Theoretically, Bloomberg could buy all the retail stores in a small town that he never visited let alone lived in, and ban firearms in those stores contrary to the wishes and common practice of the residents. It might even be legal in some places, though I don’t believe it would be right.
My neighbors and I have an intangible property interest in our community. If an outsider comes it’s preferable that the outsider assimilate to us rather than forcing us to his will. If the outsider wants to force us to his will, he’s more than welcome to go elsewhere.
They LIERALLY did, to a town called Antelope, OR, exactly what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram
In the US, when you purchase property, you can control who is allowed on it and you can create rules and prohibit people from violating those rules, enforced by requiring them to leave the property.
Even if they are stupid rules.
Even if they appear to violate a person’s constitutional rights. They only REALLY violate their rights if you don’t allow them to leave the property.
“Except he owns the property.”
Actually, I wrote ”preferable” and “more than welcome”. Neither what someone finds preferable nor what someone deems another is more than welcome to do is affected by that someone else’s property ownership.
“Ever heard of Rajneeshpuram?”
The citizens of Antelope seem to have found it preferable that the Rajneeshpuramees assimilate and felt that the Rajneeshpuramees were more than welcome to go elsewhere, which they eventually did. And the Rajneeshpuramees seem to have taken up residence, which the Bloomberg I was talking about did not, so it’s not exactly what I was talking about.
“In the US…”
Only in the US?
That implies that in at least some places outside the US what you wrote is not true which means that in those places property rights do not always trump other rights which is my basic position.
“…when you purchase property, you can control who is allowed on it…”
If my car is run off the road onto your property, you can order me off your property, but I don’t think you can keep my car by not allowing me or my agents on your property to recover it.
“…and you can create rules and prohibit people from violating those rules, enforced by requiring them to leave the property.”
You can make all the rules you want, but your property rights don’t trump anyone’s free speech right to say “no” to a sexual advance nor do they trump someone’s right to life if you invite them onto your property then try to murder them.
“They only REALLY violate their rights if you don’t allow them to leave the property.”
So, we agree that one’s property rights don’t trump the right to liberty of another to leave one’s property. (Actually property rights might trump in some cases.) That means we agree property rights don’t always trump.
I disagree that any of this is as simple as you seem to think it is.