I don't see why the difference. It could be true for a federal government in the same way it is true for a local government: because it was agreed to. Besides, I did not believe we were addressing specific forms of government other than that they are representative.
In regards to private property, isn't the result of this tyranny of the majority?
I tend to think so.
If a party agrees to accept the majority position, whether that party is in the majority or not, then is this:
a) tyranny
b) recognition of a contract, in spite of disagreement
c) something else
Could be any of those.
Remember, I said that I plagiarized much of what you are asking about and that you might have to go to the author if you don't like it or you need more details.
“Keep in mind that we are discussing this particular issue in the context of public property.”
I thought we were discussing rights in regard to doing drugs. You seem to think its OK to forbid this in circumstances where you think it should be forbidden and that its not OK to forbid it in circumstances where you don't think it should be forbidden. I'm trying to get you to think out a stronger rationale that can be applied to other things as a more general rule and you don't seem to be able to do it. Even your property argument boils down to it's OK to forbid it in circumstances where you think it should be forbidden and it's not OK to forbid it in circumstances where you don't think it should be forbidden.
Your naked people on stilts argument isn't applicable to a situation where all concerned are co-owners.
Likewise, in regards to laws on public property, they are established to resolve conflicts between conflicting rights and between conflicting desires – and desires are arbitrary things.
But from what you've written so far, I can't see any clear statement of a conflict in rights in regard to use of the public roads. The only thing I see so far is the limitation on the rights of the minority of co-owners that the majority imposes just because they desire to do so, and that undermines the concept of property rights. While laws may be established to resolve conflicts between conflicting desires, any conflict between a right and a desire must be settled in favor of the right. Like you said, desires are arbitrary. Rights are not, although it can seem that way when trying to figure them out. If you are a co-owner of property, other co-owners should not be able to limit your use of the property just because they desire to. You have to be imposing on their rights in some way. And you are not imposing on their rights if you are only doing something they dislike.
In drafting laws pertaining to public property, the majority has superior force by way of being the majority, because the population has agreed to accept majority decisions, so long as the laws apply equally to all.
If that is true, then it follows that it is also true that: In drafting laws pertaining to society, the majority has superior force by way of being the majority, because the population has agreed to accept majority decisions, so long as the laws apply equally to all. Thus, you should have no quarrel with the laws on drug use.
If it is a violation of their rights, then your question is moot.
The question is of significance because you seem to think it is not a violation of their rights. The drunk driver has agreed to the laws in question in the same way that you have agreed to the laws against doing dope. You seem to think this is an acceptable situation in the case of the drunk driver, but not in the case of doing dope. In both cases, it is the desires of the majority that are being put into effect.
Replace “real” with “public” and that is what I’m saying.
And I was paraphrasing you in my argument that property rights, in particular real property rights, are not natural rights but are established as a matter of law along with prohibitions in their regard, when societies are formed and organized, and that in the same way rights and prohibitions are established in regrd to other things, such as doing dope. So I guess you agree with me, and we have that much settled.
So in regard to ”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?”
The answer is that they think that the behavior in question (impaired driving) poses a danger and that they have the right to impose restrictions to reduce or eliminate that danger. I'm not going to give blanket approval, but much of what you have said is correct once this is understood.
The same thing can be said in regard to the question ”What is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for the members of society to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?” Only the behavior in question here can be driving while impaired while on public property or doing drugs in the privacy of your own home. The answer is still the same: They think that the behavior in question poses a danger and that they have the right to impose restrictions to reduce or eliminate that danger.
That of course leads to more questions. Does the behavior in question really pose a danger? Even if it does, is there any right to be free from danger and constrain the behavior? Can someones rights be constrained because the exercise of those rights poses a danger? And so forth.
If there is any right to do drugs or to drive while impaired, it stems from the unalienable right to liberty. ("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -- Thomas Jefferson )
If there is any right to prohibit doing drugs or driving while impaired, it stems from the "limits drawn by the equal rights of others."
And of course, all of this is affected by the society which the people involved have formed because when people join together in a society "...compromise must be made" and the compromises depend on the qualities of the society formed.