I'm beginning to think that you fail to understand that opening one's property to the public may bring its operation under the laws governing its use, and that is decided, not by the owner as a proprietor, but as a business under license by the city, county, or state; and is no longer free to operate whimsically.
Your argument has value only when the property is operated as a private club, which also has its own rules to which you must agree if you join it.
Actually, privately owned real estate is not sacrosanct, AFIK, but is at least subject to be taken from one by eminent domain, and on the other hand operated according to zoning law, land use regulations, and business licensing. Like it or not, you are your brother's keeper, and his rights as to how to use the property are subject to the laws of the republic, in which we live according to acceptance of the social contract it offers to its citizens and property owners.
I guess I don't want to debate this any longer with you, because apparently your scale of values extends beyond what mutual agreement permits. I see alienation, not cooperation, as underlying the system you are presenting.
I am sort of sure I would not like to have someone with these ideas as my neighbor, if he/she is unwilling to negotiate use of his property that affect me or my property, and vice versa.
“I’m beginning to think that you fail to understand that opening one’s property to the public may bring its operation under the laws governing its use, and that is decided, not by the owner as a proprietor, but as a business under license by the city, county, or state; and is no longer free to operate whimsically.”
You have reversed the argument. The laws are decided whimsically and that is what has abolished private property rights. You even acknowledged that the law was changed by the “majority of voters.” That is an admission that the laws ARE subjected to change at the WHIM of the mob.
“Actually, privately owned real estate is not sacrosanct, AFIK, but is at least subject to be taken from one by eminent domain,”
Again, you have accepted the reversal of the meaning of terms. Private property IS sacrosanct if we desire a just and fair society. This specific argument would not exist if we simply left it to the property owner and allowed him to decide the fate of his own business. Then as the market demanded more “smoke free” venues, the business owners would voluntarily change. Even the use of “eminent domain” in your phrase is an admission of this sancrosanct nature of private property. If it is not intended to be such, then the framers would not have required “just compensation” for such confiscations.
“I guess I don’t want to debate this any longer with you, because apparently your scale of values extends beyond what mutual agreement permits. I see alienation, not cooperation, as underlying the system you are presenting.”
My “scale of values” is irrelevant to the discussion, as is yours. Neither overrides the property owner’s “scale of values.” I was more than happy to live by any property owners preferences, those that support this government dictate are not. So, no there is no agreement to be had in the theft of private property.
Yes, that leads to situations where a property owner CAN alienate an undesired segment of the market. A bar owner should be able to alienate smokers or those that can’t stand smokers. Much like a seafood restaurant should be able to alienate those with shellfish allergies and bakers should be able to alienate those desiring a cake for a gay wedding.
That is exactly how we have a just, free and stable society. In my system, everyone can be accomodated in the market and everyone is free to use their property as they see fit, without having the laws change at the whim of the mob.
Your position, the one sold to you by the democratic socialists, gave us KELO, smoking bans, forcing bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, forcing photographers to provide services for same and it WILL be used to force churches to perform gay weddings.
Many folks have lost their businesses, homes, livelihoods and all they had worked for. How is this fair and just to those property owners? It is not and by extension, it is not fair to ANY property owner.
If the laws regarding private businesses can be changed at the whim of 51% of voters, then there is NO SUCH THING AS PRIVATE PROPERTY for anyone.