"Guns Have No Place at Work":Gun Owners 1,Miami Herald 0

[Sage of Seattle]

Look up the 'Montgomery Bus Boycott'.

Okay, I guess I should have been a bit more specific in which timeline I was discussing, but the bus boycott was specifically aimed at overturning a city law and it was subsequently declared unconstitutional.

How is that related to private businesses and corporations?

People are literally up in arms if their government tramples their rights, but it's okay if a "private" business does so? Since "private" business sugar coats that pill of oppression by creating the illusion of free choice, it makes it easier to swallow.

Oh, and by the way, I do agree with what you all are saying. I just don't think that complaining about this legislation is the way to go. I am happy, and able, to stand and rail against the government and "why do we need another law on the books" and write to my reps and letters to the editor and so on. So, personally, I don't feel that we're really disagreeing and I thank everyone for putting up with my recent rants in various threads over the past few days.

 

[WayneConrad]

The interior of your car is never your boss's property. The argument is that your car is located on your boss's property, and thus he has authority to impose restrictions on what you can and cannot bring onto his property in your car.

My boss can say that. Doesn't make it so, any more than would he saying that my wallet is his property just because I've carried it onto his property. My car is my mobile embassy on his property, my private property. Within it, I am king. Outside of it, he is king. Piece o' cake, no private property conflict whatsoever.

For that reason, this bill creates no tension of private property rights whatsoever. I don't see why any libertarian should flinch.

 

[Soybomb]

Then the rise of the legal fiction of a corporation has been the biggest single destructive factor to this country, IMVHO. Now suddenly one person can own thousands of stores. How can anyone effectively boycott such a monstrosity? The answer: we can't. Look around you. Multinational companies skip out on being beholden to our laws for example. When the only stores around were mom and pop stores, then, yes, your way worked. You could in fact shop somewhere else and you could make your wishes known in cold hard cash walking away. How about now? Aren't there but half dozen megacorps that own several dozen different chains, all with different menus, items for sale, different names and different sales pitches? How do you take your money elsewhere, when the vast majority of people don't even know who owns what? Take your money from Albertsons down to Safeway, but lo and behold, both are owned by the same company! Your money lines thier pockets no matter where you go.

I get it, big business bad. I'm not willing to sell out my principles to get a little something I want though. And really if your town has an albertsons and a safeway, it probably has several independent neighborhood grocery stores, even my little town does. They're expensive and have less selection but if you really do think that big corporation is bad you might have to give up some of the luxury that comes with shopping there.

My boss can say that. Doesn't make it so, any more than would he saying that my wallet is his property just because I've carried it onto his property. My car is my mobile embassy on his property, my private property. Within it, I am king. Outside of it, he is king. Piece o' cake, no private property conflict whatsoever.

For that reason, this bill creates no tension of private property rights whatsoever. I don't see why any libertarian should flinch.

But your boss isn't trying to take your property or your money, he's just trying to say that while you're on his property, you're going to follow his rules. If you don't like, don't use it. This is the same courtesy I expect from people who visit my home.

 

[divemedic]

Trying to apply this logic to say that a business is the same as a home is a red herring. This law has nothing to do with your home- your home is not open to the public.

 

[WayneConrad]

Soybomb, do you expect your rules to extend to the interior of the cars of people who visit your home?

 

[Soybomb]

Soybomb, do you expect your rules to extend to the interior of the cars of people who visit your home?

Absolutely if they're in my drive way. If they're parked on the street, no. Shouldn't I be able to tell my guests that under no circumstance will I allow a car with french poodles or tree shaped air fresheners to park on my property? I may even demand to look to verify they're following my rules. They of course might tell me that I'm a nut and there isn't a chance they'll let me check their car to see if they're following my crazy rules. Thats when I tell them they are no longer welcome on my property. They're not forced to follow my rules, but I'm not forced to let them stay. If you don't like it, leave.

 

[divemedic]

I fully support that, IN YOUR HOME. Once you open to the public, the rules change.

 

[Ltlabner]

At the same time, it violates the right of businesses to manage their business

Funny that an obviously lib leaning newspaper is now suddenly concerned about the "right of businesses to manage their business".

Didn't stop them from passing state wide smoking bans regardless of whether the owners wanted them or not (in Ohio, anyway).

Didn't stop them from forcing private clubs to open up membership to anybody regardless of how silly the situation.

Didn't stop them from imposing heavy taxes on businesses that prevents them from spending the money as they see fit.

Didn't stop them from mandating healthcare (Mass, for example) which most definatley interfears with an employers right to run their business as they see fit.

There's all sorts of ways the Libs have interjected themselves into how businesses choose to run themselves. But suddenly, when it comes to the EVILLLLLLLL guns, then whoooa nelly. Can't interfear with how businesses choose to run their companies.

What crap.

 

[MakAttak]

They're not forced to follow my rules, but I'm not forced to let them stay. If you don't like it, leave.

My reply:

It's the same argument: If you wish to create an entity that sheilds your assets from liability, then that entity will not be treated as an individual and you will be subject to certain restrictions. (Just as, if you come on my property, you are subject to my rules)

If you have a private business, not subject to limited liability: go ahead, ban guns.

If you are using the law to sheild your assets, then you should have no right to make individuals LESS SAFE because it makes you feel better, especially since you will suffer no personal consequences if your ill-advised policies cause them harm.

 

[Soybomb]

I fully support that, IN YOUR HOME. Once you open to the public, the rules change.

Why? If you don't own the land why do you feel entitled to have a say in the rules? Public property I'd agree with you on. I would also note that I see no distinction in the law for a public or private parking lot. Lets say I have a factory with a gated parking lot. Does that change anything for you or does the employer still not be able to say "whoa no guns in this lot."

 

[WayneConrad]

Why, if you don't own my car, do you feel entitled to have a say about what it is in it just because it is parked on your parking lot?

There is an intersection of private property rights here, and nothing in natural law requires the line to be drawn where you say it does. You can demarcate the property rights at the door of the car just as well, the same way this bill does.

 

[divemedic]

The thing that makes me laugh is that the same people who demand the ability to have absolute control over what happens on their property also deny liability when a consumer/employee is injured by a criminal as a result of their failed control.

They want all of the rights and none of the responsibility.

 

[Kurt S.]

I believe Conoco-Phillips was the company or at least one of the companies that got the Oklahoma take-your-guns-to-work law struck down.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could really believe that a publicly owned company could be considered as a "person" and enjoy the same rights and privileges thereof.

What I do believe is that they need to dig up the bones of John Chandler Bancroft Davis (google him) and feed them to the pigs, and make all his descendents pay reparations to the thousands of folks who have suffered from the ridiculous but evil concept that a corporation is a "juristic person".