I would not say that.
What kind of mutual agreement between land owners would not be tyranny?
The kind that is actually mutual.
In the examples, the minority gives up something of value (free use) to the will of the majority while the majority gives up nothing., only allowing the minority some use the minority had before, but on the majority's terms. The majority does this for the sake of nothing that is apparent other than that they desire to do so and have the power to do so.
Prohibitions are established in response to conflicts between desires and rights.
Now that's new, although I think I incorporated it into my comments somewhere here. You appear to be asserting that desires trump rights, provided the desires are those of the majority.
Does this answer the question?
No. See below.
Perhaps if you can direct me to where I made such statements or implications I can clarify.
Where did I advocate making arbitrary laws for no particular reason, other than that they can be so made?
Everywhere you assert that the majority can, even through government, restrict the minority but you do not provide an adequate reason as to why the majority does so other than the circular "they can." OK, they can. They have superior force. But for the sake of what are they doing so? Where is the conflict of rights that is being resolved? So far, you have not stated that the minority has tried to do anything but exercise their property rights in accordance with their desires, and that, for some reason, the majority doesn't want them to do so and stops them from doing so because the majority has superior force by reason of being the majority.
The altered version of my argument that you gave in support of this is a straw man.
It was not meant to be a straw man. It was meant to be a general application of your hypothesis as a test of its validity.
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 wrote: "This property rights argument centers on "real property" or real estate. Such rights are established in law, by people organized into a particular society.
And I wrote: "Property rights are contingent upon the ability (in terms of sentience, resource availability, etc.) to take possession of something as property." I mostly meant that in relation to personal property, but it is applicable to real property too I suppose.
And further, I wrote:
"In regard to real property, which I believe generally means land: Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force." (As I recall you agreed with that.)
And I assert that societies do establish rights in law to real property as a means of lessening the use of force and consequent bloodshed involved in keeping or losing it.
I couldn't disagree more and I think that this is the root of our overall disagreement on this matter.
Since you are disagreeing with my contention that real property (real estate) rights are not established in law by people organized into particular societies, then I guess you are willing and able to demonstrate that no society has laws establishing such rights. Don't do it though. I am not interested in that. Even if I stipulated your property rights position, we'd still disagreeing because you can't answer the question I am asking in a way that makes sense to me and apparently the question does not make sense to you even when I try and put it in your terms. because you asked:
Which question is this?
So I repeat:
"Why does the government have this right and duty if there is no direct harm or violation of rights? If one drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, what is the rationale for the government's 'right and duty'?"
Or in other words:
Given that the government has this right and duty, … if rules governing the action are agreed upon by the owner(s) of the property and the citizenry tasks the government with objectively enforcing the rules pertaining to the behavior in question. and given that The owners of the public property - the citizens - have established a rule that forbids driving while intoxicated on public property but that Citizens have the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others by what right do the citizens who comprise the group of owners of public property make rules and task the government to enforce them on other citizens who are a subset of the group of owners of public property, when those rules deny these other citizens the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others thereby denying these other citizens their rights even though they have not violated the rights of others because if a citizen drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, that citizen has not violated anyone's rights, therefore that citizen has not already agreed to such action to be taken against him, by way of agreeing to the equal application of this law that does not violate any citizen's rights because it is a law that violates the rights of that citizen?
What is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for the owners of the property to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?
And in still other words: For the sake of what? To what end? For what purpose? To settle conflict between what actions which are assumed by both sides to be in accord with their rights?
Bear in mind that without commenting on the correctness of any of your previous answers, I can say that they are not responsive to the intent of the question. Try thinking in another direction.