Hey all. I have a question that probably has a basic answer, however, I dont know it. The question is: When do personal rights end and property rights begin? Here is an example. Say I am walking down the street in a state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon. Now, I approach a business that says they will not let you carry a concealed weapon in their business. I think the business has every right to exclude anybody for any reason at any time. Am I correct? However, I believe the situation becomes complicated when I am walking in a state that allows concealed carry and I enter public property that says I am prohibited from practicing the concealed carry law. Is there any justification in public property limiting personal rights?
I think you’re wrong, in that these questions aren’t basic or easy. Rothbard addresses all of them in The Ethics to Liberty. To summarize - all rights are property rights - personal rights are just a right to my property in my person. Now, on the public property question, it’s a hard one. Some people who pay for the roads would like them to be gun free, others who pay for them would like to carry guns on them. I see the only conclusion as the urgent need to eliminate such property forthwith. For now, though, I’d say public property is simply goverrnment property. Also, in your example, haven’t you given away the game? By saying you’re in a state which allows concealed carry, you’re granting that you carry only at the pleasure of the state, and that the state has the right to take it away. So why challenge them on carrying on the street?
What’s the difference?
No, seriously, why do you think they are two separate things?
Yes, you are correct and the NRA is bad on this.
Well, all rights are in a sense property rights for they all require private property for their expression and protection (although to get technical I believe that all rights are, fundamentally, liberty rights). Public property does complicate things. My view is that the state has no right to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Concealed carry laws are just lesser infringements than an outright ban. We have no moral obligation to respect them because they are unjust and therefore illegitimate. Hence, I think it can be okay to violate such laws (although you might want to obey them anyway to avoid the risk of being caught and charged with a “crime”).
I knew I would get this at some point. I do understand as JAlanKatz said that they are the same. However I used them as seperate rights only so that the example I provided would be clear. I do agree though, personal rights are property rights.
I also forgot to mention that the easy answer in this is get rid of public property, which I am 100% for. However, I was curious to hear what should be done if public property is inevitable, as it is today.
Nevermind, I should read the thread before posting. But the point is that public property is illegitimate in a framework of libertarianism. You should ask the statists this question 
Haha.
We seem to all agree that property right and personal rights are one and the same.
The biggest issue then is the State violating our property rights in view of the defense of our lives by requiring that we seek their permission to defend ourselves. They then rub salt into the wound by telling us that, even though they have granted their permission to defend our lives, we are not allowed to do so in “public” (state-owned) buildings.
This thread is rather timely. Governor Crist just signed the “Guns to Work” bill into law here in Florida. While I appreciate the pro-gun view, this is one of very rare times that the gun lobby is wrong.
Clearly, when you contract with a business for employment and come on to their private property, you are obliged to respect THEIR property rights. The alternative choice would, of course, be to refrain from seeking employment with businesses that restrict their employees from carrying private weapons.
I disagree in that true “public property” is not the same thing as state-controlled property. The fact that state-controlled property is called “public” is very misleading and quite orwellian really.
Good point. I don’t see any justification for states infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, and this applies to state-controlled property as well. As far as I’m concerned that property is unowned. But even if I were a minarchist and believed that state-controlled property is owned in part by all of us, the issue becomes more problematic but I still don’t think the state has any right to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms even on state-controlled property.
Regarding non-state public property: The private, joint owners of a club or a park may ban firearms or place restrictions on their possession and use. Less formally owned public property, for example land that is tacitly deemed by its members to belong to the whole community presents a greater difficulty. The rules governing such land are mainly custom, not law.
True public property also can’t exist…it’s impossible, or at least I don’t see it happening. Somebody has to own it. Many people could of course own it, as many shareholders would own a company, but that is still private property. Besides, even theoretical public property (without state ownership) still isn’t public, as there are certain restrictions. For example, a public forest will likely have restrictions against camp fires or flamethrowers, you get my point, general code of conduct. But someone had to decide on it, and someone has to implement and enforce it, thereby establishing themselves as the de facto owners of the property by taking responsibility for it. Besides the fact that someone has to delegate it.
I just don’t see how true public property can operate.
And I’ve read (yours I think) the blog post about public and private property.
Fred,
Part of your objection seems to hinge on identifying the word public with state control.
Here’s an interesting essay on the subject of public property in a libertarian anarchist society:
Roderick Long, “A Plea for Public Property.”
Ah, thanks, I’ll read through that.
Yeah, I love using the word “public” to describe government ownership! You don’t own it if you can’t sell it.
Oh…and someone outside the forums just reminded me of this:
Randall Holcombe, “Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism.”
I just want to make sure I get this right. You all would have no problem with a business having a sign on its front door that said “No Blacks, Mexicans, or Asians Allowed”?
I have no problem with that at all, and I have no problem with “No Whites”. Think about this: should anyone be allowed to enter your home just because you sell muffins?
If a business were to pull a stunt like that, they would be trashed in the media, and I know I wouldn’t want to give them my money!
Wherein would the problem lie? One may find it morally objectionable and boycott the restaurant, even concincing others to do so. Otherwise, though, there is indeed no problem.
-Jon
Yeah, obvioulsy I would not have a problem with it. Would you want to do business with a place like that? Because I know I wouldnt. Eventually, the business that used to discriminate by race would have to choices: First, change thier policies and allow all races, or Second, Dont change their policies and be run out of business by a firm that does not discriminate. That is the way I see it.
Are you saying that the government should pass and enforce laws (which unfortanelty they have) that coerce firms to do business with anybody? That is a blatant attack on the rights of the business. Another example similar to Ego’s is: Should you be forced to let somebody into your store that has for instance murdered somebody you knew? Businesses should have the right to do business with anyone, or discriminate against anyone they want. However, if they chose to discriminate, they will have to face the market consequences of their decision which ultimately will be change or lose customers.
Edit for clarity