Replies

“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.

“…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.

Straw man. If someone accidentally ends up on your property and you want them off, you have the right to ask and expect them to leave, but you are also expected to be reasonable about how and when they get off the property. If there is not a consensus within the culture regarding what is reasonable, and the property owner or violater is unreasonable, well, that is why we have governments.

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.

Yeah. All I am concerned with is the rules on the planet on which I live. I live on Planet US. I don’t care what those other “planets” do, as long as my planet has a strong defense system that prevents those other ones from importing their lunacy onto my planet.

“…and you can create rules and prohibit people from violating those rules, enforced by requiring them to leave the property.”

Like I said, you only cross the line when you don’t allow them to leave. And if you murder someone, you didn’t allow them to leave. And if you make sexual advances to someone, and don’t allow them to leave, same thing.

My whole premise regarding allowing them to leave covers your points and similar ones. e.g. if you try to rape a person, you are not allowing her to leave.

I disagree that any of this is as simple as you seem to think it is.

It is simple in that the foundational principle is simple. Remarkably so. When you try to do something illegal on your property with someone else on your property, they have the right to say, “I’m leaving”, and then leave. If you don’t give them the right to leave (other than stuff like catching them robbing you so you hold them for police), you have not violated their rights.

The only other exception I can think of would be if you violate their rights before they even have a chance to leave. e.g. cold cocking them and knocking them out.

But that’s really outside the scope of the principles being discussed. The key thing is that they can’t make you do anything on your property, and they can’t force you to allow them to stay. That’s it. This means you don’t have to bake the cake. You don’t have to let same sex couples stay in your hotel, Heck, you can even refuse to allow Asian people to shop in your store. Or white people or black people. The only exception would be if you have a monopoly on a particular product or service.