Hard for me to tell. I don't recall seeing a comprehensive (or coherent) authoritative statement of real property rights and/or personal property rights. What I see mostly is opinion and unsupported assertion.
Certainly when it comes to dealings with the government your home, car and person all get pretty close to the same level of search protection.
I suppose so but I don't think "search" is where most of the problems seem to arise, although there have been discussions on this forum over whether or not ownership of real property gives the owner the right to search the personal property which is your car when it's in the parking lot that is the owner's property or to check the personal property which is your merchandise when leaving the store that is the owner's property.
The t-shirts got confiscated because they were the center of the conflict. The kiosk owner just couldn’t seem to understand “don’t sell them here” means not to be selling them. And of course keep in mind that the mall owners said they’d give them back.
And there may be contract right issues in that mix, but leaving that aside, if someone takes your car for a joyride without your permission but with the intention of giving it back and in fact does give it back, would your personal property rights be violated or not? I mean they did give your car back.
Jurisprudence doesn’t mean it’s a matter of law rather than something fundamental. It means there’s been legal cases revolving around it. We’ve got a ton of jurisprudence around free speech. The fundamental right is a broad scope concept, jurisprudence is how we define nitty gritty workings of it. There’s a fundamental right to property, but whether or not that right includes action X (which might or might not impinge in some way on somebody else’s rights) tends to get worked out in the courts.
Jurisprudence or the law affects pretty much all our natural rights. That's the result of having a large organized society resulting in the need to make judgments regarding conflicts of rights without those immediately affected resorting to personal force to settle the conflicts. And the effects of the law on the subject of property rights is probably why it's hard to find the statement of real property rights and/or personal property rights I wrote of above. Too many laws in too many jurisdictions. But there ought to be some statement of the fundamentals. A lot of people seem to think they know what the law should be as opposed to what it is and their opinions have to be based on something.
Remember the castle doctrine. In most states now there are laws that outline that you can kill somebody for being illegally on your property because such an action poses a clear enough threat to your safety to warrant deadly response.
I don't know about the "most states" part. Last I checked it was about ten. That could have changed or my source could have been wrong.
About the "you can kill somebody for being illegally on your property" part, that's not true here in Ohio. Here you can only take action to stop them from harming someone. You can't intentionally kill or wound, just stop. If death or wounding results from the effort to stop, well that's just a secondary effect, and you better not tell the police or the prosecutor or the court that you intended to do anything but make them stop.
You can oversimplify the description of that as “my property rights trump your life rights”, and the more proper description is similar to the mall situation, if you’re illegally on my property you probably mean to do me harm, so then it’s my right to life vs your right to life.
Illegality is one thing but what's legal or not may vary from one district to another. At the fundamental level, why should merely being on someone's property constitute intent to do harm justifying a "my right to life vs your right to life" situation?
Why should real property rights always trump? Take a state at random, say Arizona. The United States took that land from Mexico by Force. (I know, they paid but that's like someone taking your car by force and then paying for it.) Mexico took the same land by force from Spain when Mexico revolted and formed the country of Mexico. Spain took it by force from the Indians. Actually, everybody took it by force from the Indians, who probably took it by force from each other before anybody else showed up.
After that chain of theft (the taking by force of something that wasn't yours can be called theft), how can an owner of real property claim the moral high ground based on property rights?
Feel free to poke around in the holes I've left.
Property rights aren’t trumping, nobody is claiming the moral high ground based on property. We’re just working the the situation backwards, you can’t look at these things in exclusion, all situation have background and how you got here is at least as important as here itself. If you and I are standing there with guns pointed at each other if we’re at your house then this whole situation probably started with me breaking the law, and therefore I’m probably presenting a threat to your person, and illegal and undefensable threat, so if you shoot me it’s probably going to be an act of self defense. That’s the logic chain the Castle Doctrine is built around, we know criminals tend to stay criminals, that even if the guy breaking into your home wasn’t planning on harming you when he started once he got caught he probably was, and there’s really no need to wait until he starts swinging. It’s a you or him situation and he broke the law to even get there so F him. The property rights is really just there in so far as it’s “your home”, and property rights give us a definition of that phrase that allow us to distinguish the owner from the criminal.