If the owner / manager wants to allow it, that should be his/their prerogative. What about the owner who doesnt? I know you want to use your weapon of choice, in this case the govt, to force him to allow it. That is not freedom.
Freedom of movement should not allow for trespassing. If a man refused to leave your daughters apartment, would you be ok with the govt telling you âWe cant remove him from occupying her apartment as long as he remains peacefulâ?
Because itâs wrong to violently attack another person.
If thatâs all that is the case, yes. Obviously, if she feels like her life, person, or her family are in imminent danger, then she can use force against him. Iâm not against self-defense. But, this force would be used to protect a personâs life, limb, family, or friends instead of being used to remove the intruder.
Of course, there are people who will find this idea crazy, but that is always going to be true of people who are scared of freedom.
And there it is. Force.
He may not like it, but he has no right to not be offended.
This I support. The govt should not pick winners and losers. The govt should enforce peoples individual rights. If they dont, there will be lawlessness and people will take the law into their own hands.
Correct.
I understand freedom is scary for you, but that is no reason to deny it to others.
This is a step forward. Now all that is left is for you to see that not enforcing any particular scheme of property rightsâprivate, public, or whateverâis what is most consistent with it. Property rights schemes should be adopted voluntarily. In this way, they will rise and fall on their merit. If some particular scheme is dies out due to voluntary abandonment, then itâs pretty clear that itâs being abandoned becauase it is not a good scheme.
Where was that picture taken?
If you donât want the government to enforce my property rights Iâm fine with that. I will.
I think youâll be happier with the former.
