why do you need a law to tell you what rights you have?
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
- Thread starter J.P.
- Start Date
Hmmm...
Well it seems that just as the courts disagree with me and my interpretation on some things they also disagree with you.
The right to exclude from one's property by law is not absolute. For example: a restaurant cannot exclude a patron simply because they are white, or wear a turban or are Buddhist.
So if the supremes have held the above to be within constitutional limits that can be applied to certain types of property owners - and they have - then it is well within the scope of reason that they could hold that certain property owners could be prohibited from barring access to their property by citizens based on their armed or unarmed status.
Of course they haven't ruled that way yet but they certainly could given a court whose justices are of the right mind. It could happen.
I know what THE LAW says about our property rights. I know the law says there are certain reasons you can't fire someone or refuse to serve them, just like the law says you cannot fire people for keeping a gun in their car. What I'm saying is that these laws are a violation of our rights. The government violates our rights every day, and the Supreme Court endorses a lot of it. That doesn't mean our rights don't exist... it just means that the government doesn't respect them.
You have every right to refuse to do business with someone because of the color of their skin or anything else... and everyone else has a right to refuse to do business with YOU because you do things like that.
Yeah yeah, racism is bad, and all that... but to force someone to do business with another person against his will is called INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. That's not just bad, its downright evil, and more importantly, its a violation of the natural liberty of that human being. Being racist, by comparison, does not violate anybody's rights, because nobody has a right to have somebody else do ANYTHING for them. you don't have a right to have somebody like you. you don't have a right to have somebody be willing to serve you a meal. you don't have a right to have somebody be willing to provide you a job. You only have a right to be left alone to do as you please with your life, to the maximum extent that everyone can do so equally. This includes the right to deal with other human beings on a MUTUALLY VOLUNTARY, CONSENSUAL basis. When you use the power of the state to force someone to provide you a job against his will, you are not dealing with that person on a mutually voluntary basis. You are initiating force against him, and you are an aggressor.
You have every right to refuse to do business with someone because of the color of their skin or anything else... and everyone else has a right to refuse to do business with YOU because you do things like that.
Yeah yeah, racism is bad, and all that... but to force someone to do business with another person against his will is called INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. That's not just bad, its downright evil, and more importantly, its a violation of the natural liberty of that human being. Being racist, by comparison, does not violate anybody's rights, because nobody has a right to have somebody else do ANYTHING for them. you don't have a right to have somebody like you. you don't have a right to have somebody be willing to serve you a meal. you don't have a right to have somebody be willing to provide you a job. You only have a right to be left alone to do as you please with your life, to the maximum extent that everyone can do so equally. This includes the right to deal with other human beings on a MUTUALLY VOLUNTARY, CONSENSUAL basis. When you use the power of the state to force someone to provide you a job against his will, you are not dealing with that person on a mutually voluntary basis. You are initiating force against him, and you are an aggressor.
Big nanny government... chipping away at our freedoms a little at a time, hoping no one will notice until its too late. BUT, of course, it is all for us.
As strange as it may seem to you:
I am in agreement with you 100%. An almost pure libertarian viewpoint.
Unfortunately for both of us human society has yet to reach a level of maturity that would permit it to exist in accordance with that view point without sinking into the depths of chaos.
So as a practical matter if we must use the law to enforce or demand that certain liberties be recognized and ugly behaviors prohibited then so be it.
It's just the way the real world works. We can try to change it and probably should try.
I for one won't be holding my breath waiting for the change though.
I don't think we would be in a state of chaos if we had a government that just stuck to the role of protecting individual liberty.
I agree that the change to such a society will have to be gradual, but I do not agree with the idea that people aren't able to handle some liberty and so it should be denied them until they can. People who can't handle liberty, i.e. they are not capable of respecting the rights of their fellow man, need to be coerced into doing so by the government. That's why it exists. We just need a system that more explicitly defines and delimits the proper role of government, and has more protections to ensure that it stays within those limits.
I totally realize that there are some laws that we ought to be trying to get changed before others, and perhaps employment discrimination laws should be toward the bottom of that list (race being such a sensitive issue right now)... the liberty movement should focus on alleviating the oppressions that are the easiest to eliminate first. But I don't agree that there are certain freedoms people just can't handle yet. Its more a matter of getting people to come around to the idea of liberty enough that we can get some of these things done.
Maybe its semantics and we're talking about the same thing.
Either way, its nice to see somebody who believes in the same ideas I do, even if we disagree on the best way to implement them!
I agree that the change to such a society will have to be gradual, but I do not agree with the idea that people aren't able to handle some liberty and so it should be denied them until they can. People who can't handle liberty, i.e. they are not capable of respecting the rights of their fellow man, need to be coerced into doing so by the government. That's why it exists. We just need a system that more explicitly defines and delimits the proper role of government, and has more protections to ensure that it stays within those limits.
I totally realize that there are some laws that we ought to be trying to get changed before others, and perhaps employment discrimination laws should be toward the bottom of that list (race being such a sensitive issue right now)... the liberty movement should focus on alleviating the oppressions that are the easiest to eliminate first. But I don't agree that there are certain freedoms people just can't handle yet. Its more a matter of getting people to come around to the idea of liberty enough that we can get some of these things done.
Maybe its semantics and we're talking about the same thing.
Either way, its nice to see somebody who believes in the same ideas I do, even if we disagree on the best way to implement them!
Guys, I just need some quick advice. I am commuting 180 miles every day on the interstate and I would like to carry with me in the event that I end up stuck on the side of the rode at 5:30 in the morning. My employer has a policy against weapons in the parking lot. Since I don't know what my employer would do if they searched and found a weapon in my car I have opted to not carry. I understand what an employer can/would do and may not be legal, but I am not interested in being unemployed while lawyers figure it all out.
Radicalman, if the employer is located in OKlahoma, it is a violation of the criminal code for them to even have that policy, as I read the law:
They might want to know their policy is illegal in OK.
They might want to know their policy is illegal in OK.
I say if they give him grief he can call the cops and file a criminal complaint against the employer. It's Title 21...says Crimes and Punishments real big across the top. I'm no lawyer...but...
Similar threads
