Thank you for clearly identifying yourself by means of your behavior. Some people remember names better than others--so sue me. I'm a mathematician. I forget names, but I never forget arguments.
You've forgotten that I wasn't "insisting" in the space of one line? Unbelievable.
Assuming you can read, and read the subthread you were joining, you must have been quite familiar with my objections to the term social contract. You approached someone who objects to the term, but used it anyway. Although it's the first time you used it, in context, that's "insistance". I apologize for your confusion.
He was enumerating our right to travel, Izzy, not a property right. -- You're confused, and it's amusing.
Yes, I realize that of "life, liberty and property," the right to use public roads probably comes under "liberty" rather than "property". Like a typical statist, the author believes that some "liberties" trump "property". Of course that means that government's job is self-contradictory: it must protect property, and simultaneously protect other rights that require the violation of property. Under those circumstances, you can do whatever you want: from contradictory hypotheses, anything can be proven.
Naturally, you ignored the observation that private turnpikes existed at one point, but those property rights were trampled by the courts.
Amusing nitpicking -- you admit that "most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights" yet claim this isn't a conflict.
Not nitpicking: that's the heart of your confusion. If you punch me in the nose, our "rights" haven't come into conflict. I have rights; you violated them; your rights have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. You acted entirely outside your rights, in violation of mine.
My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences.
Again, I exhort you to read carefully. My "right to swing my arm" is imaginary. This would be more clear if Ollie had said, "Your right to fire stinger missiles ends at my property line." WHAT right to fire stinger missiles? To what right is he referring? An imaginary right.
Similarly, he might say, "Your right to shine laser beams ends at my cockpit window (or the lens of my eye)." Equally absurd: this "right to shine laser beams" of which he speaks is fictional.
Thereby proving Ollies hypothetical, which is not "absurd".
He postulates "limits" to a right I don't have. That's absurd.
We readers await more pearls of 'wisdom' from you izzy
I'll ignore your mockery and answer the question, since it apparently eluded you. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. It has to do with property rights--Ollie's consistent achilles heel. He doesn't "get" property rights. The theater is not my property; by buying a ticket, I gain permission to enter from the owner. But that permission comes with an implied contract that I'll abide by the house rules. Primarily, the rule that I should shut up and watch the movie. If I yell anything in a crowded theater, including of course, "Fire!", then I'm in breach of that contract. In this case the owner can't should "Fire!" either, because the implied contract also guarantees that the patrons will be permitted to watch the movie in peace.
If I want to, however, I can open my own movie theater, whose rules clearly stipulate that fire-drills will be conducted regularly. As the owner, I will occasionally holler "Fire!" in my theater, or more likely pull a fire alarm, and empty the theater. If people don't like it, they'll stop coming to my theater, and I'll go broke. But contrary to Ollie's assertion, no wrong-doing of any sort has occurred.
I deduced the above from his consistent way or making (subtle) mistakes that stem from a failure to appreciate property rights, so it was gratifying to find the following in Wikipedia:
Oliver Wendell Holmes the younger, (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist noted for his concise, pithy rejection of the prevailing property-rights ideology embraced by other judges of his time, and for his deference to the decisions of democratically-elected legislatures.
...
He became known for his innovative, well-reasoned decisions, balancing property rights with rule by the majority, with the latter taking precedence over the former.
...
Holmes gained significant admiration from liberals of his time, such as Frankfurter and Brandeis, as a strong critic of the Supreme Court's "liberty of contract" doctrine, which was frequently invoked to strike down progressive economic legislation, most famously in the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York. Holmes's dissent in that case, in which he wrote that "a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory," is one of the most-quoted in Supreme Court history. Holmes's personal views on economics were influenced by Mathusian theories that emphasized struggle for a fixed amount of resources.
Unfortunately, this means I'll have to re-evaluate my earlier claim that I like the man. In this précis of his bio, I don't see much to like.
Our author, quoted above, was enumerating our right to travel, Izzy, not a property right. -- You're confused, and it's amusing.
Yes, I realize that of "life, liberty and property," the right to use public roads probably comes under "liberty" rather than "property". Like a typical statist,
Vin is not a "statist", and your unsupported opinion insisting he is makes you look like a 'troll'. Is that your intent?
the author believes that some "liberties" trump "property".
Prove it. Show us where..
Of course that means that government's job is self-contradictory: it must protect property, and simultaneously protect other rights that require the violation of property.
Again, who is advocating the violation of property, - and where?
Under those circumstances, you can do whatever you want: from contradictory hypotheses, anything can be proven. Naturally, you ignored the observation that private turnpikes existed at one point, but those property rights were trampled by the courts.
Amusing nitpicking, - [also applies to the above] ---- you admit that "most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights" yet claim this isn't a conflict.
Not nitpicking: that's the heart of your confusion. If you punch me in the nose, our "rights" haven't come into conflict. I have rights; you violated them; your rights have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. You acted entirely outside your rights, in violation of mine.
You are confusing the enforcement of criminal law, -- with lawsuits/disputes between conflicting parties.
-- My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences.
Again, I exhort you to read carefully. My "right to swing my arm" is imaginary.
How droll. You can swing all you want izzy, it's your right; -- but not near my nose.
This would be more clear if Ollie had said, "Your right to fire stinger missiles ends at my property line." WHAT right to fire stinger missiles? To what right is he referring? An imaginary right. Similarly, he might say, "Your right to shine laser beams ends at my cockpit window (or the lens of my eye)." Equally absurd: this "right to shine laser beams" of which he speaks is fictional.
Whatever. Obviously you imagine you're making a logical point. Dream on.
My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences. -- Thereby proving Ollies hypothetical, which is not "absurd".
He postulates "limits" to a right I don't have. That's absurd.
See your absurdity above.
We readers await more pearls of 'wisdom' from you izzy...
I'll ignore your mockery and answer the question, since it apparently eluded you. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.
You have no right to 'freely' yell FIRE! in a crowded theater and cause a panic, izzy. -- Unless there is a fire. -- Get it yet?
It has to do with property rights--Ollie's consistent achilles heel. He doesn't "get" property rights. The theater is not my property; by buying a ticket, I gain permission to enter from the owner. But that permission comes with an implied contract that I'll abide by the house rules. Primarily, the rule that I should shut up and watch the movie. If I yell anything in a crowded theater, including of course, "Fire!", then I'm in breach of that contract. In this case the owner can't should "Fire!" either, because the implied contract also guarantees that the patrons will be permitted to watch the movie in peace. If I want to, however, I can open my own movie theater, whose rules clearly stipulate that fire-drills will be conducted regularly. As the owner, I will occasionally holler "Fire!" in my theater, or more likely pull a fire alarm, and empty the theater. If people don't like it, they'll stop coming to my theater, and I'll go broke. But contrary to Ollie's assertion, no wrong-doing of any sort has occurred.
Lordy, but you do babble on. Do you really think you've made some point, or are you trying to baffegab us with quantities of bull? -- Grow up izzy.