When you accept a condition, responsibility then rests with you. I give you an option and you (as an adult) get to decide whether it is right for you. That's who the big boy world works.
What qualifies you as unreasonable is your unwillingness to accept other people's property rights.
As for you weaseling vis a vis "rental agreements" you make my point. Rental agreements are nothing but a legal contract bases on a list of conditions. I rent out two properties and my tenants must remain within the confines of the contract (conditions) if they wish to stay on the property.
Please tell me that you do not fancy yourself knowlegable in law, and yet had the fact that a lease is nothing but a conditional arrangement, escape you.
I have already addressed illegal conditions, but if you understand natural rights at all then you must understand that the state does not give me my propery rights, thus it cannot take them away. Making an abridgment of rights a law, doesn't make it OK. The USSR had tons of laws precluding the free excercise of rights.
In fact, it is very difficult to come up with an illegal condition of entry, as the person being offered the condition can always refuse it, by not entering.
You have never addressed the direct point that all of your other rights are open for abridgment on a regular basis as a condition of entry, and I'm certain that you have a long list of conditions that you put on your visitors (which restricts their free actions), whether it is stated or not.
It is unclear how any person who is free to leave at any time, can claim that they were forced to give something up.
>>Interesting that you consider the insistence that you agree to a positive obligation to provide for my safety should I accept your condition to enter your property to qualify me as “not a reasonable person.” Also interesting that pointing out what the law says qualifies me as “not a reasonable person.”
>
>When you accept a condition, responsibility then rests with you. I give you an option and you (as an adult) get to decide whether it is right for you. That’s who the big boy world works.
And you yourself rejected the counter-agreement that should I give up my being armed as a condition of entering your property that you assume responsibility for my bodily safety. Let me put it another way:
Let’s say that you did indeed extend a conditional invitation onto your property with the one condition being that I be unarmed; would you then be willing to sign a legally binding contract stating that you are legally and financially responsible for my safety while on your property?
>I have already addressed illegal conditions,
No you haven’t; you have in two places on this thread stated that:
a) even illegal conditions are legitimate, (Post 53: “How about this “rule”: If you come onto my property, as a rule of you staying, if my (nonexistant) gay brother-in-law visits he is allowed to rape you.”)
and
b) any illegal condition is null and void. (Post 76: “You cannot solicit people to commit illegal acts as a condition of entry, such as bringing drugs.”)
That, my friend, is a contradiction.