Replies

The domain of acts that the majority has the right to deem acceptable or unacceptable...

Apparently does not include any concept of minority rights.

Please define your understanding of the "concept of property rights."

Property right: "A generic term which refers to any type of right to specific property whether it is personal or real property, tangible or intangible."

In regard to property, a right is an "interest or title in an object of property; a just and legal claim to hold, use or enjoy it or to convey or donate it as one may please."

You could call it "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual" and say that "it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage."

I have taken liberally from Black and Madison above, but I say that property rights are contingent upon, among other things, the ability to take possession of something as property.

To use your logic:
The population agrees to accept majority decisions, in regards to matters that the majority has jurisdiction over – such as conduct in society. The majority does have jurisdiction over the behavior of a property owner on his private property because of this.

In the case of the drunk driver, he has agreed to behave on public property in a way that the majority of the public deems to be acceptable.

If he has so agreed, why is he driving while drunk?

Again, to use your logic:
In the case of the drunk driver, as a member of society he has agreed to behave on public property in a way that the majority of the public deems to be acceptable just as (i)n the case of the dope-smoker, as a member of society he has agreed to behave on his own property in a way that the majority of the public deems acceptable.

Given the explanation for the concept of property rights above, in what way does my philosophy undermine that concept? What is your philosophy?

In regards to your use of my logic, your use is inadequate because you change a fundamental premise. I do not regard "conduct in society" to be something that the "majority" always has the right to deem appropriate or inappropriate, by force of law. The guidelines for this are that the "majority" can only deem what is appropriate or inappropriate on its own property. No majority has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do on my property, so long as my actions do not bring coercion or fraud against the property of another person (including the person's body).

In regards to why the drunk driver is driving drunk, it is because, quite simply, he is reneging on his agreement. It is because of such a likely possibility that we have law enforcement bodies to objectively enforce such agreements. If people did not renege on their agreements, then law enforcement bodies would not be necessary.