Violating company policy WRT to firearms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here in Silicon Valley, there is a standing rule in most companies that if you are caught reading someone else's documents coming off of the shared (i.e. in the hallway) printer, you will be fired. Seen people ushered out a few times for that one. And I support those rules for the sake of privacy.
So by your rules, these people could read all they want so long as they don't get caught, but be willing to leave without argument if they got caught. Violating someone's privacy is OK so long as they don't get caught?
Violating someone's privacy is okay as long as you are the property owner of the location where the privacy violation occurs. The primacy of property rights subjugates the individual rights of the serfs.

Sent using Tapatalk 2
 
Carrying an item of personal property on the premises of another entity is not intrusive or invasive, and has no immediately implied harmful consequences.

Then a person possessing male anatomy entering a room designated for females only would not be intruding because his anatomy is concealed, right?

A property owner says that no persons carrying guns are permitted, and someone carrying a gun enters the property, that is a perfect example of an intrusion. It's an intrusion regardless of what is stipulated for admittance to the property. It doesn't matter if the stipulation is no guns, no outside food or beverages, no cameras, no Democrats, no rednecks, no guests, etc. It's the use of someone's property against their wishes. Concealing the wrongdoing doesn't make it any less wrong. Why would it? This is the point of my scenario. The wrongfulness is in the action, not in the knowledge of it.
 
I THINK, the only absolute way to retain all control of who and what comes and goes onto your property is to close access to it entirely. You have the right to keep people off of it. It's yours. When you open it to let people come onto it for one reason or another, you are going to overlap into THEIR rights. When you have a business that is open to the public, certainly it will be compromised further.
 
Then a person possessing male anatomy entering a room designated for females only would not be intruding because his anatomy is concealed, right?
No, because women can have male anatomy and enter the women's bathroom.

A property owner says that no persons carrying guns are permitted, and someone carrying a gun enters the property, that is a perfect example of an intrusion. It's an intrusion regardless of what is stipulated for admittance to the property.
That falls apart when taking into account how admissible the specified restrictions are to the level of access provided to others. There isn't anyone here proposing that a location restricted to private membership can't have those conditions as a requirement for membership. The discussion is for facilities open to the public making restrictions on admission which society has consensually accepted as deleterious. If I were to find the situation of my locale disagreeable then I would just have to kick myself for getting into a situation where I had no other options for property ownership and had become solely dependent on it.

Sent using Tapatalk 2
 
Violating someone's privacy is okay as long as you are the property owner of the location where the privacy violation occurs. The primacy of property rights subjugates the individual rights of the serfs.

Sent using Tapatalk 2
This is manifestly UNTRUE.

A perfect example is that it's against the law to place surveillance cameras inside restrooms.
 
Neverwinter said:
Violating someone's privacy is okay as long as you are the property owner of the location where the privacy violation occurs.

It's not a violation if the guest has to agree to forgo privacy as condition of admittance. The guest or employee isn't a serf. They aren't forced to be there in the first place, let alone continue coming back on a regular basis.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:
No. It's not.

Yes, it is. If your employer sets a rule as a condition of your employment, and you work there knowing what the rule is, you have agreed to follow that rule. Ask your employer if they think you agreed to that rule, and if agreeing to that rule is a condition of employment. Then explain you haven't been following that rule and plan to continue working there anyway. You should find out pretty quick whether you've agreed to accept the risk associated with being unarmed as a condition of employment. Going armed to a job where it's prohibited is not an act of having never agreed - it's breaking that agreement.

mljdeckard said:
When you have a business that is open to the public
Neverwinter said:
The discussion is for facilities open to the public making restrictions on admission which society has consensually accepted as deleterious.

The facilities aren't open to the public, if "the public" means any ol' person... They're open to specific people - those who aren't carrying firearms (or whatever the criteria may be).
And "society" is a non-entity. It cannot think or do anything.
 
Yes, it is. If your employer sets a rule as a condition of your employment, and you work there knowing what the rule is, you have agreed to follow that rule. Ask your employer if they think you agreed to that rule, and if agreeing to that rule is a condition of employment. Then explain you haven't been following that rule and plan to continue working there anyway. You should find out pretty quick whether you've agreed to accept the risk associated with being unarmed as a condition of employment. Going armed to a job where it's prohibited is not an act of having never agreed - it's breaking that agreement.

Yep. And you're still missing my point.


I don't care.


If the employer does not care about allowing me to keep myself alive, I don't care about his handbook, his rules, the agreement, or the paper it's printed on. Disregard my safety, I disregard you in return.

Go ahead and fire me when you find out. That's your right, and I fully expect and accept it. But I still don't care about offending someone if they don't care about my safety.
 
