[Antonello]

I've gone through the comments in post 89. No one suggested that Ford didn't have the legal right to do what they did. (The union employee came the closest, but even he didn't get there.) Most responded by either pointing out the abstract consequences, the direct consequences, or historical reality about the company.

Accepting that a property owner has a legal right to do something is not the same as supporting ownership rights. Criticizing a decision by citing reasons why it would be ineffective or even detrimental to its goal is one thing, but the posts I referenced aren't doing that.

What they are doing instead is expressing disdain over the exercise of ownership rights to do something that the critic finds personally offensive in an ideological sense. In other words, they profess to support ownership rights only as long as that owner does what they want.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

You need to go back and rethink things because you are simply wrong.

If some person hates this decision and decides to never buy a Ford again because of it, and tells everyone, this does not make them against Ford's property rights. The person would be exercising his own property right over his own money and how it is spent.

Using your own logic (which is wrong) I might say you are anti-property rights because you seem to be saying people should not be able to take this action of Ford into account in their decision on how to spend their own money.p>

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Maybe this one question quiz will help in thinking about the issue a little:

1. Bob paints his house pink. Which of the following people could be considered “anti-property rights”?
a. Cindy tells bob she hates it
b. Matt stops inviting bob to his parties, and tells everyone how stupid Bob is for painting his house and ugly color.
c. Steve goes to city hall to file a complaint.
d. Eric paints his house green in retaliation because he knows Bob hates green.
e. all of the above
…
…
…
(answer c)

[PAR35]

Accepting that a property owner has a legal right to do something is not the same as supporting ownership rights.

I disagree. It appears that what you have problems with is the Constitutional right to free speech. You have a legal right to buy the house next door to me and paint it orange with purple polka dots. I would then have the right criticize you and your paint choices without being opposed to property rights.

Here, Ford has a right to restrict parking in their lot, and I have a right to point out how stupid it is as a business decision, and to translate that disdain into a purchasing decision.