@Mott-The-Hoople saidSuppose some person named PoS owns an apartment building. Another person named ATY is renting an apartment in the building.
Who enforces? Why don’t you give an example of a natural right?
If PoS kicks in the door to "his" apartment (which ATY is renting), then ATY is justified in shooting and killing his landlord PoS.
Why? Because the apartment is ATY's personal property and he has an inalienable right to protect it from anyone who tries to arbitrarily take it away. The fact that PoS "owns" the building is irrelevant.
The US government agrees with this fact. Here is an example from Portland:
https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/11/07/prosecutors-decide-portland-man-committed-no-crime-by-killing-landlord-with-a-sword/
Prosecutors Decide Portland Man Committed No Crime by Killing His Landlord With a Sword
@AverageJoe1 saidIf you rent it out for profit it's not personal property.
Wait, I was talking about real property in legal terms. Are you on anarchist theory right now? Let's stay on track. I pulled this up, No reference of course to real property.
. In anarchist theory, private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, whereas personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
Please distinguish
@AverageJoe1 saidThe sentence structure here is nonsense Joe. Reading this hurts my brain.
I’m not in this, scanning for humor, but don’t get Wildgrass saying teachers should not call parents in about aberrant or abnormal behavior of a child. ( page 1, I think)
Setting aside him’s irrelevant ref to the constitution, could you ask his what him is talking about? Like l, would him not want to know about him’s child’s behavior being out of the ordinary?
Teachers call parents a lot to talk about their kids, especially the unruly ones. But here the supreme court is saying that they have to. That to me seems untenable because how is a teacher to know what types of kid behaviors may go against obscure religious opinions?
2 edits
@AThousandYoung saidAnyone breaking and entering is subject to being killed. It doesn’t matter who owns what.
Suppose some person named PoS owns an apartment building. Another person named ATY is renting an apartment in the building.
If PoS kicks in the door to "his" apartment (which ATY is renting), then ATY is justified in shooting and killing his landlord PoS.
Why? Because the apartment is ATY's personal property and he has an inalienable right to protect it from an ...[text shortened]... /
Prosecutors Decide Portland Man Committed No Crime by Killing His Landlord With a Sword[/quote]
The one being broken in on has a “Legal right” to protect themselves.
There are laws against this. Castle doctrine
@wildgrass said“But here the supreme court is saying that they have to”
The sentence structure here is nonsense Joe. Reading this hurts my brain.
Teachers call parents a lot to talk about their kids, especially the unruly ones. But here the supreme court is saying that they have to. That to me seems untenable because how is a teacher to know what types of kid behaviors may go against obscure religious opinions?
No they do not. Just cant hide it.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIf that's true, then SCOTUS ignored the facts of this case.
“But here the supreme court is saying that they have to”
No they do not. Just cant hide it.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou heard it here folks. According to Mott, if you go to your own property and there’s a squatter inside who put a lock on YOUR door, the squatter is justified in killing you by Castle Doctrine if you take bolt cutters to that lock.
Anyone breaking and entering is subject to being killed. It doesn’t matter who owns what.
The one being broken in on has a “Legal right” to protect themselves.
There are laws against this. Castle doctrine
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIt will be at the back of whatever book you are researching, right before the 50 pages it takes to explain Natural Rights.
I’m trying to find “Locke” listed as a founding father…getting no where. Can you help me out here?
These are the pages that avoid matters which, in effect, negate the stupid theory, leaving the explanation incomplete, with no satisfaction. If you take an exam on Natural Rights, it is IMPOSSIBLE to score 100%.
An example of unrequited matters would be that if there is something 'of value', if you will , that a person is exercising their prescribed rights over , and there are more people than such things of value, these folks left out will, in effect, have their ability to exercise such rights limited.
Seems like a book on Liberty and Freedom would make more sense
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidYou think the Founders/Framers were "stupid" because they believed in Natural Rights theory?
It will be at the back of whatever book you are researching, right before the 50 pages it takes to explain Natural Rights.
These are the pages that avoid matters which, in effect, negate the stupid theory, leaving the explanation incomplete, with no satisfaction. If you take an exam on Natural Rights, it is IMPOSSIBLE to score 100%.
An example of unrequited matter ...[text shortened]... to exercise such rights limited.
Seems like a book on Liberty and Freedom would make more sense
That's actually an understatement; they didn't just believe it, they thought it was "self-evident".
@wildgrass saidHold on. For 100 years, teachers, principals, have called parents in about problems. Please settle down, don't run amuck.
The sentence structure here is nonsense Joe. Reading this hurts my brain.
Teachers call parents a lot to talk about their kids, especially the unruly ones. But here the supreme court is saying that they have to. That to me seems untenable because how is a teacher to know what types of kid behaviors may go against obscure religious opinions?
Look at what you said. You actually put the onus (of personal knowledge of history) on the person who brought the problem to the attention of the parent???? There is ONE issue, "your child pulls the girls' hair!!" What can possibly be an issue which would give rise to some deep-seated emotion the parent who is sitting there??? OK, the parents say the grandparents encourage hair pulling.. it is part of our Arab ritual . Follow me here. The teacher does not change her demeanor or expression. She says yes, well, now we know. Now, the issue is that he will not be allowed to do that anynmore or I will kick him out of the school. It is not allowed.
Does this make sense, logical,?. Rational? What if teacher is atheist and religion means NOTHING to her. Hair pulling really upsets her and the class.
@wildgrass saidJust a bit of wholesome humor. And yes, writing pronouns (I did my best) does INDEED hurt the brain. I think that DEI Suzianne goes for it though. I am told it is the wave of the future!!! Just like the criminal blacklivesmatter crowd.
The sentence structure here is nonsense Joe. Reading this hurts my brain.
Teachers call parents a lot to talk about their kids, especially the unruly ones. But here the supreme court is saying that they have to. That to me seems untenable because how is a teacher to know what types of kid behaviors may go against obscure religious opinions?
@no1marauder saidStupid putting it, it being conjecture, into our documents. Didn't need to be superfluously stated when their 'works'. could stand alone. Why the fluff?
You think the Founders/Framers were "stupid" because they believed in Natural Rights theory?
That's actually an understatement; they didn't just believe it, they thought it was "self-evident".
@Mott-The-Hoople saidueah, i wondered what his point was. didn't have one, i figure
Anyone breaking and entering is subject to being killed. It doesn’t matter who owns what.
The one being broken in on has a “Legal right” to protect themselves.
There are laws against this. Castle doctrine
@AverageJoe1 saidHair pulling is not allowed in class. Teachers sometimes tell the parents if it's a big enough problem and thinks the parent needs to know.
Hold on. For 100 years, teachers, principals, have called parents in about problems. Please settle down, don't run amuck.
Look at what you said. You actually put the onus (of personal knowledge of history) on the person who brought the problem to the attention of the parent???? There is ONE issue, "your child pulls the girls' hair!!" What can possibly be an is ...[text shortened]... teacher is atheist and religion means NOTHING to her. Hair pulling really upsets her and the class.
In this case, the teacher did not. Should the teacher be compelled/required to tell the parents? Should that authority come from unelected bureaucrats and not our system of existing laws?