You bring up some very interesting points here Doug. Are we sure the baker has a corporation or is he just a sole proprietor?
Assuming the baker did not have a corporation, I would still assume he applied for the privilege of a business license.
You bring up some very interesting points here Doug. Are we sure the baker has a corporation or is he just a sole proprietor?
I think it is funny that people will accept that one gives up his property rights because he is required to acquire a business license or puts his assets in a corporation to lessen his legal liability. It is still his property. He should maintain all the rights that come with that.
You give up some of those rights as an owner when you enter into a legal contract with the state for protection. Kind of like the mob
So, if you go to work as a public school teacher or take a tax credit for installing more insulation in your home, is it the same thing?
Really? Discharge a firearm (even iinto the ground) on private property that is within city limits and see what happens.Your questions are a muddled mess. Are you asking me if I 'can' do these things in a legal sense? Or in a moral sense?
No, not in a moral sense. We can keep it simple. I can do whatever I want with my property up to the point that it initiates force against you or your property. I can shoot on my property. If I shoot from my property onto yours, then we have a problem.
You do not have a right to enter my property. If I allow you entrance, we have an inherent contract; you may enter my property on my terms. You are not forced to accept my terms. You have the option of leaving or not entering my property in the first place.
The property owner has every right to remove both you and your vehicle from his property for any reason he chooses, unless you have both agreed to terms in a contract that stipulate that he cannot. You do not have the right to park your car in my yard just because you own the car. That makes absolutely no sense.
Please submit a specific list of "all the rights".I think it is funny that people will accept that one gives up his property rights because he is required to acquire a business license or puts his assets in a corporation to lessen his legal liability. It is still his property. He should maintain all the rights that come with that.
Further proof you haven't actually read the Constitution of the United States.I've learned a new way to read the Constitution. For instance, it says "Congress shall make no law". I think it's saying that Congress can't make any laws. I think it's like that trick that teachers use to see if you read the instructions on the test where it says at the top to put your name down and then hand it in.
Please submit a specific list of "all the rights".
Why? There is no gun in my car.Correct. Now please remove your car from my property. You are welcome to bring it back and park it on my property again when there's no gun in it. See?
Further proof you haven't actually read the Constitution of the United States.
I wrote, "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicating there was more.
Punctuation is the difference between knowing your s**t, and knowing you're s**t.
Why? There is no gun in my car.
The teacher, yes. The tax credit no. There are no special rules for the tax credit that will be used to make you comply with other things.
Teachers give up property rights just because of they are employed by the .IN?
Can't carry a gun in their car can they and park in the teachers parking lot. I was talking about rights in general with teacher you threw into the mix.
Really? Discharge a firearm (even iinto the ground) on private property that is within city limits and see what happens.
You are going to "remove" a trespasser? Explain exactly how you are going to do that? If they are standing on your front lawn, are you going to pull a gun on them? Are you going to grab them and move them off your lawn by force? You might want to familiarize yourself with that state statutes regarding use of force, tough guy. The person standing uninvited on your grass hasn't even committed a misdemeanor, much less a crime that justifies use of force or threat of force. Even the police have to give the trespasser a lawful order to leave and the opportunity to leave before they could arrest them.
You going to hook a chain to their vehicle and drag into the street? Do you want to find out who a civil court says is liable for damage to the vehicle? You want to break into the vehicle and try to drive it off your property? There IS a criminal statute for that act.
You talk about "property rights" like they are an absolute. They are not. You really can not do anything you want on your property, can you?
Consider the simple activity of buying a gallon of gasoline. Currently, the State clearly regulates exactly how much a "gallon" is. What if the State did not use such a heavy hand and every gas station in the country had different meanings for how much a "gallon" was? Now imagine everything we buy that is weighed or measured was a constant struggle to estimate just how much of a product we were buying. There are extremely positive benefits to having some regulations that make decision making a logical process.
The government did not invent units of measure.
The free market could easily handle such things.
Article 1, Section 8:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;