Sunday, January 30, 2011

Corporate punishment

There’s a vigorous discussion (the polar opposite of Reasoned Discourse (TM)) over at Sebastian’s place which I triggered off by noting that the purpose of a corporation is to limit the civil liability of the joint stockholders to the extent of their investment in that corporation (more or less), and that forming a corporation should not limit the rights of the participants in the corporation; and that property owners, natural or artificial, have property rights.

This ruffled a few feathers…

For the record, I am in favor of infringing on the rights of owners of places of public accommodation to ban certain items from their property without taking due diligence to ensure that the safety of their visitors is ensured. I am in favor of prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees or visitors who wish to possess a functional firearm in their automobile while on the premises. I am in favor of requiring property owners to take effective precautions against misuse of weaponry by employees and visitors by other employees and visitors if the property owner chooses to prohibit carriage of weapons on the property; and a sign is not effective. If you want a sterile area, you must take precautions, and permit people entering the sterile area to divest themselves safely and securely of weapons, and do the same when they wish to invest themselves after exiting. Much like the courthouse at which I served for jury duty, which maintained an active security perimeter, just outside of which was a storage room for police not assigned to the courthouse to deposit their firearms. Thus, to exercise the right of control of property, the property owner must be actively responsible to the visitors to their property.

Firearms are not “inherently safe” from an industrial point of view; there are places in which carriage of firearms (or knifes, or tasers, &c) should not be permitted for perfectly legitimate safety reasons. They are largish chunks of usually ferrous metal with small amounts of unstable explosive chemicals (primers) and larger amount of flammable substances (propellant), with mechanical (and thus fallible) safety mechanisms to prevent malfunction. Certain non-industrial areas have such a high density of violent criminals that carriage of a weapon by other than specifically-selected persons in specific areas is contraindicated (prisons, jails, and courthouses). These types of locations take active measures to prevent unsafe items from being brought into the “unsafe” areas


  1. So are you or are you not in favor of tell a property owner what to do on there own property?
    You seem to me to be trying to split a hair and part it both ways.


  2. In favor of doing so in certain circumstances, least restrictively; and if the property is a "place of public accomodation". The point is to allow a property owner to ban firearms from their property if they must, but force them to be actively responsible for the individual's safety if they do; in the expectation that most won't. Balance of rights. The property owner does not have the right to both ban carriage and take no responsibility for defense - unlike to day, in which a sign prohibiting allows the owner to dodge responsibility.

  3. I find it distasteful. If they won't accommodate my needs. I'll go somewhere that does or if the need is great start my own place. This is the same arguement the left use to get there foot in the door and it never ends well.
    I'm not a big fan of "place of public accomodation" this just people people trying to tell other how to run there business.
    The sign informs me of the owners wishes. I choose to enter or not.

    Just my thoughts on the matter,

  4. Property owner has (some) responsibility towards the safety of his guets, though, no? I would allow them to require patrons to disarm, if the property owner is actively responsible for the safety of visitors; more or less on the same grounds as public health regulations.

    1. I believe the property owner should more than just "some" responsibility, but there's the rub.
      Why on earth would I trust someone who's obviously against the human right of self-defense to faithfully, diligently, and competently defend me?
      That's why I don't believe any property owner should be allowed to deny any person(s) their right to be able to defend themselves.

  5. And, on the same tone, banning otherwise legal carry for self-defense in govt buildings is wrong, since every relevant court case had resulted in a ruling that .gov bears NO obligation to defend anyone.
    That's exactly equivalent to the private property owner who seeks to ban your right to defend yourself and simultaneously disavows any responsibility for your safety.


Please keep it civil