Private Property Rights vs. The Right To Self Defense

[Pinhead]

Recently, a co-worker of mine was arrested, charged with 4 felonies and a pile of lesser charges, and released on bail. His situation is one involving multiple drug charges. I do want to state that I do not agree with the terms of his arrest, nor do I feel that he did anything wrong. But, being as the state sees his actions as a crime, and that he was also involved with others who were also committing crimes, for the sake of argument, I will refer to him as a criminal. People who commit drug related crimes are often involved with people who many of us would find undesirable to associate with. I'm not going to bother to further clarify my feelings on his character of that of his circle of friends. I don't trust him, or them. Period.So now that he somehow, amazingly made it out of jail, albeit temporarily at this point, there are a few of us here at my work that feel unsafe around him. We're not really worried about him personally, but more so the people he associated with. He somehow made bail of $250,000 cash. We are sure he didn't have the money. And we know there is no one out there who footed a quarter-million dollars just to get him out of lock-up. So, the common assumption is that he is helping the authorities locate and arrest other dealers and suppliers. This, in turn, will create a very hostile response from former associates of his.Our employer has decided to allow him to return to work. Obviously, it's his business and he can hire who he wants. But, he has introduced a person into our working environment who may bring danger to all of us. Upon voicing the concerns of myself, and others I had spoken to, to the vice-president, I was reassured that nothing will happen here. He stated that we have daylight and the deterrence of CCTV cameras all over the premises, on our side. He went as far as to say that were were perfectly safe due the fact that "no one is dumb enough to come after him here". His reassurances obviously did nothing to quell my fears, nor the concerns of others I have spoken to.In reality, our employer has placed us in a potentially dangerous situation. If someone would come looking for him, find him here, and attempt to commit violence in retaliation for his possible involvement in snitching on others, the employees here are now between him and his assailants. Most of us arrive when it's still dark in the morning. So my boss' statement about having daylight on our side means nothing to me. As for the cameras, well desperate people do things that get caught on camera constantly. There are reality television shows based on an hour's worth of footage of "stupid criminals" doing things that were caught on tape. The cameras don't seem like much of a safety net when were dealing with desperate people attempting to quiet a former associate who may very well be leading authorities to them. Their freedom is at stake. Not only their physical freedom, but their tax-free, constant flow of illegal drug money that supports their lifestyle is at stake.The  employee handbook states that weapons of any kind, including but not limited to firearms and ammunition, are not permitted on the property. As an employee I worry that carrying my pistol during work would get me fired and jeopardize my family's well being and financial security. As a libertarian I feel the ethical pull of property rights and a philosophical need to follow the rules of the property owner, As a realist I feel threatened by the presence of someone who has made possible enemies with desperate drug dealers.When I acquired my concealed carry license a few years back, I asked the vice-president, of the company I work for, if he had a problem with me keeping my pistol locked in my vehicle during my shift. He stated that it was no issue, and asked if I would keep it quiet as to scare any of the other employees. After this new situation, I have chosen to carry my weapon without asking for permission. I feel that if I inquire about carrying my pistol, I will bring attention to the situation, cause a rift between my employer and I, and possibly damage our working relationship. Our employers (father and son) are not gun guys in any way. They feel relatively safe as they go about their days. They don't have a problem with guns, but they don't quite understand the need for them in a self-defense situation.My issue here is purely ethical... do my rights to self defense supersede their rights to private property? Am I in the wrong for violating their rules? Are they wrong for violating my right to defense?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

[Wesley]

You do not have rights. Rights do not exist. There is only private property and non-aggression.

 

If you are worried about your safety, have another conversation with your boss and say that he did not quell your fears. If he still does not quell your fears, start looking for another job where you do not need to feel unsafe.

 

Your solution will result in you getting fired anyway (or worse some sort of charges since you were especially told to not do this in conversation) so you might as well find a solution that allows you to feel safe and finds you another job on your terms rather than feeling only somewhat safe and eventually getting kicked out of your job with no fall-back.

[Pinhead]

Thanks for the input. What you're saying makes perfect sense, honestly. I have thought about that. Unfortunately, for the past 8 years I have had stable good-paying employment. Most people I know have not been able to keep a job for more than 6 months due to the economy. I've achieved a decent amount of stability here.I know I have choices... but there's obviously a reason I don't want to leave. I'm debating on bringing it up to him again. I just don't think they see him as a threat of any kind. It's unfortunate that they don't share the fears of everyone here. I know I could just leave and go somewhere else, but the impact on my family could be terrible. If I bring it up again, I feel I'd be beating a dead horse. This is where I'm stuck. I've debated printing out a bunch of news articles of local crime and incidents involving drug-related shootings. I could try and sway him before I bring up the self-defense part of the conversation.He's an easy going person and has always leaned toward my advice in a business sense and treats me very respectfully. This incident is the first time he's acted as though my opinion isn't worth a damn. I have a feeling it's fear to be honest. He really didn't want to get into what CAN happen, only what he thinks CAN'T happen.

[dsayers]

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you feel the person is dangerous? Not saying you're wrong to feel that way, I just personally don't view state accusations of non-violent behavior to be an indicator. This seems to be the root of your dilemma.

 

It sounds like you've spoken to others you work with and they feel the same way. Are any of you willing to withhold your services until such a time that your employer isn't endangering you? If your concern is valid, then I think your employer would be willing to forego the expense of training five new people in order to pay to retrain one.

 

For what it's worth, I can relate. I was once a manager at a pizzeria in not the best part of town. I handled cash when I was managing and I also delivered. I was armed despite company policy. I remember being consumed by guilt. I was actually ready to quit to evade the guilt. Luckily, the store manager was former military police and armed pizza deliverer, so he was comfortable with firearms.

 

It is true that you're violating an agreement you made. However, the agreement stipulated something that has no bearing on the party who required it. If you own a firearm, I assume you understand that it's better to avoid conflict than to survive it (prevention vs cure). What you're doing now enables you to provide for your family while minimizing risk to your well-being. However, working elsewhere would reduce the risk even more presuming your concerns for this person are valid.

 

You might want to remind your boss that the people responsible for flying planes into the world trade center and killing over 3,000 people were caught on camera before doing so. Somehow the camera didn't save those people. Just as a manual saying no weapons will not save you or anybody else there.

[Pinhead]

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you feel the person is dangerous? Not saying you're wrong to feel that way, I just personally don't view state accusations of non-violent behavior to be an indicator. This seems to be the root of your dilemma.

 

This guy is not a violent person in any way. We're not worried about him, we're worried about the people he associated with before getting caught. He's between arrest and trial right now. There has been a handful of dealers busted in the past few weeks since he was arrested. Whether or not he has anything to do with these busts is beyond me. But, the fact that he was nailed, charged with 4 felonies, and then somehow got out until his trial seems odd for a low-level distributor like him. Now, if a handful of people at my work all thought the same thing before having a conversation about it, there's a good possibility that others will think it as well. He SEEMS like a snitch... he has all the markers, his case is one that would reward him for handing the cops a list of names.I'm debating on speaking to my boss again. The chance that any violence will occur is basically unlikely. But, as an everyday concealed-carrier, my philosophy is to never leave the house without it. It's that one time that you leave it at home that not only violates the idea of carry itself, but it could very well be the time you actually need it. Daily, my weapon is locked in my vehicle during work-hours. This poses a few problems of it's own. For one, it's not in my possession and it could be stolen. And second, what good is a loaded firearm for protection if it's not within reach.As for the contractual end of things, I actually do feel that bringing a loaded firearm into someone's dwelling without their knowledge is isn't a terribly big deal, but then again, who am I to make light of someone's rules. I wouldn't want anyone parking their car in my yard and pissing on my front steps, so if I expect people to respect my property, I need to reciprocate that universally.Back to the original point of my response though, I don't feel that there is a heightened need to carry, but I do see this situation as a reminder of why I do. Thanks for your input, I greatly appreciate it.

[alexqr1]

You do not have rights. Rights do not exist. There is only private property and non-aggression.

I disagree, you do have negative rights. Both property rights and right to self-defense are negative rights.In this case though, You have partially waived your rights to self defense in order to work where you work. If it is not permissible by the owner of the establishment and you agreed to the rules you have to either abide by them or quit or have a conversation to try and have the boss change the rule.So no right supersedes any other right ever, in this case you are trying to defend yourself in a way that you have agreed not to defend yourself.I would also suggest having another conversation with your employer and maybe build up some pressure by having other employers weigh in the conversation.

[Wesley]

I disagree, you do have negative rights. Both property rights and right to self-defense are negative rights.In this case though, You have partially waived your rights to self defense in order to work where you work. If it is not permissible by the owner of the establishment and you agreed to the rules you have to either abide by them or quit or have a conversation to try and have the boss change the rule.So no right supersedes any other right ever, in this case you are trying to defend yourself in a way that you have agreed not to defend yourself.I would also suggest having another conversation with your employer and maybe build up some pressure by having other employers weigh in the conversation.

I would say that "rights" are always positive assertions and a "negative right" cannot exist. We have words for what I understand a "negative right" to be, namely a prohibition or an evil action.

 

Property rights are not rights. They are logical extensions of the biological fact of self-ownership.

 

Self defense is not a right, but a logical extension of the idea that if killing can be logically proven as immoral (see UPB, applies to all initiations of violence) then you must allow someone to be able to defend against an initiation. If you say something is wrong, but are not allowed to use force in defense against it, then it cannot be defined as evil and instead becomes an aesthetically negative action.

 

What separates UPB from ANA and APA is the use of force in the act and, by extension the just use of force in self defense

[alexqr1]

Negative rights are derived from self-ownership, thus as objective and true as self-ownership.

 

"Property rights are not rights. They are logical extensions of the biological fact of self-ownership."

So if you own yourself and as extension you own your property, both objective claims, then wouldn't the right to defend your property be equally as objective?

This also applies to your body, and that is self-defense.

[Wesley]

Negative rights are derived from self-ownership, thus as objective and true as self-ownership.

This is an assertion, but I still do not understand where it came from. I claimed that rights are positive assertions, and thus I do not understand how a negative right could exist. I would appreciate if you could explain to me what a negative right is.

 

 

So if you own yourself and as extension you own your property, both objective claims, then wouldn't the right to defend your property be equally as objective?This also applies to your body, and that is self-defense.

I said that private property and self defense are logically valid, but I was taking issue with calling them rights.

 

Private property is not a right, but a statement of fact describing reality. It is like saying "This water has the right to be an ocean". It is describing something that is, but calling it a right doesn't make sense to me.

 

Self-defense maybe could be considered a right as it is a positive assertion (though conditional upon another which makes it a bit shaky) however I prefer to justify it logically rather than call it a right.

 

Rights, in general, were the arbitrary stopping points from which logic does not go further. It attempts to establish axioms that cannot be analyzed. If it is logically justifiable, then justify it logically and you do not need to call it a right. If you cannot justify it logically, then people muddy the waters by claiming it is a "right" which by extension means it is axiomatic and questioning it is beyond the purview of logic.

[dsayers]

@Pinhead: Thanks for the clarification. It's not that you didn't explain it the first time or that I didn't understand it. I just didn't put the parts I understood together to get that the concern was about others actions in regards to his presence. So thanks for clarifying.

 

 

if I expect people to respect my property, I need to reciprocate that universally.

 

To clarify, your carrying on their property would not be disrespecting their property. You would be violating your own agreement.

 

I would say that "rights" are always positive assertions and a "negative right" cannot exist. We have words for what I understand a "negative right" to be, namely a prohibition or an evil action.

 

Consider "right to life" compared to "right to not be murdered."

[Usethem]

Do you think that casting a vote counts as an initiation of force?

[dsayers]

I do, yes. Casting a vote is saying to somebody, "I approve of YOU stealing from everybody to pay for something *I* believe is worth stealing from people to pay for." Or just the last part in terms of voting on so-called issues.

[Wesley]

I do, yes. Casting a vote is saying to somebody, "I approve of YOU stealing from everybody to pay for something *I* believe is worth stealing from people to pay for." Or just the last part in terms of voting on so-called issues.

For this metaphor, pretend you are a slave.

 

Every 4 years, you get to pick your master.

 

Some do not vote, because they realize it doesn't make a difference or think it would be choosing who the master is for others.

 

Some vote, not because they like the situation, but if you have the choice you might as well pick the guy who you think would whip you (and others) a little less.

