Kansas considers making schools liable for not arming staff

[Libertarian01]

It has everything to do with property rights. NO ONE forces you to enter someone's private property. If you choose to, you do so
voluntarily and agreeing to abide by the rules set forth by the property owner. If you come onto my property and I ask you to
disarm, you will disarm or you will leave. If I require you to wear Lederhosen and yodel Broadway show tunes while
at my home you will or you will leave. My property, my rules. Don't like them, stay home it's really that simple.

I have some issue with this. It isn't just your position, it has been used many times before.

I am not "forced" to enter anyone's property, except by the way our society works we are all forced to do so.

Say I want to buy some food, yet every Walmart, Meijers, Piggly Wiggly, Walgreens etc gets afraid and has a "no guns allowed" policy. We ARE forced to buy our products somewhere, and if they all start to follow the same silly policy then I can't buy my products without violating someones rules somewhere.

It's like wanting to buy a home in a new neighborhood with kids nearby to play with your kids, or close to work, or whatever reason you desire. It is, today, impossible to buy a home in a neighborhood WITHOUT having homeowners association rules to contend with. Some you may not care about, others you may care deeply, yet if you want a new home in a nice neighborhood it is impossible to buy one without strings attached.

We are not islands unto ourselves, capable of being totally independent. We must interact with others, sometimes to a greater extent and other times to a lesser extent, yet interact we must. Shopping, schooling, recreating we must go.

What if I don't feel well, yet every medical clinic, doctors office, hospital, has a "no guns allowed" policy - which many are moving to as they get gobbled up by the huge corporate providers. Am I to assume that I am not allowed to seek medical care without giving up a civil liberty?

I think this is one of those areas where philosophically your argument is true, but where the real world intrudes and the rubber hits the road it begins to get frayed and loses its cohesion.

Regards,

Doug

PS - If you required me to follow your rule of wearing lederhosen and yodel Broadway tunes I'll get charged with at least manslaughter as you either pass away from shock or laugh yourself to death. Either way, I'm SOL.

 

[Rbooher7526]

Kansas considers making schools liable for not arming staff

Finally a school board that understands soft target consequences.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[jamil]

I have some issue with this. It isn't just your position, it has been used many times before.

I am not "forced" to enter anyone's property, except by the way our society works we are all forced to do so.

Say I want to buy some food, yet every Walmart, Meijers, Piggly Wiggly, Walgreens etc gets afraid and has a "no guns allowed" policy. We ARE forced to buy our products somewhere, and if they all start to follow the same silly policy then I can't buy my products without violating someones rules somewhere.

It's like wanting to buy a home in a new neighborhood with kids nearby to play with your kids, or close to work, or whatever reason you desire. It is, today, impossible to buy a home in a neighborhood WITHOUT having homeowners association rules to contend with. Some you may not care about, others you may care deeply, yet if you want a new home in a nice neighborhood it is impossible to buy one without strings attached.

We are not islands unto ourselves, capable of being totally independent. We must interact with others, sometimes to a greater extent and other times to a lesser extent, yet interact we must. Shopping, schooling, recreating we must go.

What if I don't feel well, yet every medical clinic, doctors office, hospital, has a "no guns allowed" policy - which many are moving to as they get gobbled up by the huge corporate providers. Am I to assume that I am not allowed to seek medical care without giving up a civil liberty?

I think this is one of those areas where philosophically your argument is true, but where the real world intrudes and the rubber hits the road it begins to get frayed and loses its cohesion.

Regards,

Doug

PS - If you required me to follow your rule of wearing lederhosen and yodel Broadway tunes I'll get charged with at least manslaughter as you either pass away from shock or laugh yourself to death. Either way, I'm SOL.

I think the point needs to be made clearer that it's a virtual force, or maybe better said, circumstantial force. I mean, no one is holding a gun to your head telling you have to work for the employer who doesn't allow guns on premise (since that's a popular scenario in this genre of discourse). But because of the circumstances of living, you have to make a sort of existential calculation and decide whether operating in your current world is more important than exercising certain rights. You could just quit your higher paying job, and work for an employer who lets you carry at work. But then you maybe end up in a job where the boss is an *******, the pay sucks, and you hate it--but you get to carry. How practical is that really? So you take your lumps and you lock your gun in your car, unless your employer bans that too.

So no ONE is forcing you. It's just the circumstances of life that force you to interact with people or businesses that don't allow you the freedom you want.

 

[Libertarian01]

I think the point needs to be made clearer that it's a virtual force, or maybe better said, circumstantial force. I mean, no one is holding a gun to your head telling you have to work for the employer who doesn't allow guns on premise (since that's a popular scenario in this genre of discourse). But because of the circumstances of living, you have to make a sort of existential calculation and decide whether operating in your current world is more important than exercising certain rights. You could just quit your higher paying job, and work for an employer who lets you carry at work. But then you maybe end up in a job where the boss is an *******, the pay sucks, and you hate it--but you get to carry. How practical is that really? So you take your lumps and you lock your gun in your car, unless your employer bans that too.

So no ONE is forcing you. It's just the circumstances of life that force you to interact with people or businesses that don't allow you the freedom you want.

I thought I said what you said...?

Maybe more words were less clear on my behalf, but yes, it is the circumstances of modern life, and all civilized life for that matter, that forces us to leave our homes and go to anothers property to acquire something.

Even as far back as ancient Egypt or Persia or Edo people probably understood a lot of the technology of the day. From tanning leather to sewing clothes to making tools they had all probably seen a craftsman make the things they purchased. Yet even they were "forced" to go to the cooper for a barrel or the potter for a container or the cobbler for shoes. Their understanding did not confer skill or time required to make all of these things. Even if they were able to make one or two of them they had to buy the rest, that requirement is the "force" of which you and I agree.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

I thought I said what you said...?

Maybe more words were less clear on my behalf, but yes, it is the circumstances of modern life, and all civilized life for that matter, that forces us to leave our homes and go to anothers property to acquire something.

Even as far back as ancient Egypt or Persia or Edo people probably understood a lot of the technology of the day. From tanning leather to sewing clothes to making tools they had all probably seen a craftsman make the things they purchased. Yet even they were "forced" to go to the cooper for a barrel or the potter for a container or the cobbler for shoes. Their understanding did not confer skill or time required to make all of these things. Even if they were able to make one or two of them they had to buy the rest, that requirement is the "force" of which you and I agree.

Regards,

Doug

You did. You just didn't say it enough.

 

[Tombs]

It has everything to do with property rights. NO ONE forces you to enter someone's private property. If you choose to, you do so
voluntarily and agreeing to abide by the rules set forth by the property owner. If you come onto my property and I ask you to
disarm, you will disarm or you will leave. If I require you to wear Lederhosen and yodel Broadway show tunes while
at my home you will or you will leave. My property, my rules. Don't like them, stay home it's really that simple.

You can either have unalienable rights or you can have property rights.

Pick one, because in reality, the reality that exists outside of your mind, these 2 things are mutually exclusive.

This is the reason why an-cap philosophy falls flat on its face. Publicly accessible and commonly used property should have limited "property rights" in comparison to residential property, otherwise we end up in a world where we have no place to practice any right aside from our own homes. At which point, what good do those rights really do you?

People are finally learning where this philosophy gets them with the recent trends online.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I haz confused. Are we now saying that privately owned business must be forced to respect rights because they serve the public? I really hope not.

 

[Tombs]

I haz confused. Are we now saying that privately owned business must be forced to respect rights because they serve the public? I really hope not.

What's this "we" business?

I'm saying a commercial property is not the same thing as a residential property. And if you believe commercial property should be treated the same as residential property, then you might as well bend over and kiss every right you have goodbye, as you'll have no where to exercise ANY of them.

The only suppression of rights a commercial property should have should be actions that have a negative monetary effect for the business.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What's this "we" business?

I'm saying a commercial property is not the same thing as a residential property. And if you believe commercial property should be treated the same as residential property, then you might as well bend over and kiss every right you have goodbye, as you'll have no where to exercise ANY of them.

The only suppression of rights a commercial property should have should be actions that have a negative monetary effect for the business.

I do believe a commercial property should be treated as residential property, in the vast majority of cases. The only exceptions being if the immediate welfare of a person is at risk. Govt should not have the ability to force businesses to abide by their rules. The free market has proven itself, when applied, to be quite capable. With MLK on the mind, the Montgomery Bus Boycott come to and. Some may be ok with the govt handing down directives to private entities, I am not.

 

[Double T]

Soooo, you are saying that YOUR safety trumps THEIR property rights? Gotcha

In a public school, isn't it our property?

 

[Kutnupe14]

In a public school, isn't it our property?

So is the White House.

 

[HoughMade]

In a public school, isn't it our property?

No. It's the government's property. Symbolically, you could say that it belongs to all of us...which means it belongs to none of us.

 

[Libertarian01]

What's this "we" business?

I'm saying a commercial property is not the same thing as a residential property. And if you believe commercial property should be treated the same as residential property, then you might as well bend over and kiss every right you have goodbye, as you'll have no where to exercise ANY of them.

The only suppression of rights a commercial property should have should be actions that have a negative monetary effect for the business.

For me, my issue for a long time has been that "corporations" should expect no special protection, only individual human beings. A "commercial" enterprise can take several different forms. For example, if I become a manufacturer I have the option of putting my neck on the line and calling myself "Doug's Widget Company." In reality this would be Doug DBA (Doing Business As) "Doug's Widget Company." Under this setup I am legally on the hook for any and all problems my business may incur. However, IF I seek special protection and treatment from the State by forming a separate legal person named "Doug's Widget Company Corporation" then "I" am no longer putting my legal neck on the line. I have asked the State for special treatment.

So to me when a person wants to hide behind a legally created artificial person granted by the laws of the State the State may attach any strings it wants to, because it is not restricting the rights that should belong to a living human being but rather an artificial construct. If the State dictates that you cannot deny service to someone based upon their skin colour I have ZERO problem with that for a corporation while I DO have a problem for that as a DBA. The DBA guy is sticking his own personal a** on the line, while the corp guy is hiding behind a State backed artificial person.

A business does not have a conscience or a soul, a person does, and when a person creates a corporation they are gaining benefits. There is nothing wrong then with the State attaching restrictions.

At least that is my opinion.

Note that when a person buys a home the person is on the hook for any liability and gets zero protection from the State, therefore the State can go pound sand on telling them what to do.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You can either have unalienable rights or you can have property rights.

Pick one, because in reality, the reality that exists outside of your mind, these 2 things are mutually exclusive.

This is the reason why an-cap philosophy falls flat on its face. Publicly accessible and commonly used property should have limited "property rights" in comparison to residential property, otherwise we end up in a world where we have no place to practice any right aside from our own homes. At which point, what good do those rights really do you?

People are finally learning where this philosophy gets them with the recent trends online.

Property rights are an unalienable right at least I consider them as such. And no you can practice your rights on your property, or on publicly owned property.

For me, my issue for a long time has been that "corporations" should expect no special protection, only individual human beings. A "commercial" enterprise can take several different forms. For example, if I become a manufacturer I have the option of putting my neck on the line and calling myself "Doug's Widget Company." In reality this would be Doug DBA (Doing Business As) "Doug's Widget Company." Under this setup I am legally on the hook for any and all problems my business may incur. However, IF I seek special protection and treatment from the State by forming a separate legal person named "Doug's Widget Company Corporation" then "I" am no longer putting my legal neck on the line. I have asked the State for special treatment.

So to me when a person wants to hide behind a legally created artificial person granted by the laws of the State the State may attach any strings it wants to, because it is not restricting the rights that should belong to a living human being but rather an artificial construct. If the State dictates that you cannot deny service to someone based upon their skin colour I have ZERO problem with that for a corporation while I DO have a problem for that as a DBA. The DBA guy is sticking his own personal a** on the line, while the corp guy is hiding behind a State backed artificial person.

A business does not have a conscience or a soul, a person does, and when a person creates a corporation they are gaining benefits. There is nothing wrong then with the State attaching restrictions.

At least that is my opinion.

Note that when a person buys a home the person is on the hook for any liability and gets zero protection from the State, therefore the State can go pound sand on telling them what to do.

Regards,

Doug

Does the corporation belong to a living breathing person? Is it not their property? Why should a persons rights depend on which type of property it is? Is my yard a living breathing person? Nope, and as such it doesn't have rights, I as the owner of said property do. Yes incorporating does grant some benefits, it also comes with some disadvantage though doesn't it? Such as taxes, the corporation gets taxed then the money you receive form said corp gets tax again. I'm sure I can think of some other disadvantages, and I'm pretty sure you could if you chose to.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The only suppression of rights a commercial property should have should be actions that have a negative monetary effect for the business.

The sight of a gun can scare my customers and make them not come back. Ergo it could have a negative monetary effect on my business.

 

[2A_Tom]

Actually a corporation has a lot of latitude in tax deductions that a private person does not have.

Property is NOT an inalienable right, it should be, but it is not. Quit paying your taxes and someone will buy it for taxes.

 

[HoughMade]

Name a right that is or should be totally and completely unalienable in every situation.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Actually a corporation has a lot of latitude in tax deductions that a private person does not have.

Property is NOT an inalienable right, it should be, but it is not. Quit paying your taxes and someone will buy it for taxes.

Yes corps and other businesses have different deductions, that doesn't change what I said. The corp gets taxed then the money you receive from the corp gets taxed. Is that not true? Except in the case of a s-corp. But those have their own set of disadvantages.

Your property is being seized for a debt you owe, no different than if you were sued by a private person.

Name a right that is or should be totally and completely unalienable in every situation.

Can't really think of any, because any of the rights can infringe on another persons. Although if a right is being restricted it should be on that basis. And pretty much that basis alone.

 

[rw02kr43]

Couldn't someone also try to sue Mom's Demand? After a shooting all the looneys want to blame and sue the NRA,

Jason

 

[Kutnupe14]

Couldn't someone also try to sue Mom's Demand? After a shooting all the looneys want to blame and sue the NRA,

Jason

You can sue anybody for anything.