| | Since Jordan isn't here, and my ideas are probably even less well thought out, I thought it mandatory that I jump in.
The only issue that threatens to undermine this whole line argumentation is that of the origin of property itself. Property implies that something which had previously been in the public domain is now private. A property right is typically defined as the right to the exclusive use and disposal of something. And, the term "right" itself means a moral/ethical sanction against interference with one's actions - in the case of property, against interference with your exclusive use and disposal of said.
There is no disagreement here as to the validity of property rights. But consider that under the Goode and Ancient Common Law, a bastion of private property rights, it was still recognized that property was a contract between the individual who took what had been public and made it private, and society, both local and (potentially) universal, which had a prior interest as well as a potential future interest in that property.
Under the Common Law, then, there were such exceptions to the "exclusive use" clause as the right of passage. A person might buy some land and then erect a wall or fence or divert a stream, blocking what had been a trade road, and then charge extreme toll to allow traders to pass, citing his "exclusive use" right. The Common Law did not allow this, as the property contract could only rightfully apply to the actual signatories, explicit and implicit through participation in the legal establishment.
People might actually be using and periodically improving a trail or road or stream for their specific use as a transport facilitator. Those people then had a prior claim which the conversion of the area into private property could not automatically obviate. On the other hand, someone could in fact improve on a road or stream and potentially charge for the use of their improvements, but if they charged a fortune for the simple act of removing a single rock, then the Common Law would likely throw their claim out and award damages to those forced to pay the fee. I.e., rights in property start as a community standards issue and remain such in many respects.
Some people would argue that one has a perfect right to keep an AK47, or a 50 calibre machine gun or a nuclear weapon or nerve gas in their basement. It is THEIR basement, after all. However, this quickly falls under the aegis of the grounds for the original property claim and its legal recognition. No one has a right to initiate force and the risk of aggression in the case of a basement nuke, for example, is just as real as aggression itself.
We pay for that risk by means of bonds or insurance in the free market, and it is the exorbitant cost of paying the insurance on a basement nuke that would make it highly unlikely. And, the insurance or its equivalent payment for risks imposed on ones neighbors would be mandatory in any survivable high-tech society.
Now how does all this apply to inter-racial prejudice, refusal of services and the like? I certainly agree that a shop owner, an employer, etc., have the right to serve or employ who they choose. However, when the basis for their discrimination becomes, in effect, a causus belli, creating a state of war between those who have acquired the societal sanction of exclusive use, and the class of those who would never have agreed to such a contract if they had known that they would be suddenly cut off from the use of what had been public, then one has to question the legal validity.
Is that sufficiently less well thought out?
|
|