 

My point is that I would not consider people in a situation of violence to pick a slightly better torturer to necessarily be initiating violence any more than I would consider someone who robbed from a store because there was a gun on their family's heads to be initiating violence.

 

I still do not vote, but I do not consider those who do to be initiating force.

[dsayers]

A great point. If I understand your rightly, you're saying that voting could lead to less violence, making those votes count towards minimizing the violence.

 

I don't feel this diminishes my position. In order to know if the act of voting is the initiation of the use of force or not, we need only look at whether or not that decision is a choice. Without somebody saying or implying "vote or such and such will happen," there is no coercion relating to the act of voting itself.

 

Or put another way, the way you describe it, a voter would be choosing between their neighbors being struck often or being struck infrequently. Unless there's an option for not struck at all, to vote for one would still be the initiation of the use of force.

 

I suspect one might counter that in both scenarios, the violence is coming either way. I feel this is even more proof that the choice to participate is the initiation of the use of force.

[Wesley]

A great point. If I understand your rightly, you're saying that voting could lead to less violence, making those votes count towards minimizing the violence.

 

I don't feel this diminishes my position. In order to know if the act of voting is the initiation of the use of force or not, we need only look at whether or not that decision is a choice. Without somebody saying or implying "vote or such and such will happen," there is no coercion relating to the act of voting itself.

 

Or put another way, the way you describe it, a voter would be choosing between their neighbors being struck often or being struck infrequently. Unless there's an option for not struck at all, to vote for one would still be the initiation of the use of force.

 

I suspect one might counter that in both scenarios, the violence is coming either way. I feel this is even more proof that the choice to participate is the initiation of the use of force.

Whether you participate or not, violence is still enacted against you. What is wrong with trying to choose the guy who hits you less?

 

I still think voting is silly for many reasons, but I do not consider it violence. The initiation ofviolence is the political system that mandates a leader be chosen to be able to use force by a majority of voters. How people react in that situation is very much a state of nature. The moral responsibility should be at the feet of the culprits, and not the victims.

 

Advocating the system is a different story. Doing the best you can in a shitty system I cannot blame people for.

[dsayers]

The moral responsibility should be at the feet of the culprits, and not the victims.

 

This is true where the culprits remove choice from a decision with a moral component. Again, there is no punishment for not voting, so choosing to vote accrues the immorality to the one making the choice.

[Wesley]

This is true where the culprits remove choice from a decision with a moral component. Again, there is no punishment for not voting, so choosing to vote accrues the immorality to the one making the choice.

The choice is only punishment.

 

A: 89% suck

B: 90% suck

C: we choose A or B for you

 

Choose!

[ThomasDoubts]

Lysander Spooner speaks to this issue in No Treason.  The State has the right to initiate the use of force.  It is not emergent, but rather derived from the consent of the governed.  The act of voting is the only way to legitimize an implicit social contract signed by nobody.  In so doing, you surrender your right to not be aggressed against by the State.  The State has every right to aggress against it's voter's, for they have surrendered rights and responsibilities by agreeing to the implicit social contract via the act of voting.  The State does not however have the right to aggress against a non-voter, or "soveriegn man," as they might identify themselves.

 

Of course, as a practical matter, don't expect the State (or slaveowner) to recognize the distinction lol, they'll trample you just the same.  Technically speaking, I think voting may be the initiation of the use of force against yourself.  Maybe not the initiation, but certainly permission.

 

Faced with a coerced decision you can either be pragmatic or protest the coercion.  I suppose the challenge lies in finding an effective means of protest.

[alexqr1]

Rights, in general, were the arbitrary stopping points from which logic does not go further. It attempts to establish axioms that cannot be analyzed.

This is basically where we disagree. You may be referring to rights in the lawful sense? I mean rights in an ethical context, which are are proven by logic and are objective and the are derived from axioms. I said earlier that they derive from self-ownership, however a conversation I've been having with someone has lead me to think that self-ownership in any sense other than just the ability to control our body is not an axiom.However, I do think it is still valid because you can introduce the term (of self-ownership) to a theory of ethics as an objective concept because of the axiom that everyone rationally attempts to move from a state of less gratification or value to another one of more gratification by acting.