So okay, work for the USPS and carry to work. Good luck...

Interesting that you should bring this up.

I used to do business with folks at a post office in Edmond, Oklahoma. On August 20, 1986, Patrick Sherrill killed 14 of them. I still do business at that post office, but not with those people. Here's why: they're dead.

It seems absurd that in the land of the second amendment, none of those peaceful 14 were permitted to carry. At the time there was no concealed carry law in Oklahoma, and carry in a post office was then, and remains today, illegal.

Yet if only one of the victims had been armed, the outcome may have been different that day.

Simple lesson:

It is your moral duty to look out for yourself. No one else will do it for you. Those who would make you vulnerable in the face of danger are little better than those who perpetrate that danger.

Violating a stated policy doesn't require others to risk their jobs standing up for another, and remains merely a personal decision on a matter of importance.

So, in the real world, some who violate such policies will be discovered and fired. Some will never be discovered. And some who abide by such policies will be murdered.

As mentioned, the decision concerning how to respond to such policies remains a personal one.
 
Those who would make you vulnerable in the face of danger are little better than those who perpetrate that danger.

This. And as such, they warrant absolutely zero respect from me or anyone else. They are not thinking of me, the employee, as a person. They are thinking of me as a cog in their machine, to be used and manipulated to lower their bottom line. My life is worth less than the price they pay the insurance company. Ok. Got it.

Use me, I'll use you right back. I'll work the job because I want the paycheck, but that's it. The element of respect between employee and employer has already been thrown out the window. They destroyed that when they gambled my life for a low insurance premium. Now all we have is them using me, and me using them in return. That's the paradigm they set, and that's the paradigm I'll work under.
 
It's not a violation if the guest has to agree to forgo privacy as condition of admittance. The guest or employee isn't a serf. They aren't forced to be there in the first place, let alone continue coming back on a regular basis.
They're forced to go somewhere on a regular basis, unless they find that the feudalistic system doesn't accept them. At which point their either starve, or others pay for the negative externalities caused by that system.

The facilities aren't open to the public, if "the public" means any ol' person... They're open to specific people - those who aren't carrying firearms (or whatever the criteria may be).
Public means facilities other than private clubs and other establishments not actually open to the general public.
And "society" is a non-entity. It cannot think or do anything.
Society is as much of an entity as any other corporation in representing the interests of more than one person.
 
Last edited:
Ragnar Danneskjold said:
Yep. And you're still missing my point. I don't care. If the employer does not care about allowing me to keep myself alive, I don't care about his handbook, his rules, the agreement, or the paper it's printed on. Disregard my safety, I disregard you in return. Go ahead and fire me when you find out. That's your right, and I fully expect and accept it.
No, I get that. I also get that the person willing to hurt you to get what he wants is using the exact same thought process. I don't care if it's wrong. I'm going to do it anyway. But why do you not respect their rights until you get fired? Why not just maintain your disregard for their rights and say, "Whatever. I'm going to keep working here anyway." You can't keep yourself alive if you don't eat, right? Let them fire you. Just continue showing up, working, and taking money for it at the end of every week.

mljdeckard said:
genuisiknowit is insisting that there is no overlap of rights when one person goes onto another person's property. It simply cannot be that way.
I've explained both how and why. If you perceive a conflict in rights, you've mistakenly identified an aggressor as someone exercising rights. It's a contradiction of terms to say that there can be a conflict of rights. You can have conflicting desires, but desires are not rights. Rights are the logical resolution of conflict.

What else could they be? I would very much like to hear a valid explanation for what a right actually is, if not what I've described.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:
They destroyed that when they gambled my life for a low insurance premium.
Do you always buy the safest car on the market regardless of cost, and spend 100% of your life within the safest neighborhood in the world regardless of cost? Or do you, like the company, sometimes make trade-offs for lower costs? Ever drive over the speed limit even though it increases the risk you pose to other drivers? The fact is that the company hasn't disregarded your safety. On the contrary, they warned you beforehand about the risk. You knew and understood this. Why bother trying to rationalize your decision to act out of a sense of resentment and do something you've already admitted you don't have the right to do?

Neverwinter said:
They're forced to go somewhere on a regular basis, unless they find that the feudalistic system doesn't accept them.
We're not talking about prisoners here. The fact that nature "forces" you to meet your basic survival needs will remain unchanged under any political or economic organization. The fact that the resources available to meet those needs are finite means they have to be allocated somehow. Regardless of the political or economic organization, at some point in time a resource must be controlled exclusively by someone. That doesn't mean the person who is in exclusive control of the resource is forcing those not in control of the resource to do anything.

Neverwinter said:
negative externalities

I've been implicitly discussing these in almost every post I made in here.
Negative externalities = Violating someone else's property rights. Taking a firearm onto private property where it's prohibited creates a negative externality.

Neverwinter said:
Public means facilities other than private clubs and other establishments not actually open to the general public.

If admittance is conditional, then they're not open to the "general" public, are they?

Neverwinter said:
Society is as much of an entity as any other corporation in representing the interests of more than one person.

It's not an entity. Nor is a corporation. But a corporation refers to specific people (the owners) who have rights - and it's those people whose rights are violated when you trespass. Society refers to no one at all. Society is simply a term for the interactions of people.
 
No, I get that. I also get that the person willing to hurt you to get what he wants is using the exact same thought process. I don't care if it's wrong. I'm going to do it anyway.
You're conflating following the rule of law as consented to by the governed with the rule of the property owner.

We're not talking about prisoners here. The fact that nature "forces" you to meet your basic survival needs will remain unchanged under any political or economic organization. The fact that the resources available to meet those needs are finite means they have to be allocated somehow. Regardless of the political or economic organization, at some point in time a resource must be controlled exclusively by someone. That doesn't mean the person who is in exclusive control of the resource is forcing those not in control of the resource to do anything.
We're talking about the exclusion of choice by people who have to obtain the resources to live. That choice remains if there is a minority who have that restriction, then there isn't an issue because they can make that choice to go somewhere else to make their livelihood. When it becomes a significant majority or totality, then that choice is taken away and leads to the following.

I've been implicitly discussing these in almost every post I made in here.
Negative externalities = Violating someone else's property rights. Taking a firearm onto private property where it's prohibited creates a negative externality.
That is a misuse of negative externality. There is a cost to keeping someone alive, and the government is paying it at the expense of society in the example by increasing the deficit.

If admittance is conditional, then they're not open to the "general" public, are they?
Conditional admittance as decided by your posts makes the word "public" take on a definition that conflicts with the current understanding of the word, making things that people agree on as being public no longer public.

It's not an entity. Nor is a corporation. But a corporation refers to specific people (the owners) who have rights - and it's those people whose rights are violated when you trespass. Society refers to no one at all. Society is simply a term for the interactions of people.
Society includes the people with their interactions. If that amalgamation of people have decided that there are limitations on the behavior of businesses that operate with them, much like the owners of a business can decide to place limitations on the people who visit them, they can choose not to do business in that society.
 
Neverwinter said:
You're conflating following the rule of law as consented to by the governed with the rule of the property owner.
I've been discussing the rights of the property owner this entire time. The government's law is not relevant to the question of what's good or bad in principle, as it is derived from fiat rather than from a systematic application of rights.

Neverwinter said:
We're talking about the exclusion of choice by people who have to obtain the resources to live.
The employers who prohibit firearms on their property aren't excluding others from any choice. There's no choice in the first place until the would-be employer offers that job.

Neverwinter said:
That is a misuse of negative externality.

That's the only definition of externality that makes sense. Value is subjective. Whether the result of something is good or bad is dependent upon the opinions of the person who owns the property being affected. If the state, through some sort of social program, imposes a cost upon taxpayers allegedly in response to the actions of some business(es), it's not the business(es) imposing that negative externaltity on the taxpayers - it's the state.

Neverwinter said:
Conditional admittance as decided by your posts makes the word "public" take on a definition that conflicts with the current understanding of the word, making things that people agree on as being public no longer public.

The problem stems from your confusion of what is public and what is private. In regards to the rights of the owner, a business or place of work is inherently no less private than a home.

Neverwinter said:
If that amalgamation of people have decided
Only individuals can make decisions. They may or may not come to the same decision, but it's still individuals doing the deciding.
For example, if the majority of a population decide that guns should be banned, the decision isn't somehow more correct; it doesn't create some new higher-order decision that is born from the multitude of individual decisions. The actions and values of people do not exist in definable, discreet units than can be mathematically combined. There's no way to add together all the decisions for and against it and arrive a sum total decision that is still representative of those who were presented with the choice. It's still just individuals each making the individual decision to participate in the oppression of people who have each decided something else. There's no such thing as the will of the people, no such thing as society deciding or choosing to do something.

Neverwinter said:
they can choose not to do business in that society.
Nobody has the right to coercively regulate the way that a person may peacefully use their own property. That is as true for those who want to have guns on their own property as it is for those who don't want them on their own property.
 
Just a little advice people;Don't feed the trolls!

That said, If you, as a condition of employment, agree to your employers no gun policy, then you violate that policy at your peril. If he catches you carrying, your may be fired, no ifs, thans or butts.

On the other hand it is called "concealed carry" for a reason.

Your choice. :)
 
I've been discussing the rights of the property owner this entire time. The government's law is not relevant to the question of what's good or bad in principle, as it is derived from fiat rather than from a systematic application of rights.
The government's law is no more fiat than the decisions of property owners unless you are willing to discount the understanding of post-Enlightenment democratic government.

The employers who prohibit firearms on their property aren't excluding others from any choice. There's no choice in the first place until the would-be employer offers that job.
And likewise if the government places restrictions on the jobs they do offer. They don't have to comply with those regulations if they don't offer the job.

That's the only definition of externality that makes sense. Value is subjective. Whether the result of something is good or bad is dependent upon the opinions of the person who owns the property being affected. If the state, through some sort of social program, imposes a cost upon taxpayers allegedly in response to the actions of some business(es), it's not the business(es) imposing that negative externaltity on the taxpayers - it's the state.
Value is subjective, but it is based on quantifiable characteristics, whether it's the pollutive effects of waste dumping or the depletive effect of overfarming.

The problem stems from your confusion of what is public and what is private. In regards to the rights of the owner, a business or place of work is inherently no less private than a home.
There's not much that can be said if the argument consists of the concept that a public and private space are to be treated similarly despite being significantly different in their use.

Only individuals can make decisions. They may or may not come to the same decision, but it's still individuals doing the deciding.
For example, if the majority of a population decide that guns should be banned, the decision isn't somehow more correct; it doesn't create some new higher-order decision that is born from the multitude of individual decisions. The actions and values of people do not exist in definable, discreet units than can be mathematically combined. There's no way to add together all the decisions for and against it and arrive a sum total decision that is still representative of those who were presented with the choice. It's still just individuals each making the individual decision to participate in the oppression of people who have each decided something else. There's no such thing as the will of the people, no such thing as society deciding or choosing to do something.
This is not a sustainable model for a democracy or other incorporated assemblies of any meaningful size. With every additional person, you geometrically devalue the decisions of all the other stakeholders.

Nobody has the right to coercively regulate the way that a person may peacefully use their own property. That is as true for those who want to have guns on their own property as it is for those who don't want them on their own property.
No one has the right to use their own property in a way which encroaches with another's peaceful use of their own property. It would not be okay for a person to pollute the portion of the water table which is on their property.
 
Neverwinter said:
unless you are willing to discount the understanding of post-Enlightenment democratic government.

I threw that out back in posts #113 and 123. Social Contract theory is old and busted, and what's more, it's at the heart of every argument for increased gun control. A person has the right to defend and peacefully control what's theirs no matter how those around them feel about it.

Neverwinter said:
And likewise if the government places restrictions on the jobs they do offer. They don't have to comply with those regulations if they don't offer the job.

You may have overlooked much of what I've written. I've been explaining how nobody, not even those in the government have a right to do such a thing, whether it's regulating a person's ownership or carrying of firearms, or who they let into their place of business.

Neverwinter said:
Value is subjective, but it is based on quantifiable characteristics, whether it's the pollutive effects of waste dumping or the depletive effect of overfarming.

People can value things for reasons they cannot quantify (e.g. I'd rather have an autographed album from John Lee Hooker than from Justin Bieber, though there's no way to quantify that), but that's beside the point. Whether something constitutes pollution or improvement depends upon the valuations of the person whose property is being modified.

Neverwinter said:
if the argument consists of the concept that a public and private space are to be treated similarly despite being significantly different in their use.

The rights of the property owner are dependent upon the link between the owner and the property, not the manner in which property is used (again, so long as that use is peaceful).

Neverwinter said:
This is not a sustainable model for a democracy or other incorporated assemblies of any meaningful size.

Corporations, clubs, etc, are joined voluntarily. However such organizations make decisions, that decision is representative of those who choose to remain a part of that organization and adhere to the decisions, even if they would prefer different decisions were made. It is not accurate to say the same about vaguely defined groups such "society," nor groups with coerced membership such as the state.

Neverwinter said:
It would not be okay for a person to pollute the portion of the water table which is on their property.

If, hypothetically, they could keep that chemical or whatever strictly within their own portion of the water table, yes it would be okay. If it seeped onto the property of someone else, then no, it's not okay. The problem isn't what changes they make to their own property, the problem is the unauthorized changes they make to the property of someone else.
 
I threw that out back in posts #113 and 123.
These are the same posts in which you make statements regarding one corporation contradictory to the ones being made regarding another corporation.

You may have overlooked much of what I've written. I've been explaining how nobody, not even those in the government have a right to do such a thing, whether it's regulating a person's ownership or carrying of firearms, or who they let into their place of business.
And yet that's exactly what your framework allows: businesses to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, where one cannot even walk down the street because public property is illegitimate and the sidewalk belongs to the nearby property owner who can ban the carrying of arms.

People can value things for reasons they cannot quantify (e.g. I'd rather have an autographed album from John Lee Hooker than from Justin Bieber, though there's no way to quantify that), but that's beside the point. Whether something constitutes pollution or improvement depends upon the valuations of the person whose property is being modified.
The degree of the valuation is there, but there are quantifiable differences between a Bieber and Hooker album. Just ask anyone educated in music.

The rights of the property owner are dependent upon the link between the owner and the property, not the manner in which property is used (again, so long as that use is peaceful).
If this were true, your peaceful spy camera example could not be prohibited. The arbitrary delineation of peaceful instead of non-infringing is at least consistent with the spy camera example.

Corporations, clubs, etc, are joined voluntarily. However such organizations make decisions, that decision is representative of those who choose to remain a part of that organization and adhere to the decisions, even if they would prefer different decisions were made. It is not accurate to say the same about vaguely defined groups such "society," nor groups with coerced membership such as the state.
Membership in your current state is no more coercive than presence at a place of business. Barring an emigration prohibition, you are free to leave and find a different one just like you mention a worker in post 123 being able to move as necessary to secure their rights.

If, hypothetically, they could keep that chemical or whatever strictly within their own portion of the water table, yes it would be okay. If it seeped onto the property of someone else, then no, it's not okay. The problem isn't what changes they make to their own property, the problem is the unauthorized changes they make to the property of someone else.
Property like another's personage.
 
Neverwinter said:
These are the same posts in which you make statements regarding one corporation contradictory to the ones being made regarding another corporation.

The only contradiction is with your assumptions.

Neverwinter said:
And yet that's exactly what your framework allows: businesses to regulate the right to keep and bear arms

Only on their own property.

Neverwinter said:
and the sidewalk belongs to the nearby property owner who can ban the carrying of arms.

The difference being that the owner of that portion of the street would have a legitimate right for doing so, and you would also have the legitimate right to build your own street right next to it to permit people to carry their guns. Compare that to the current situation where 95% of the world that prohibits you from carrying your gun down the street, and you're always a few shooting sprees away from having people living hundreds of miles away from you voting to prohibit you from having guns at all.

Neverwinter said:
The degree of the valuation is there, but there are quantifiable differences between a Bieber and Hooker album. Just ask anyone educated in music.

If you can quantify it, then you must have a unit for measuring it, just like you can use joules to quantify bullet energy, or fps to quantify bullet velocity. Tell me, what unit do you use to quantify measurments of the value of a piece of music?
Remember that we're talking about how people value things, in particular, one possibility for using a piece property versus another possible use. How do you quantitatively measure the property owner's beliefs about those possible uses?

Neverwinter said:
If this were true, your peaceful spy camera example could not be prohibited.

The morality of the camera depends upon its location and the agreements (whether explicit or implicit) made regarding the use of that location.

Neverwinter said:
Membership in your current state is no more coercive than presence at a place of business.

It's coercive in exactly the same way it would be if mafiosi from your city showed up, claimed they owned you and your property, started making rules for how you could act and use that property, and claimed you owed them protection money because they don't want bad things to happen to you. Neither the mafia nor anyone else have any right to do such a thing, so there's no onus on you to move away in order to exercise your rights on your property.
 
I wonder how many in this thread are violating company policy WRT internet usage.

THAT is a great point. We'll never know how many people who have posted on this thread did so from work, or whether their particular employer disallows using work computers for personal entertainment. But I would bet it's not a small number. Or people who just post on THR in general.

But the point remains. If using a work computer for personal entertainment is not allowed by your boss, and you want to do it, according to some in this thread, you should quit rather than spend 30 seconds checking your email or a few minutes posting on THR. Of course people don't quit over this. Nor will they likely be fired. The risk of getting caught is low, and the punishment for doing so, at least a first offence, is probably a taking to and that's it. And so people post on THR from work, knowing they're not supposed to. That decide "I want to ______ more than I want to follow company policy, so I'm going to _______ anyways even though it's prohibited".

Is that wrong if the ______ is carry a gun? Yep. Is it wrong if it's checking your personal email? Also yes. But each person decides on his own what they want to do. Some will break policy to defend their very lives. Some will break it to stay entertained. I personally don't care. That's the game you play. Get caught, suffer the consequence. Don't get caught, reap the rewards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top