imported post
Kildars makes some interesting assertions about the hierarchy of rights. He says the right to life is derived from property: that is to say, self-ownership -- we own our bodies and our thoughts. Ayn Rand was big into this particular concept -- that survival as "man qua man" (she loved that qua) required self-ownership, and by extension, a kind of individual sovereignty.
This is a radical and particularly American conception of Rights.
It is one I hesitantly share.
However:
Can a property owner invite you onto his or her property, and then shoot you, once he has done so? Consider a situation where a property owner invites you into his home which is situated on a 500 acre property. You unwittingly insult his ludicrous mustache, at which time he then gives you 30 seconds to vacate his land - an unreasonable amount of time - or he will shoot you for trespassing.
Can the property owner shoot? In other words, can he set any standards, however reasonable, for conduct on his land?
Or more specifically, can your right to self-ownership be infringed by the owner of a piece of land or a building in which you stand? If indeed all of this is property, it is an interesting question, and to some extent it ties in with the guns in cars on private property question.
If a property owner cannot deprive you of your right to life, derived from self-ownership, can he deny you your means of self defense, which is tied intimately to that right?
Let's say you're on this 500 acre property again, which consists of wilderness. You have not informed the property owner you have a gun. At that time, a rabid badger comes rampaging toward you. The property owner demands you surrender your gun, or leave - the only exit being in the direction of the badger.
Can he do so, even though your property - your life, which presumably you still have control over and dominion over even though you are on his property, is endangered?
Can a property owner shoot a six year old boy who has unwittingly strayed onto his property looking for his dog - a boy who for whatever reason could not read the No Trespassing signs? We are not speaking statutorily now, but rather within the larger frame of property rights?
These are not loaded questions (meaning I'm not trying to advocate a position or point), because I don't know. What I do know is the antiseptic cleanliness of most rights theories, be they from Rousseau, or Locke, or Rand, all have these weird imperfections when you attempt to apply them to cover all circumstances. And I realize these examples are ridiculous: they are meant theoretically.
In practice, if a business does not allow guns, I don't bring my gun in, and I recommend this course of action to everynoe.
A no gun sign is a sign which says, "You cannot defend your life here," but you may enter the property provided you agree not to take measures protect your life. I think we all understand a sign, and I think most of us would at that point just avoid going there.
I suppose the (fairly abstract) question I am asking: is self ownership - the right to life - exactly the same thing as owning a building or land?
Should you be able to shoot to kill for trespassing?
