Anonymous ID: 83e6e6 May 27, 2018, 10:12 a.m. No.1557647   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7659 >>7665 >>7715

>>1557631

Property rights should trump the freedom of speech. That is why you can't scream fire in a theater. The theater's owners reserves the right to limit our speech.

 

Here's a good article on the topic, written by Murray Rothbard, leader of the modern libertarian movement.

 

https://mises.org/library/human-rights-property-rights

Anonymous ID: 83e6e6 May 27, 2018, 10:14 a.m. No.1557660   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1557648

Just finished watching this today with my wife who is recently red pilled. Lots of great background information. POTUS has to finish the work JFK started.

Anonymous ID: 83e6e6 May 27, 2018, 10:18 a.m. No.1557686   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7705

>>1557665

You should read the article. It's very interesting. If the truth is that property rights are the foundational right, then you can say anything you want in any public space. This combats the concept of free speech zones.

 

I agree that your interpretation is the most commonly accepted, perhaps the article will expand your thinking?

Anonymous ID: 83e6e6 May 27, 2018, 10:29 a.m. No.1557749   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7815

>>1557705

Here is the example given in the article:

 

Take, for example, the "human right" of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate "right to free speech"; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.2

 

A right is something that cannot be taken away. So, limiting it in any way weakens it. When we make property rights sacrosanct, including your right to your body and person, then the freedom of speech is not weakened and statist cannot justify their limitation of it as they do when they create "free speech zones" or "safe spaces".

 

Property rights trump everything.

 

This would also explain why property owners should be able to decide who they allow on their premises.