Replies

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

In a situation where there are co-owners, you are dismissive of the property rights of the minority of the co-owners.

What is your philosophy?

I don't know that it is as organized or complete as a philosophy, but I believe that property rights are not fundamental rights like the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If nothing else, property rights are contingent upon Mankind's ability to make something into a property. (Remember, I don't buy your "the body is propety" argument.) An individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. There can be vast areas where it is hard to figure out where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin. One way to resolve such situations to fight it out. Another way is to weigh the cost in rights against the benefit in rights. This is essentially what people do when they form societies and agree to formal rules for dealing with property rights. These rules can vary from society to society. (I never set this down in words till you asked your question, so consider it a work in progress.)

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.

Me neither.

The guidelines for this are that the "majority" can only deem what is appropriate or inappropriate on its own property.

The guidelines depend on what the members of society have agreed to.

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).

Then the majority can not tell a person that the person cannot drive while drunk on property that belongs to that person just as much as it does to anyone else. However, the majority would have that right if it was agreed to by all that they have that right.

In regards to why the drunk driver is driving drunk, it is because, quite simply, he is reneging on his agreement.

That's an unsupported assumption. It's more likely that the drunk driver is driving drunk because he never agreed not to, or because any such agreement was coerced and is therefore invalid.

"In a situation where there are co-owners, you are dismissive of the property rights of the minority of the co-owners.

Owners agree upon rules pertaining to use of, and behavior on, their jointly owned property. If they agree to abide by majority decisions, so long as the rules apply equally to all, then what is the problem? Please explain in what way I am dismissive of anyone's property rights.

I have two questions about the following exchange. You quoted my words below:
"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."

You responded:
"Me neither."

You then quoted me where I wrote:
"The guidelines for this are that the "majority" can only deem what is appropriate or inappropriate on its own property."

You responded:
"The guidelines depend on what the members of society have agreed to."

Correct me if I am wrong, but the combination of your two thoughts means:
1) You regard conduct in society to not be something that the majority has the right to deem appropriate or inappropriate.
2) However you regard the guidelines for what the majority can deem appropriate or inappropriate to depend on what the members of society have agreed to.
So how do members of society agree upon what they deem to be appropriate or inappropriate?
What is the check against society agreeing that they can deem a given conduct in society to be appropriate or inappropriate?

In response to:
"In regards to why the drunk driver is driving drunk, it is because, quite simply, he is reneging on his agreement."
You wrote:
"That's an unsupported assumption. It's more likely that the drunk driver is driving drunk because he never agreed not to, or because any such agreement was coerced and is therefore invalid."

I support my assumption with what I wrote in post 138, below:
"...we define approval and disapproval of behavior on, and uses of, public property by way of our laws governing that property. Those laws are agreed upon by legislators, in whom we grant the right and power to make such decisions on our behalf. Just like the rights pertaining to use of property that two people own are defined by those uses that each owner agrees upon, our rights on public property are defined by laws pertaining to use of, and behavior on, public property, because those laws are an expression of our agreements, as co-owners.

It is by this reasoning that the citizen being arrested for driving while intoxicated has agreed to his own arrest, if he violates the laws governing driving while intoxicated. He agreed to this law. His agreement is expressed by the law governing public roadways, which was formulated by the legislature, in whom he vested his right to determine acceptable behavior on his jointly owned property.

It is also supported with what you wrote in post 144:
"When laws pertaining to real property are set forth by a legislature, in whom the right and power to do so has been vested by the citizenry, there is, by definition, no denial of the peoples' rights in regard to that property. All rights in regard to that property are defined by the rules pertaining to the property as established by those in whom the power to do so is vested.

It is by this reasoning that the citizen being arrested for using drugs on private property agreed to his own arrest, if he violates the rules governing real property. He agreed to these rules. His agreement is expressed by the law governing real property, which was formulated by the legislature, in whom he and his fellow members of society vested there right to determine acceptable rules in regard to real property."

You wrote: "Then the majority can not tell a person that the person cannot drive while drunk on property that belongs to that person just as much as it does to anyone else. However, the majority would have that right if it was agreed to by all that they have that right."

It is by the reasoning in the quotes above that all have agreed; the majority does have the right to declare that no person may drive drunk on public property.