Property...Is it fair? Is it necessary?

[Godless Libertarian]

By property I am referring to the exclusive rights to ownership over a given material object (note that this does not include intellectual property in its various forms).

A hypothetical: Let's say I harvest lumber, stone, and all sorts of other materials to build a house. Let's also say I've built the house entirely by myself. Of course, most would recognize that this home is my property. In other words, I have to right to threaten or initiate violence against those who would attempt to destroy it or vandalize it in order to prevent them from doing so.

On the other hand, many people act as though as soon as you step on to someone else's property, half your rights disappear. When we walk into a crowded theater, we no longer have the ability to shout "fire" without being escorted off the premises, therefore our right to free speech has been muted. If I walk into an upscale restaurant wearing a tank top and jeans, likewise, force would be initiated against me to remove me from the property. Effectively, what we have here is a system in which those who do not own real property do not possess the full set of rights of property owners.

Is there a middle ground here? If so, I have yet to find it.

[Trolldor]

Of course it's damn fair. I don't want nobody sharing my Soap, goddamnit.

[Feck]

In the Uk you are not allowed to initiate violence to defend property only in self defence (you get away with it if it is only a simple assault ) and there is no trespass law in Scotland

[Trolldor]

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is dangerous and potentially fatal and does absolutely nothing else, free speech is not being muted.
Secondly, wearing a tank-top is indicative of your personality. Wearing one to a restaurant is fucking stupid and I don't want to be eating my dinner while staring at your hairy armpits.

[Godless Libertarian]

In the Uk you are not allowed to initiate violence to defend property only in self defence (you get away with it if it is only a simple assault ) and there is no trespass law in Scotland

Hmm. About the trespass law in scotland. Is that a result of the mass trespass in the 30s? I don't remember the details but was that state property or private?

[Godless Libertarian]

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is dangerous and potentially fatal and does absolutely nothing else, free speech is not being muted.

Of course it's being muted, just muted in the name of security, which you appear to value over the right of the shouter. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see how the right isn't being muted...

Secondly, wearing a tank-top is indicative of your personality. Wearing one to a restaurant is fucking stupid and I don't want to be eating my dinner while staring at your hairy armpits.

There's lots of things I wouldn't want to be looking at when eating. Other people's kids come to mind, but I can't see this as justification for initiating force against them.

[Trolldor]

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is dangerous and potentially fatal and does absolutely nothing else, free speech is not being muted.

Of course it's being muted, just muted in the name of security, which you appear to value over the right of the shouter. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see how the right isn't being muted...

Secondly, wearing a tank-top is indicative of your personality. Wearing one to a restaurant is fucking stupid and I don't want to be eating my dinner while staring at your hairy armpits.

There's lots of things I wouldn't want to be looking at when eating. Other people's kids come to mind, but I can't see this as justification for initiating force against them.

Actually, they have to be asked to leave, they can only be forced out if they refuse. If you use too great of a force you risk being sued for assault.

Secondly, again free speech is not being muted. You're not expressing an opinion or idea.

[Godless Libertarian]

Secondly, again free speech is not being muted. You're not expressing an opinion or idea.

Sure I am. The idea that there's a fire in the theater. But more importantly why do I have to express an opinion or idea for my speech to be free?

[Trolldor]

Establish why you should have the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

[Godless Libertarian]

Establish why you should have the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

I would consider lying protected under free speech. Furthermore speech in itself cannot be considered aggression.

But I guess I can't really establish that right more than I can establish any other right. So I'm not sure what you're looking for precisely.

[Surendra Darathy]

Secondly, wearing a tank-top is indicative of your personality. Wearing one to a restaurant is fucking stupid and I don't want to be eating my dinner while staring at your hairy armpits.

There's lots of things I wouldn't want to be looking at when eating. Other people's kids come to mind, but I can't see this as justification for initiating force against them.

Actually, they have to be asked to leave, they can only be forced out if they refuse. If you use too great of a force you risk being sued for assault.

Oh, man. Use of force. Ayn Rand in da house. The soul of libertarianism is the minimisation of tort law, and the reservation of the use of force to the police.

[Trolldor]

I'm looking for how shouting fire in a crowded theatre is protected under free speech. I see no indications anywhere.

Free speech only extends to ideas and opinions, that is what free speech has always been about. Free Speech does not extend to shouting random nouns in crowded places for no reason, because you aren't "speaking", you're making noise.

[cowiz]

I would consider lying protected under free speech. Furthermore speech in itself cannot be considered aggression.

Would you consider libel and slander laws a stiffling of free speech?

[Surendra Darathy]

Free speech only extends to ideas and opinions, that is what free speech has always been about. Free Speech does not extend to shouting random nouns in crowded places for no reason, because you aren't "speaking", you're making noise.

"Speech" is generally not taken literally, and is extended to mean "freedom of expression", which is where all the multiculturalists live now. The reason that multiculturalism is a minefield is because human behavior has no boundaries marked on it. If you consider multiculturalism issues with respect to freedom, you'll soon see why this is a nonsense conversation as much as any metaphysical row.

The reason that shouting "Fire" is disparaged when there is no fire is because it is so predictable what people will do when such a warning is given. What is expected is that they will not look round much to see if there really is a fire before they start trampling everyone in their path to save their skins, whether or not their skins are actually in danger. This is more or less a reflex for most people, who show in this way that they are animals.

It's also quite predictable that if churches, mosques, and temples are permitted, it is very predictable that some of them will give residence to demagogues, because it is likewise predictable that some people have no resistance to demagogues.

This will all end in tears, I just know it.

[Surendra Darathy]

I would consider lying protected under free speech. Furthermore speech in itself cannot be considered aggression.

Would you consider libel and slander laws a stiffling of free speech?

It's a paradox in the libertarian universe. Everyone has a right to make a living, but no one is permitted to get in anyone else's way. If you trip and fall, you're automatically in someone's way. Your bad. Calvinism without god. Libertarians proclaim themselves kings of infinite space, with a universe bounded in a nutshell.