I am forced to do so by people (not just you) who write that I said things I didn't say.
...but you’re really not saying very much so it’s hard to figure out what it is you’re actually saying.
I'm not saying very much since my post 24 because in that post I requested a position and an explanation and up till now nobody has responded in a way I find useful. So far the responses have pretty much ignored my requests and gone off the track of what I was trying to discuss by way of those requests. There hasn't been a reason for me to go along with that by saying much in response to the attempts to derail me.
Seems like all you really want is a definition and acknowledgment of property rights.
Now that's close enough to be useful. More specifically, I want an authoritative definition and acknowledgment. In my post 24 I cited the First Amendment as an authoritative indication of the existence of the Right to Free Speech (although it does not define it). Absent something authoritative I might accept some chain of logic. For instance I might accept something along the lines of: the Right to Free Speech obviously exists because in a state of nature, with no societal or governmental input, People have the inherent ability to speak.
Property rights are acknowledged in the Fifth, when it’s outlined that we can’t have our property seized in criminal cases without due process or taken for public use without just compensation. That’s acknowledgment of property rights, and it’s an acknowledgment that they’re pretty strong since property is listed right up there with life and liberty as something that can’t be seized without due process.
Hmmmm. The Fifth says: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." That's a step in the right direction because even though it doesn't state outright the existence of a right to have property, it indicates the existence of a right to have property by grouping property with life and liberty which are outright called unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. (Because of that, some might say that the existence of a right to have property is in the penumbra of the Constitution, but I don't want to go there right now.) On the other hand, it doesn't do a lot to enlighten us on any rights that accompany the right to have property, what we call property rights, unless the right to have property is the only property right and I don't think that's so. It puts life, liberty and property on the same level so why would someone's property rights constrain someone else's liberty rights? Or why would someone's property rights be constrained by someone else's liberty rights? (The answer to that is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. The problem is in determining the endings and beginings. Some people say that property rights trump all other rights but I have not seen anyone make a case to support that and I don't believe it.)
Now to continue:
As for the definition that gets more complicated...
That's true. And underlying problem to determining the answers to the questions I asked above is that we don't share good definitions of rights or property or Free Speech or etc.
...because property is a complex concept...
That's true too, at least it's more complex than a lot of people bother with. People throw around the words "Property Rights" as if they are magic and invoking the magic words should be the final solution to disputes. But there are different kinds of property. There's real property (land and such), there's personal property, there's intellectual property (though I think that's only been acknowledged as such for a couple hundred years or so). And there are different kinds of rights. There are unalienable or inalienable or natural rights, there are legal rights, there are contract rights. There are cases where one type of right may supersede another type of right and other cases where the exact opposite may be the situation.
At the most basic level property rights are the ability to do what you want with your stuff, so long as you’re not infringing on others.
Not a bad statement. As I wrote above, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. So when do one person's property rights infringe on another's Right to Free Speech and when does one person's Right to Free Speech infringe on another's property rights?
Referring back to my post 24, I don't think I've exactly been provided "a similar position regarding ...'it is instead a property rights issue' using similarly authoritative sources, and addressing property rights from both the 'real property' and 'personal property' aspects."
And I haven't been provided an explanation of "why government should not be involved in securing real and personal property rights."
But you did give me more to work with. Did I say enough in return?
Well to take it back to this situation you need to keep in mind that the mall owner’s property rights are actually not infringing on the store owner’s speech rights. It’s the mall owner’s SPEECH AND PROPERTY rights that are trumping the store owner’s speech rights alone.
When rights are in conflict with each other it generally just winds up being a bit of simple math to figure out who wins. In this instance it’s good to remember that speech rights include the ability to not talk, that not only does freedom of speech give you the right to wear/ display/ sell t-shirts it also give you the right to NOT wear/ display/ sell t-shirts. So in this situation the mall owner’s speech rights are in direct conflict with the store owner’s, no matter which path you take somebody is going to lose. So when two people’s rights have equal claim in a situation you look to other rights, in this situation the vast majority of other rights are a push or not applicable, they either apply equally or not at all. But there’s one set of rights that don’t apply equally in this, property rights, because in this situation one side is an owner of the property and the other is a renter of the same property. And a long standing piece of of our property rights jurisprudence is that when the conflict is over control of property the owner of that property has more rights than the renter.
So while we say the mall owner’s property rights trump the store owner’s speech rights that’s just an over simplification to avoid a weird sounding sentence. The true sentence is that both party’s speech rights are a push but the owner’s property rights trump the renter’s property right’s and the combination means that the store owner’s speech rights get abridged.