No, I'm making an assumption about your location. Please stick to the topic. The starting premise is that we're really talking about his land, not a piece of property whose ownership is in dispute. So you didn't "agree" that you weren't on his land; you really, honest-to-goodness weren't standing on his property.
I put no conditions on “he can ban.” Without conditions it doesn’t matter if one is on his property in the beginning or not.
Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban if he has already waived the right to issue it. Inviting you on his land is just such a waiver.
But I already understand that you regard your statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” as a little too broad and all encompassing.
No. You merely misunderstand the statement, because you fail to appreciate the fact that every contract is a limited waiver of certain rights.
“No, I'm making an assumption about your location.”
??? That’s what I said but I added that your assumption was incorrect.
“The starting premise is that we're really talking about his land, not a piece of property whose ownership is in dispute. “
Correct, but it doesn’t lead to your following sentence.
“So you didn't "agree" that you weren't on his land; you really, honest-to-goodness weren't standing on his property.
That I didn’t agree that I wasn’t on his land is correct. You assumed it. I didn’t say one way or the other because it was irrelevant at that point.
Remember, what I said was that when you say “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” “It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving.”
“Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban…”
Agreed and that’s the point I was trying to help you think through to: That “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” is an overbroad, incorrect statement. That there are situations in which he can not “ban anything he wants on his property,” your example of his having waived the right to do so being (ultimately the only?) one of them
In regard to the end of your post:
You wrote: “Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban if he has already waived the right to issue it."
Then you quoted my words: “But I already understand that you regard your statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” as a little too broad and all encompassing. “ which your saying “…he can’t issue a ban…” appears to validate."
Then you write: “No.” which is a contradiction of the “yes” you wrote before.
And you continue by writing “You merely misunderstand the statement, because you fail to appreciate the fact that every contract is a limited waiver of certain rights.”
Which appears to invalidate your previous statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” which is the point I was trying to help you think through to.
That’s tempting, very tempting.