Our author, quoted above, was enumerating our right to travel -- is not a "statist", and your unsupported opinion insisting he is makes you look like a 'troll'.
He believes in a state monopoly of roads.
Having public roads in our republic is "Statist"? -- Weird position.
He may be less statist than, say, your average democrat, but he is indeed statist.
Prove it. Show us where..
-- Again, who is advocating the violation of property, - and where?
Can't you read? He has stated his belief in "public", i.e., state-owned, "roads". Public roads means the state acquiring property, in order to "protect" the "freedom" of travelling on said state-owned property. Thus, "liberty" (of travel) "trumps property." Do you imagine to yourself that the road fairy comes at night and lays down pavement? If not, how did you imagine it was done? More to the point, how did you imagine it was paid for, and how did you imagine land is acquired for new roads?
Well izzy, when we formed the United States we took over claimed & unclaimed lands and reserved to our governments the power to establish needed roads, bridges, etc. - with the understanding that such 'takings' would be for just public uses with just compensation.
-- And in fact, our subdivision of most of America mandated public easements for roads bordering every square mile.
Were you even aware of this?
You are confusing the enforcement of criminal law, -- with lawsuits/disputes between conflicting parties.
helpful if you'd give an example of a lawsuit in which two parties' "rights" come "into conflict".
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
I'll then explain why "conflicting rights" have nothing to do with it.
Feel free to try.
How droll. You can swing all you want izzy, it's your right; -- but not near my nose.
You are mistaken, but you can be forgiven for using language so sloppily. What does the phrase "right to swing your arm" mean? Does it mean, "the right to swing my arm anywhere I please"? If so, there's no such right. There are plenty of circumstances in which arm-swinging is not permitted, and rightly so. I do have a "right to swing my arm on my own property when I'm alone," since that's a special case of my property rights: my arm belongs to me. There are other cases in which my property rights imply that I may swing my arm. But the right that I have is ownership of my arm, not Holmes's hypothetical "swinging rights". Usually we use the phrase "I have the right" in exactly this sloppy manner. I might say, "I have the right to have sex with my wife," but in fact do I? We have a marriage, which is essentially a contract, and it includes conjugal responsibilities, but I don't have the "right" to have sex with her against her will, or on a bus, or under a bridge, or on home plate at PNC park. Rather, we have property rights--to our bedroom, and to our own bodies--that imply the permissibility of sex in those places. There is in fact no "right to have sex." The sloppy common usage is normally adequate, but it can cause confusion--and this is exactly one of those cases. You're confused.
"-- Yo' momma --"
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?
I have no right, agreed!
Thanks
But
Inane but.
it has nothing to do with "free speech": it's the simple consequence that I don't own the theater. I entered under terms that included an implicit prohibition against shouting "Fire!" Do you get it?
Ownership of the crowded space has nothing to do with yelling & starting a panic that can cost lives. -- Apparently you cannot 'get' that distinction. Catch 22?
Lordy, but you do babble on.
You just said "yo mamma,"
You bet kid. -- She should be making sure you're in school.
but you did at least try to make an argument elsewhere in your post. Can a theater owner, or can he not, conduct fire drills? Simply put, the determination whether an outburst in a theater is acceptable has nothing to do with "limits on free speech rights". It's all about property rights and contractual obligations.
So you imagine. -- Get some new arguments
That's a question and a remark, not a logical reply. The answer to the question is yes:
Statism is a term that is used in a variety of disciplines (economics, sociology, education policy etc) to describe a system that involves a significant interventionist role for the state in economic or social affairs.
A statist believes that the state should intervene and control X. For some statists, X includes everything. For others, X includes only certain things. The author may be more or less statist, but his position that the state should intervene and control the roads is perfectly clear.
Well izzy, when we formed the United States we took over claimed & unclaimed lands and reserved to our governments the power to establish needed roads, bridges, etc. - with the understanding that such 'takings' would be for just public uses with just compensation.
We? Who's this "we", white man? I wasn't born at the time, so "we" doesn't include me.
However, you put your finger on exactly the problem! Such "takings" must be for a "just" public use, with "just" compensation. Who decides what uses are "just", or what compensation is "just"? Answer: the same one doing the taking. Kelo v New London has made it perfectly clear what that means.
As for "claiming unclaimed lands," that was a statist intervention of the worst sort. "Unclaimed" resources belong to whoever homesteads them; in violation of this, the state pre-empted any and all homesteading claims by declaring itself the owner of all unclaimed lands.
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
You have no such right, so you can claim all you want. It's my property, and I can dictate the terms under which I will allow you to use it. Thus there is no "rights" conflict: my "right" is conflicting with your "wrong".
Ownership of the crowded space has nothing to do with yelling & starting a panic that can cost lives. -- Apparently you cannot 'get' that distinction. Catch 22?
No, you are again failing to take property rights and contractual obligations into account. When I allow you on my land, there is an implied contract that I won't, for example, shoot you or run you over with my SUV. It may be my land, but I can't invite you onto it and then kill you. Similarly, I can't engage in reckless behavior that threatens you with great harm, because there is an implied contract that I will act with due regard for your health and safety.
What you didn't notice is that right next door to my movie theater is my dance club. Every night people crowd into the mosh pit, where they experience exactly what you would in my theater if someone yelled "Fire!" Sometimes people are injured, or even killed, in that mosh pit. Yet I've never been arrested for it. Why not? Simple: in the theater, there's an implied contract that I won't subject you to a frenzied stampede--but in the mosh pit, there's an implied contract that you expect to be subjected to a frenzied stampede.
Ollie Holmes, by contrast, would have upheld statutes banning mosh pits, on precisely the same grounds that he believed it illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The two cases are different precisely because of the relevant contracts--but Mr. Holmes didn't believe in the liberty of contract.