Encasing this argument in amber

November 25, 2008

…so’s I can find it again when I need it – from http://somewhatintelligent.blogspot.com/  (April 21, 2008)

straightarrow wrote:Your premise that a property owner can decide what rights you retain when surrounded by his property just will not fly. If we adhered to that policy strictly, employees would have no right to not be murdered, raped, or robbed while on that property. They may (be) denied any human right based on the owner’s property rights. That just defies logic.

My property as is yours is surrounded by the property of others. Should they then be able to decide what you may do or have on or in your property? I think not. Your automobile is no different. It is your property merely surrounded by the property of others.Further, granting the ability to deny my human and property rights because your property surrounds mine for a portion of the day extends your power to deny my rights far beyond your property.

Whereas my rights to my property do nothing to truncate your exercise of yours if I do not remove the prohibited article from my property while surrounded by yours.

Well put.

%d bloggers like this: