your inability to resolve the
difference between liberty and license stands in stark testimony to the
fact.
>
>
>
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans." Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN
