“Human Rights” as Property Rights

My short answer to liberals: my body and what comes out of it.
They twist themselves into pretzels trying to get round that one.

http://mises.org/daily/2569

Furthermore, couching the analysis in terms of a “right to free speech” instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.”[3] And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.[4]

For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner’s property by disrupting the performance he is putting on. In either case, he may be prosecuted as a violator of property rights; therefore, when we concentrate on the property rights involved, we see that the Holmes case implies no need for the law to weaken the absolute nature of rights.

Indeed, Justice Hugo Black, a well-known “absolutist” on behalf of “freedom of speech,” made it clear, in a trenchant critique of the Holmes “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument, that Black’s advocacy of freedom of speech was grounded in the rights of private property. Thus Black stated:

I went to a theater last night with you. I have an idea if you and I had gotten up and marched around that theater, whether we said anything or not, we would have been arrested. Nobody has ever said that the First Amendment gives people a right to go anywhere in the world they want to go or say anything in the world they want to say. Buying the theater tickets did not buy the opportunity to make a speech there. We have a system of property in this country which is also protected by the Constitution. We have a system of property, which means that a man does not have a right to do anything he wants anywhere he wants to do it. For instance, I would feel a little badly if somebody were to try to come into my house and tell me that he had a constitutional right to come in there because he wanted to make a speech against the Supreme Court. I realize the freedom of people to make a speech against the Supreme Court, but I do not want him to make it in my house.

That is a wonderful aphorism about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. But you do not have to shout “fire” to get arrested. If a person creates a disorder in a theater, they would get him there not because of what he hollered but because he hollered. They would get him not because of any views he had but because they thought he did not have any views that they wanted to hear there. That is the way I would answer not because of what he shouted but because he shouted.[5]

Marketplace of ideas…

Basically, if a person is creating a racket, kick them off your land. This includes digital space. They can rant about you somewhere else.

…There would then be no shortages, and no feelings of resentment at a promise (“equal access” of the public to the column, podium, or microphone) reneged….

This is why Occupy Wall Street failed, a small model of communism where there is no ownership of resource and hence, no leadership.
The Progressive Stack made the useful people resent being pushed to the back of the queue when they had merit.

But beyond the question of prices, there is a deeper matter involved, for whether by prices or by some other criterion, the resource must, in all cases, be allocated by its owner.

Professional victims must continually find new platforms for it because the audience turns on them.
Poor dears don’t realize they are the problem, they provide nothing worth listening to. Listening to the problems of others is depressing, comedians only get away with it because they aren’t really upset to make light of it. If those ‘victims’ leafleted the entire world they’d be boo’d, yet they think the problem is lack of a sympathetic audience. Diaries are meant to be private because they’re embarassing. Sharing it in public is a way for self-loathing people to feel better under the guise of sympathy. They are not your friends. If you need to discuss private issues, see a professional.

The solution is to recast the meaning of the “right to freedom of speech” or “assembly”; instead of using the vague, and, as de Jouvenel demonstrates, unworkable concept of some sort of equal right to space or time, we should focus on the right of private property. Only when the “right to free speech” is treated simply as a subdivision of property right does it become valid, workable, and absolute.

Your section of the internet is yours to control, it is your domain for your opinions and no one has a right to tell you what you should or should not put up there. However, if you put something they disagree with, or something very stupid, they can devote their own content to questioning yours or mocking you. Dissent is the price of discussion. Social media is tricky, but the privacy settings and seperation of accounts mean a person chooses to see and click on your content, they are entering your domain, although it is owned by a company, it contains your content, and this is how the companies make money.

Unless a space is open to the public e.g. a company’s page, a public campaign’s page, arguably a celebrity’s page, then it’s fair game because a person cannot be ‘banned’ from what is public.

A crucial point about the relationship between speaker and listener, it is a choice on both sides.
SJWs do not get this so people avoid them. Respect of boundaries.

This can be seen in de Jouvenel’s proposed “right to buttonhole.” De Jouvenel says that there is a “sense in which the right of speech can be exercised by each and everyone; it is the right to buttonhole,” to talk and to try to convince the people one meets, and then to collect these people in a hall, and thus to “constitute a congregation” of one’s own.  …(Provided, of course, we remember the right of another person not to be buttonholed if he doesn’t want to, i.e., his right not to listen.)

You can’t make me care about your opinion either.

De Jouvenel almost recognizes this when he considers the case of two men, “Primus” and “Secundus”:

Primus …has collected through toil and trouble a congregation of his own doing. An outsider, Secundus, comes in and claims the right to address this congregation on grounds of the right of free speech. Is Primus bound to give him the floor? I doubt it. He can reply to Secundus: “I have made up this congregation. Go thou and do likewise.”

Precisely. In short, Primus owns the meeting; he has hired the hall, has called the meeting, and has laid down its conditions; and those who don’t like these conditions are free not to attend or to leave. Primus has a property right in the meeting that permits him to speak at will; Secundus has no property right whatever, and therefore no right to speak at the meeting.

Door’s over there.

At work, we have a respectful rule we refer to as colloquially “Your Room” aka when somebody else is in charge, even if we may outrank them beyond that situation, they organised it, it’s their baby, and unless they request our help or need it urgently, it is “Your Room” to work with. This builds up trust and competence. It’s important around machinery too.

Similarly, the private ownership of all streets would resolve the problem of the “human right” to freedom of immigration. There is no question about the fact that current immigration barriers restrict not so much a “human right” to immigrate, but the right of property owners to rent or sell property to immigrants. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if “Primus” wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don’t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so.

Succinct.

The way to halt immigration is to stop renting to migrants altogether. If they have no place to settle, they’ll leave, and residence is required to pick up welfare checks and have many children to pick up more. Encourage landlords to rent to natives, who cause less trouble, and punish harshly for housing illegal immigrants. Purchases should have a limit.

Honorary mention: freedom of association. To get in your house, a stranger must be invited in.

What is feminism? What is a feminist? A vivisection.

Oxford English dictionary definition of Feminism:

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

  1. There are two sexes. Male, female, and hermaphrodite, which count as both. This is determined by genetics including improper replication in the last case. Transsexuals do not count in feminism, neither does sexuality or self-identified gender.
  2. Rights cannot be a positive claim which deprives another by their enaction.
  3. Grounds require logical proof and emotion is not a form of proof. Feeling yourself to be correct is an emotion.
  4. Equality requires a premise of sameness. Men and women are biologically different, the science is finding more evidence to support this over time. What we believe we deserve is a separate moral claim to what we physically are and hence, need. Conflation: What is versus what is good/bad.
  5. Advocacy of men’s rights are not part of the definition. The omission is sexist by the equality morality claim above (unless men are somehow better). By their own moral claim, a feminist (a believer in the doctrine of feminism) does not stand for equality (which cannot exist in nature) and is a misandrist.