SemperFiUSMC
Master
- Jun 23, 2009
- 3,480
- 38
Hmmm, an absolute! I get it.
So, what you are really saying is that you value an employer's wishes over my property rights?
I will ask again, at what point in my travels to work do the contents of MY personal locked car become the property or concern of the land owner? And, if my firearms are suddenly the property of the land owner, what other personal items in my locked car are likewise under his control? My music collection? My reading collection? My GHB? My spare clothing (there might be JEANS!!!!)?
Where would you have this corporate collectivism end? Since you've made it clear that you place the corporations' rights as superior to the individual's, would you grant the company unfettered access to your locked car so that they may enforce their policies? If you don't support that, then your claims that their rights are superior are nothing but hot air, because logically a right does not exist without a means to implement or enforce it.
No, what I am saying is I value the absolute right of a real property owner to set the conditions by which you enter thier property over your right to enter it, especially given you have no requirement to do so. Whether it is an employer or a neighbor is irrelevent.
You have no right to enter someone else's real property. You have no right to a job. You are not required to enter the real property. If you do you should do so in conformance with the rules established by the property owner. If you can't accept their restrictions don't enter. It's pretty binary.
Everything else you said is strawman.
Last edited: