A story from OneNewsNow recently reported that the Pacific Justice Institute is suing a California shopping mall for what it believes to be a violation of constitutional freedoms. The alledged violation is that a mall policy bans the following:
... anyone [from] ever sharing their faith or political views with anyone else in the shopping mall at any time if they did not know that person prior to entering the shopping mall.
The story also reported that the mall had rules banning individuals from "wearing any clothing that displays religious or political messages."
The problem with this argument is that the First Amendment, coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment applying much of the Bill of Rights to the states, prohibits the federal and state governments from abridging political speech or prohibiting religious freedom. It says nothing of private individuals or mall owners who have their own ground rules for individuals wishing to enter their property.
Americans have every right to express their political or religious views, but we don't have a right to demand others allow us on their property to do so. This principle also applies to other freedoms.
This common misunderstanding of the freedoms we hold as Americans reminds of me of a rather humorous incident I experienced on the job a few years back. After informing one of my employees that our company had a rule about what beverages could be consumed in front of customers, she responded, "That's unconstitutional or something!" Sadly, she is not alone in such a misinformed mindset.
Preaching is one thing, but wearing clothing "that displays religious or political messages" is another.
Are you going to stop all Jews who wear yarmulkes from entering your store? Stop all Christians wearing crosses? Isn't there an Islamic sect that wears turbans? Or muslim women who wear headscarfs? Do these things display a religious message? Are you going to exempt the Christian because the cross is jewelry?
I think you may run into a little trouble with the "public accommodation" laws.
I think the point is "public accomodation" laws are both unjust and unconstitutional.
If a hardcore atheist, for instance, didn't want any religious people to wear clothing with a religious message into his house, would you stop him? I don't know you, of course, but it seems unlikely. It's his house, after all.
Then suppose he starts a small business in his house, say selling ten dozen eggs a week from the chickens in his backyard. Would you stop his limitation now? He's probably only selling to friends and neighbors, anyway.
Then suppose he saves up, buys the lot next to him, and purchases 100 chickens to expand his little business. He quits his job and sells eggs full time -- but still not to people wearing religious messages. Will you stop him now? And if so, on what grounds? And at what point did it become a problem for him to decide who enters his property? And who decides what that point is? And why do they get to decide what he does with his stuff?
I'm not aware of any hierarchy of rights that generates clear lines in all conflicts of interest and eliminates unliveable scenarios at the extremes. Society is a balance of the interests of the individual against others and the abstract of the group. Whenever a society draws lines at the intersection of competing rights, they will be subjective and often somewhat arbitrary. So simply appealing to our discomfort with that inevitable arbitrariness does not mean that a particular rights hierarchy is unreasonable.
Libertarianism shifts power from the formal society to the individual. Each person becomes the tyrant of herself and her property. And those individuals can act collectively to create an informal, emergent tyranny by freely aligning their individual tyrannies. As individuals we can collectively create defacto prisons for smaller groups of individuals.
Ignoring what I'd argue is a grossly inaccurate designation of control over one's own body and possessions as "tyranny," if they're violating the persons or properties of the smaller group, then it is the role of government to step in, stop the criminal behavior, and restore the situation to justice. If there's no crime, then I fail to see the problem. Making other people feel uncomfortable without actually harming them (whether through assault, criminal harrassment, or desctruction of their property) is not a crime.
Strip clubs, for instance, make me feel extremely uncomfortable. They strongly contradict my religion, violate my basic code of ethics, and just give me the willies. But the fact that I feel grossed out doesn't have a legal leg to stand on -- and with good reason.
Let's take property rights, for example. You own some land. I own my body. But if my body is on your land, who controls what my body does or does not do on your land?
I use the term tyranny not to characterize property or self ownership, but to characterize how one implements that ownership. If my control over my land trumps your control over your body, I can demand anything whatsoever of you as long as you are on my land. If my control over what happens on my land is absolute, you stepping on it could make you my slave.
Now where we draw the lines between your self ownership rights and my property rights is, at some point, going to be subjectively and arbitrarily decided. If, while on my land, you put on a t-shirt that offends me, do I have the right to call you an unwelcome trespasser and shoot you? I think we will consider that an unacceptable balance of rights. However, we might find it very acceptable that I have the right to force you to move your body off my land. That's an arbitrary line, at least from the perspective of a rights hierarchy.
I brought up the emergent tyranny in reference to the thorny problem of discrimination. In small doses, individual tyrants are of little concern to the general freedom experienced in a society. In large doses those individuals can have the same effect as a tyrannical government. If a government were to tell you that you cannot trade your property for donuts in town X, you'd say that's evil. If a community aligned itself to do the same, that's good?
"If a community aligned itself to do the same, that's good?"
This discussion is not about good vs. evil. Standards for good vs. evil are different from one philosophy to another. The question is whether the right to property is truly absolute or whether government can indeed curtail it in certain ways in the name of some arbitrary "good." The libertarian answer is unequivocal. In this scenario, if you do not like the rules of the property in question, do not enter it. This is not tyranny. This is purest liberty, preventing you from imposing, for example, your cross-adorned body on the property of a militant atheist.
Communities formed through voluntary associations should indeed be able to set up rules for their combined property according to their desired way of life. To an insufficient extent, this right is already enjoyed by such as the Amish and the American Indians.
Yeah, I'd agree 'good' and 'evil' aren't the best terms. But I get the impression around here that liberty is considered an extreme moral 'good' and 'tyranny' an extreme moral evil, however you wish to label it. At the very least they are assigned significant and opposite values. I assume that when a commenter here calls me a 'tyrant,' it's meant as invective.
"The question is whether the right to property is truly absolute..."
Surely you exaggerate. No right can be absolute.
The most fundamental property right is self ownership. It takes two people to have it since rights are mutually granted. It also cannot be absolute for more than one person simultaneously since any right to do all that you are capable of doing implies the right to infringe on the self ownership of others, and any limitation of your abilities is a limitation of your own self ownership. IOW, this town ain't big enough for the absolute rights of two of us.
People have had this argument with you before.
Natural Rights are absolute and granted to you by your creator; inalienable from your person - and not mutually granted - which would be privilege - not rights.
Ones rights are violated all the time however.
The right to infringe on other is not a natural right and never has been, so one does have the right to do what they want until they start messing with others. There is nothing that implies the right to infringe on others if one tries to do something at the same time another one tries.
You're ownership is NEVER limited even if you're abilities are limited. If you cannot feed yourself - you still own your own body.
And if you have no creator? I like the sentiment of natural rights, but the logic is pretty weak.
"Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of her or his own body and life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
If your actions are limited by others, you are not the exclusive controller of your own body and life. Your actions are limited by the rights others. Therefore you do not have an absolute right of self-ownership.
If you choose to violate someone else's right - you still own your own body. If one chooses to limit his or her own actions - one still has made a choice. It's a false construction to say "If I choose not to violate another person - they are 'doing' something to me - they are creating something that stops me from being free."
Obviously I can't make someone's vocal chords work for them - this shows me the limitation of my Self-ownership - it shows me where I stop.
A more detailed response:
"Natural Rights are absolute and granted to you by your creator..."
Which creator are you referring to? Which religious text? Or is this a personal communication?
People might wish to ascribe a human social convention to a god, but that's a cheap philosophical move. And I'm pretty sure that nothing like natural rights theory can be found in judeo-christian texts. In fact, it's something of the opposite. Woe is the virgin under Jewish law who is raped.
"...and not mutually granted - which would be privilege - not rights."
In your schema God grants you claims to yourself and external property. Is that not a privilege? Now all you have to do is replace God with people, and then you'll have a more accurate view of rights.
In these kinds of discussions I think it is important to not confuse certain terms with subtle but different meanings:
possess - to control or dominate.
own - possession (actual or ostensible) formally allowed by others.
ability - that which you have the power to do.
freedom - absence of (human) impediments to the application of your abilities.
right - that which you are formally allowed by others.
"...so one does have the right to do what they want until they start messing with others."
So you don't have an absolute right to use your body however you wish? Hmm...
"You're ownership is NEVER limited even if you're abilities are limited. If you cannot feed yourself - you still own your own body."
Let's not confuse abilities and rights. If your right to act flows from your self-ownership, any limitation of your right to act is a limitation of self-ownership.
Yah, I don't know, I'm an atheist. Believe you don't have natural rights at your own peril (wherever it may come from, God/Non-God/otherwise). Its not my problem. Or believe it comes from others agreement and be at the peril of socialism or communism or democracy. Really, I believe in force so little that I agree you can even give up your rights if you so choose..., but for the most part "Collectivism is Slavery" according to Hayek. Any former slave will tell you he or she still had rights even when others did not recognize them.
your definition of rights - something's off. they exist whether others recognizes them or not - ask any Jew who had his papers confiscated by Nazi's right after fleeing to America (Mises).
No - you don't have the right to mess with others. You still own yourself - and you can use it to whatever ends you need. Just because you don't have the right to mess with others - doesn't mean you have lost rights - no one has the right to mess w/ others. This does not mean your body has been violated or rights have been limited. That right doesn't exist. It is like saying - so you don't have wings therefore you can't fly and use your body as you wish. Its not in the realm of anything that is of any concern - because the right doesn't exist. "That don't effect the price of tea in China" - as some have said.
