Both examples that you cited apply equally to each member, and are thus acceptable. I don't find it acceptable. It's an example of tyranny of the majority.
Whether or not the prohibited activity is one that a co-owner enjoys is of no significance in the matter of whether or not the prohibition applies equally to all.
Not even close to relevant. I am trying to get at why the prohibitions are established to start with.
As to the remainder of your post that I have not responded to (I responded to the property issue in a previous post), most of it is not relevant to what I am trying to ask of you either. I note that you seem to be saying that laws are made on behalf of the majority to the detriment of the minority, arbitrarily, for no particular reason other than that they can be so made. Tyranny of the majority again. And the use of force in the execution of that tyranny.
And your arguments are not persuasive to your cause. Note the following:
As members of civil society, we vest in the legislators the right to agree upon rules pertaining to our society. The compromises pertaining to civil society are made on our behalf by the legislature in whom we vest the right and power to make such compromises. The decision of the legislature, to enact laws within the bounds of its rights to decide on, is the equivalent of each individual agreeing upon such laws, because the legislature acts on behalf of all citizens, by whom it has been given the right and power to do so.
Just like the rights pertaining to a society formed by two people are defined by those activities that each agrees upon, our rights in society at large are defined by laws pertaining to our activities and behavior in, society because those laws are an expression of our agreements, as members of society. It is by this reasoning that the citizen being arrested for using illegal drugs has agreed to his own arrest, if he violates the laws regarding such use. He agreed to this law. His agreement is expressed by the law governing society, which was formulated by the legislature, in whom he vested his right to determine acceptable behavior in the society of which he is a member.
Those are mostly your words and ideas. I just substituted the concept of society for the concept of public property and made other changes necessitated by that change.
Your arguments are not sufficient for your ends, electronic verbosity does not improve them and a stronger argument hinges on the answer to a question you don't seem to understand.
But keep trying. One reason I've gone with you as far as I have is that you seem to be trying to think things through, which can not be said of everyone.
In response to, “Both examples that you cited apply equally to each member, and are thus acceptable.” you wrote:
”I don't find it acceptable. It's an example of tyranny of the majority.”
Mutual agreement between land owners, to refrain from a given activity on mutually owned land, is tyranny? What kind of mutual agreement between land owners would not be tyranny?
”I am trying to get at why the prohibitions are established to start with.”
Prohibitions are established in response to conflicts between desires and rights. Prohibitions for use of, and behavior on, public property are established in response to the desires of citizens to use public property in a certain way, or behave on public property in a certain way. Because of the inevitable conflicts between desires of each citizen, agreements must be made, regarding land use and behavior on the land, so as to address the conflicting desires.
Does this answer the question?
”I note that you seem to be saying that laws are made on behalf of the majority to the detriment of the minority, arbitrarily, for no particular reason other than that they can be so made. Tyranny of the majority again.”
Perhaps if you can direct me to where I made such statements or implications I can clarify.
I believe that laws are made on behalf of all – they are simply created through a process of voting by which the majority opinion prevails. But, not everything is up to a vote. Property rights and equal application of prohibitions are non-negotiable. In what way do these guidelines allow tyranny of the majority?
Where did I advocate making arbitrary laws for no particular reason, other than that they can be so made? I do not support such an action in theory and I do not believe that it occurs in practice, so I suspect that this would have been a severe typo or a poor explanation.
”And your arguments are not persuasive to your cause.”
The altered version of my argument that you gave in support of this is a straw man. I do not believe that “civil society” and “property” are interchangeable. Of course the argument will not support my conclusion, if such a change is made.
As I outlined in my last post, property rights are the basis of all other rights and they exist whether society exists or not. You wrote that property rights, "... are established in law, by people organized into a particular society." I couldn't disagree more and I think that this is the root of our overall disagreement on this matter.
What natural rights are we endowed with?
"...a stronger argument hinges on the answer to a question you don't seem to understand."
Which question is this?