[H.Akston]

Your trespasser analogy is flawed. You obviously do not understand my logic. Your property rights would trump the trespasser's free speech rights, when he is on your property. In fact I could use your analogy to illustrate my point. You have a right to be secure in your person and property. The police should actually assist you in aborting him from your property. If his life depended on remaining in your house and being obnoxious, that would be his tough luck. If he can sustain his own life out on the street, he must be allowed the attempt. He may have to temporarily become a ward of the state in that case. They cannot violate his person in removing him. They can effect a separation between the two soveriegns.

The key is to remember that we each have a right to be secure in our person. No unwanted attachments allowed.

Secure in our person.

Governmentally protectable life begins when no other person's body is required to sustain us.

[Askel5]

=== Governmentally protectable life begins when no other person's body is required to sustain us.


We're all doomed!!!!

NONE OF US HAS THE PROTECTION OF THE WELFARE STATE!!!

[radicalamericannationalist]

The right to life supersedes the right to be secure in one's own person, just as you say property rights supersede free speech.

BTW, the Supreme Court case that invalidated private discriminatory covenants in homeowners associations used just the logic you advocate, that court enforcement of those actions made it a state action and thus unconstitutional.