Your "right to act" does not flow from self-ownership. One acts because he or she exists or wants to continue to exist. Please don't get caught up in sticky phrases like 'right to act.' Its too confusing. Ability to act - fine. Rights don't necessarily occur just because an action has taken place. Rights exist even if no interaction occurs.
Try "On Human Action" by Mises for extension of this kind of thing. This article is going to get very thin again, but as I have said - everyone on here is accepting Mises and Rothbard rules of property and whatnot. We're perfectly happy with the way things are defined. I say this because it seems these issues keep arising for you. Since you understand that none of us can appreciate the challenge coming from you - all I can do is suggest other authors. If you have questions - that's cool - but asserting definitions from other authors and whatnot is different than asking "Hey, I read this guy and he said this - can somebody please clarify if I'm reading this right?" However, there are sites that exist for these questions as we're beyond some of this stuff.
I'll do some more reading. In the meantime...
"Yah, I don't know, I'm an atheist. Believe you don't have natural rights at your own peril (wherever it may come from, God/Non-God/otherwise)."
Don't get me wrong. I'm sentimentally aligned (more or less) with your view of rights. I just don't believe they are anything more than human convention. And if you can't really source them in God, the Force, or whatever, what's wrong with sourcing them in us who so badly want them? I think the reason libertarians don't like that is because they can't be so absolutist with mushy conventions. It forces them to sell their POV without the faux-logic high ground.
"your definition of rights - something's off. they exist whether others recognizes them or not - ask any Jew who had his papers confiscated by Nazi's right after fleeing to America (Mises)."
This is a great thought, and I'd encourage you to think more about it. But just because we feel wronged or wish for better treatment doesn't mean a 'right' to that treatment exists outside of human convention.
"Your "right to act" does not flow from self-ownership. One acts because he or she exists or wants to continue to exist."
Don't confuse why we act and whether or not we have the right to do so. What's that right to free speech all about anyway?
The logic most likely has to do with praxology and the ways in which Mises found truth using apriori /synthetic logic (don't ask me - its very difficult to understand in less than a minute) but as Mises stated "Man Acts" this is absolute truth - if one were to come along and refute it, in an action (saying No) then man has just proven himself wrong. That's the logic and all the little fine hair splits between a priori and aprori and synthetic vs analytic. I'm still studying.
You qualified the sentence with "IF your right to act flows from..." I don't know. It gets sticky with morals in there and I can't make all the splits for you. You have the right not to serve TALL people when they come in your restaurant. It is morally wrong not to serve TALL people just because they are TALL (for most people) and economically one benefits from the trade regardless of a persons height - people should want to trade with TALL people, because their money spends just the same.
I don't want to get caught up in some logic trap - words never hurt anybody - speak as you like. You have the ability to hurt people - but that doesn't mean you have the right.
Rights may be a human convention sure. Just as language is - separates us from beasts and without language - hell, we might not have a lot of things. Religion may be also. But it gets slippery when people say "right to act" (like deserving healthcare - they deserve this treatment). Just because 51% of humans may not agree w/ the definition of rights doesn't mean they don't exist. One thing about rights is they exist if they can be done by the singular person - so you have a right to healthcare as long as you can do it yourself. When you cannot do it yourself - thats when you create contracts for trades - and sometimes you voluntarily give up rights when you mutually agree to a contract w/ another person. "I will work here and promise not to swear out loud at people in order to make money." A person has not been limited or violated if she/he gives up a right for a period of time in order t get something else. The right exists but the person has chosen not to exercise it in order to get the benefit of trade.
I havent any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us. how to make pancakes
This is similar to the debate over Rand Paul's opinion of the Civil Rights Act a while back. The question, as Bonnie points out, is whether the classification of "public accommodation" allows government to violate property rights.
The argument from those suing is that the constitutional rights of the individuals wearing such clothing or expressing their religious beliefs are being violated. But, the Constitution is meant to protect those rights from government, not private mall owners.
The California Constitution actually differs from the U.S. Constitution here, and does prohibit private property owners in certain circumstances from abridging speech. Wal-Marts in California have a sign instructing people who disagree with the law to write their legislators. :)
Interesting. Legally, the suit may win. I guess the question would then be whether, philosophically, one believes speech rights outweigh property rights. In other words, whether someone has the right to use someone else’s property to express views that the property owner may not like.
Sometimes and very often americans try not to save money on their own property with sash window restoration but just to rent an appartment for a long time because it is cheaper than to buy it.
I think that dishwasher is irreplaceable thing at your kitchen.
Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info.. vpn service
Post new comment