Imprisoned over orchids…

The subtitle of the article above laments the festering state of American jurisprudence stemming from lack of an objective standard of law.

Needed: A ‘clean line’ to determine lawfulness

That ‘clean line’ to determine lawfulness is individual rights. Objective law is based on a standard to punish and preclude forceful encroachment of individual rights (life, liberty, and property). If that standard is abandoned, there is no logical limit to what can be criminalized - the result is mob rule.

A mob fueled by pragmatism can rationalize prosecution for just about anything.

An excellent post by GVH explores the next ring in the chain of America’s tyrannical noose. Staying true to the cause of trampling rights, specifically the right of Employers to set their own terms with Employees, our Dictators strive to restrict Hospitals from taking disciplinary action against workers who refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable. Since morality is subjective and arbitrary for a large percentage of people, virtually any action can be refused on moral grounds - and Hospitals can’t take any punitive measures! Because there probably won’t be any repercussions for such negligence starting in the near future, we can only hope in the event of a medical need that the ER attending can’t imagine any arbitrary reason to object to our aid on moral grounds.

Two areas of interest here: the broad offense of mingling religion and Government, and the interference by Government in the private terms between two individuals (employer and employee) - both violations of rights by the supposed protector of rights. The first represents a blatant protest for why this country was founded, and the second, which underlies a tremendous record of economic strangling, has become so mainstream that most people don’t even question it.

Employers and employees are individuals acting in voluntary agreement. So long as no force is involved, either party is able to abandon the relationship on any grounds they deem appropriate. If an employee wants the job, they’ll concede to the terms of the employer. If the employer allows duty exemptions based on personal moral objections, they do - if they don’t they don’t. It’s their right as the property owning agent to set their terms as they see fit. For Government to intervene by trumping such terms is a violation of their rights to life, liberty and property. The employer’s livelihood depends on their ability to remain profitable by conducting their business in a way that consumers pay them for services. In order to scale their business, they must hire competent individuals that add at least as much value as they cost. To achieve such gains, the employer has the right to set the terms of employment lend themselves accordingly. They also have the right to dictate the terms for another individuals presence on their property.

When Government interferes with the Employer’s rightful discretion regarding employment terms, not only are they violating property rights by negating the employers ability to set the terms for another individuals presence on their property, they are also interfering with their ability to manage their employees, a violation of their right to act freely in their best interest which effectively limits their ability to scale their business, which directly affects their livelihood.

Whether we’re talking about forcing an employer to pay wages based on metrics other than they choose, forcing them to allow individuals on their property with firearms regardless of their discretion, or forcing them to make exemptions in their terms of employment based on arbitrary religious whims - all are violating the employers rights.

People that condone such intrusive power by Government usually fail to think beyond the concrete terms relating to their specific moral compass. Never mind the fact that a proper Government doesn’t initiate force, many Christians are fine with injecting religion into Law (or education), but fail to consider (by abstraction) the threat which such authority would impose if any other religion or standard of morality were plugged into the same power template. Likewise, collectivists are fine with the idea of trumping rights as long as it’s their moral code which is the guiding agent. Once a Government has the overall authority to force, the restricting stipulations will vary with consensus. Those who don’t hesitate to use Government to force their beliefs on others, in doing so they’re also establishing the precedent and plumbing for such force to be diverted to a cause they wouldn’t dare condone. They don’t mind giving the key to their front door to a neighbor for purposes they approve, but in doing so they’ve granted him the means to betray their terms. Now that he has it, he may come in at will and wreak any havoc he chooses, or copy the key a thousand times so every thug in town can also help themselves. Such is the risk of failure to abstract.

As stated by Gus…

If leftists really didn’t want to be under the knife of fundamentalist doctors, they would support freeing all medical care from government control, and then take advantage of that freedom to boycott such physicians. Likewise, if conservatives really valued freedom of conscience for physicians, they, too, would begin working to get the government out of medicine. They could have whole hospitals that didn’t practice abortion! (But then, they would have to give up on their dream of forcing everyone else to abide by their arbitrary dicta.)

Our freedom is eroding from both sides of the isle because both fail to properly regard the individual. Not only must we abandon any law that tramples an employers right to set their own terms with employees, so we must abolish any legal tenet that violates an individuals rights to life, liberty or property.

People do… sometimes with a gun. In the same sense, Government as such, is not the enemy as Lew Rockwell claims. A Government steered out of scope and wrangled with irrationality is the enemy. The institution in its proper form is vital to a free nation.

There are no conflicts of interest between rational men, but there will be differences of opinion. There are conflicts of interest amongst irrational men, and freedom affords ample opportunity to act on such interests. We deem Government the institution to which we grant the authority and necessary means (police, military) to arbitrate amongst men an objective code of laws based on our rights to life, liberty and property. A Government that acts within this boundary is the official and crucial embodiment of a sovereign nation.

What are the alternatives? Only mob rule in varying forms. Different groups battling each other for control of the corrupted vessel. The guidelines meant to ensure against the legal civil war that exists in our country have been molested, disfigured and tossed out as old fashioned notions. Today in America we’ve abandoned objective law in favor of criminalizing virtually any pragmatic whim. There are laws dictating how I water my lawn, how I fasten my son in the car, how much water my toilet can hold, what I can ingest in my own body in my own home, the condition of my automobile, where Hospitals can be built, what medicines I take, that cable must be digital, that employers have no right to set wages for the jobs they facilitate, and when, where, or how I can shoot a wild animal in a forest on my own private land.

This manifestation of the state is the enemy. This runaway train dictating almost every detail of our lives is what must end if America is to prevail. We must return to objective law. We must establish a complete separation of the state from economics, religion, education, and business. This country is only a dwindling fraction of its potential as long as these irrational perversions of justice continue.

There’ nothing shocking about this graph. It logically follows that when individuals aren’t prohibited from defending their rights to life and property, those who would violate said rights are less likely to do so.

Violent Crime and CCW:

Chart data sources:
Right to Carry Laws 2006 - www.nraila.org/map.
Violent Crime Rates in the United States 2006 - www.fbi.gov/table5.
National Average - Violent Crime Rates in the United States 2006 - www.fbi.gov/table1.

The NRA is clearly not who I thought they were. To the extent that they persist in their crusade for Florida’s HB503 bill - a bill that enables possession of firearms on another’s property, and regardless of the owners discretion - the association has revealed themselves as unprincipled and obtuse warriors for a cause at any price.

Per their public statements and my private conversations with NRA-ILA staff, their claim that an individuals right to life trumps property rights. Their error is failure to distinguish the right to life, and the right to defend one’s life by use of deadly force courtesy of the second amendment. The former inalienably stands alone, while the latter assumes a corollary right - the right to property.

In the Florida bill, they are opposing the sanctity of property rights as they pertain to a situation where all involved parties are voluntarily present, and most likely bound (also voluntarily) under contractual terms. If an individual’s right to property is subject to the whim of political consensus, then what’s the NRA’s wildcard for excluding a specific type of property (firearms) from such whim? Based on their logic, a homeowner also should have no right to allow others to possess firearms on his property. How can the NRA not see how detrimental such precedent will be? Maybe not until gun owners property rights are trumped by the same premise that the NRA now blindly ignores when a new state bill crosses a Governor’s desk that deems firearm owners have no right to their property (firearms) because such right encroaches another’s right to life.

The counter claim that an employee’s automobile is shielded by his property right fails to consider the overall context. An employees car is (typically) their property, but that car is parked on the employer’s property. There has to be an authoritative hierarchy of rights, otherwise the employer would have no legal basis to tow an employees car from their parking lot. If an employer’s rules specify no weapons on premises, it doesn’t matter where or how, or what justifications, none are allowed - period. If you can’t/don’t accept those terms, attempt to negotiate or find a new job.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription. In this case, the employees right to property isn’t forcefully encroached because their presence is voluntarily acceptive of a particular set of stipulations. They are agreeing to a stipulation regarding their property right while present on the employers premises. Therefore, any law overriding this hierarchy is irrational and a detriment to our nation. Neutering a business owners right to enforce his preference to ban weapons is no different than government telling a restaurant owner, who’d otherwise allow weapons, that he can’t. The underlying principle is identical. If you support the fist case, you are supporting the second - you can’t have it both ways.

Not only are the NRA wrong in their stance on this measure, but by throwing phrases like big business and corporate bullies, they’re now bordering on class-warfare, anti-business rhetoric that would feel at home in any DNC stump speech. Heston would be so proud.

The result of any political stance void of explicit premises is nothing more than a pragmatic and likely contradictory opinion. To compromise a fundamental principal for the sake of one that relies on such is irrational. This case is perfectly illustrative of a misguided and ignorant crusade that will serve to undermine the more important cause. The NRA is doing nothing more than arming the enemy (the anti-gun crowd) with yet another avenue of battle. What a tremendous mistake.

I recently received a response to my letter from Erik Eckberg of NRA-ILA, the lobbying function of the National Rifle Association.

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. We appreciate your comments but must respectfully disagree. The ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is a fundamental right. In fact it is as important as any other right since it is a right that can defend all other rights.

Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA

To which I responded:

Hi Erik, thanks for the response. Keep in mind, if the goals are freedom and justice, you and I are on the same page. I know the association has firmly decided its stance on this, so this conversation may be of no other use than constructive thought.

The NRA does not believe that that a business’s property rights supersede the property rights of the vehicle owner.

They must to some degree, for example, when an employer needed (for whatever reason) to tow an employees car off of their premises. Should they not be legally enabled to do so because the car is someone else’s property? Additionally, most employment contracts would contain a clause relating to their weapons policy. In this regard, the measure in Florida would also invalidate contractual law. An employee chooses to become so by agreeing to the terms set by an employer. If such terms indicate a ban on weapons, the employee can either accept the terms and comply (or risk the consequences of violation), or not.

In principle, this is no different than a government mandated smoking ban on a private establishment, where the rights of the owner to determine their own policies are clobbered. The owner of the establishment has the right to set the terms of patrons or employees.

We do have a right to life, and property. When we enter anther’s property on contractual terms, the terms may include a limitation to those rights. We can accept them or walk away.

For what it’s worth, my former employer bans weapons on premises, and I chose to carry (and left in my car) most every day. I worked in a rough area, and to me the security was worth the risk of any consequences I would’ve reaped if my violation of their terms were revealed.

For the government to tell them their opinion on the matter is irrelevant is a gross injustice, and goes against a fundamental premise of this country. Rights are violated when an entity initiates force against another. The role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to violate them, regardless of the cause. Since employment is a contractual relationship of volition, there is no force. This measure is initiating force against an individual (the business owner) who is violating no other’s right to life, liberty or property - he’s only setting contractual terms with another individual, who’s free to choose to accept them or not. The only force being initiated here is by government - a complete inversion of of its purpose.

The reality is that the business owners who want to take away your Second Amendment rights are doing it because they have bought into the anti-gun argument that the mere presence of firearms is a danger and that law-abiding individuals who have access to firearms are a threat.

I agree their premises, as well as most all anti-gun arguments are illogical, emotion-driven nonsense. Regardless, by simply setting contractual terms which can be accepted or not, they’re not taking away anything from anyone. As long as individuals are free to choose their place of employment, no rights are in jeopardy.

Again, I appreciate the response and all that your organization does. In any war, there are battles that must be “picked and chosen”. I wish the NRA would’ve seen the potential damage from signing up for this one.

Wesley Chapel, an aspiring collectivist suburb, is apparently trying to highlight its potential to big brother Charlotte, NC.

Its latest endeavor of political charades is to trample the property rights of Michael Land by criminalizing the use of firearms within “Village” (how cute) limits. Dr. Land is a fellow firearm enthusiast and has been enjoying his six acres of freedom since 1991, when the area was little more than farmland. For some odd reason, individuals who’ve moved into a subdivision adjacent to Land’s property feel comfortable using government force to compensate for their lack of thorough research when deciding to move into the area. Many of the interviewed shared hollow, emotional sentiments such as:

“If we’re sitting on our back deck and he’s firing a high-caliber machine gun, we can’t carry on our conversation,” said Mike Failor, who has lived in a Stonegate house behind Land’s property since 2001.”

Hmmm… even sweeping aside concept of property rights, which should end this debate, doesn’t the 10 years of precedent mean anything with regards to who should have to change their lifestyle?

On the other hand, there are some who are a little more explicit with their wishes:

“For now, Dr. Land lies perfectly within his rights as prescribed by current law, but what about my rights to enjoy my property? He should consider those who live around his firing range & remove the range as a sign of goodwill and buy property further out. The time has past when this was a rural area as there are many more taxpaying residents that he should take into consideration.” [bold added]

In other words, my wishes trump his right to property even though he isn’t breaking any laws. He should forfeit that right and go elsewhere as a symbol of his devotion to ‘public interest’. My gang of taxpayers is bigger than yours.

Once again we see the ominous perils of subjective law. Invoking force against an individual is only proper as a response, or as an extremely rare preclusion, to that individual’s violation of another’s right to life, liberty or property. Law based on any other basis is nothing more than mob rule, where legal objectivity is mere inconvenience.

Dr. Land has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an effort to make his personal range exceptionally safe. Although I’m not sure on what legal grounds, his property has also been “inspected” by the local sheriff and earned his approval of safety. Dr. Land has violated the rights of no one. In fact, his are the only rights that are being encroached upon.

Yes, I know according to our pathetically over-reaching, unprincipled legal system, he very well could be considered a criminal.

My point is that he shouldn’t be.

Unfortunately, one of many inescapable realities of freedom is that it inherently entitles individuals to do or say things that we disagree with, and in some cases things that repulse us. Cruelty to animals repulses me. If indeed Vick tortured and beat dogs to death - I’d love to see him accidentally fall into a cage of lions for some real one-on-one intimacy with aggressive animals.

However, as much as the thought of torturing or killing animals disgusts me, it should not be a legal issue (except for the extent that I mention below). Laws based on subjective whims are a tyrannical wildcard that must never be dealt in a free society.

Animals have no legal rights. A right is an ethical principle sanctioning an individuals action, and is only applied to rational, moral beings. Animals are neither.

I love most animals in general and dogs in particular. The thought of my sweet natured Chocolate Labrador being confiscated and used as psycho-bait for other more aggressive dogs is nauseating. If that horrible thought became a reality I do support very extreme legal penalties for such theft. Dogs & other animals that have owners are property of those owners - very special property, property that cannot be replaced.

Penalties for stealing another individuals pet should be harsh enough to effectively deter the practice. However, if the cruelty to animals doesn’t encroach on the rights of others (excruciating as it may be) a free country must allow it.

The self-induced damage to Vick’s marketability will probably render the end of his NFL career. It should not however, land him in the courtroom.