Property rights: essential but not sufficient
In spite of what some readers may think, I am a radical supporter of property rights. I am inflexible in my support of the principle. I have been told I'm an extremist on the topic.
This means I have thought hard, for a long time, about the foundation and consequences of property rights-- where they come from and where they lead. If they have limits and if so, where those limits might lie.
This has led me to see property rights (with regard to real estate) as absolutely essential, but not sufficient. These property rights are a slice of the pizza, maybe all but one thin slice, not the whole thing.
If you don't have absolute rights to, and ownership of, your body, no matter where it is, you have no property rights whatsoever. Nor any other kind of rights for that matter if people are right when they say all rights are property rights in one way or another.
All property rights grow out of your right to your body. And, like it or not, that includes the immediate contact surface of your body; your "personal space". I have described this in the past as the bubble surrounding you, from your clothing inward. Without this zone, you have a right to your naked body and nothing else.
To insist that real estate rights trump these self-ownership rights is to put the cart before the horse. It is to focus on the leaves while saying the trunk and branches don't matter.
Nothing I'm saying implies you can damage (or credibly threaten to damage) any private property around you, it doesn't mean you own any private property outside your sphere of "personal space", and it doesn't mean you can become a squatter on that property. If you have right-of-way, you still have right-of-way even if you are asked to leave-- but why hang around longer than you have to? Get out without hesitation.
I have said a lot on this topic over the years; there's no way for me to say it all again, or to even find everything that needs to be part of this post. If you are interested in digging deeper, try the "Property Rights" tag and sift through those posts.
You may not agree with me, and that's OK, but if I were to characterize my view in any other way, I would be lying to you. And I don't do that-- I won't do that on any topic. It's not me. For good or bad.
Relevant recent links:
Right-of-way and (sometimes) guns
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon
I have been pondering this series of posts over the last couple days. Do you see a distinction between "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs and "no weapons on the premises"? I think there is a fundamental difference between a request for appropriate attire and a demand for disarmament, but I suspect some would conflate them, too.
I think "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is more like asking customers to not come in with an AR slung over their shoulder, but to instead carry concealed. I have no issue with a business establishing a standard for something visible which impacts the business environment.
Also, wearing a shirt isn't likely to cause the customer harm in the event of something unexpected happening-- and if somehow it were to, I doubt any business owner would have a fit if someone took their shirt off if it caught fire. You don't have that kind of safety option when the sign is "no guns" and you suddenly need one that you can't conjure up out of thin air.