Conversion vs. Privacy

[Phaedrus]

No, I want a precedent.

 

[dilloduck]

Petty? Probably. Necessary? I think so.

Sometimes small changes are worth the annoyance.

Go for it--do what you need to do to get the government to protect you and good luck.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I want a precedent.

A legal precedent for approaching a door and knocking?

 

[Phaedrus]

Hehe, read my first post. I admitted in the beggining this wasn't practicable. Still, knowing what is right is worth knowing.

 

[Phaedrus]

A legal precedant for staying the fuck off property where you're not invited. How can state governments get away with implied conesent if I've implied nothing? When you sign up for cable you know they're going to advertise, that's implied consent.

 

[5stringJeff]

Note: You still have no right to come on my property without my permission. It's a simple fact, inherent rights shouldn't be left to the individual to enforce.

First, as Diuretic said, there is an implied right to knock on people's doors. Of course, you as the property owner are free to assert your property rights, either premptively (by a No Soliciting/No Trespassing sign) or reactively (by telling the door-to-door visitors to leave immediately).

However, I will say that inherent rights are always up to the individual to assert. I'm surprised that you, proclaiming to be a libertarian, wouldn't recognize this. Go assert your property rights, if you desire, by placing a No Trespassing sign on your mailbox or below your doorbell.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A legal precedant for staying the fuck off property where you're not invited. How can satte governments get away with implied conesent If I've implied nothing? When you sign up for cable you know they're going to advertise, that's implied consent.

You need a bump of your meds, man.

 

[Phaedrus]

You don't take offense when somebody puts in law that you've implied something you haven't?

 

[dilloduck]

A legal precedant for staying the fuck off property where you're not invited. How can satte governments get away with implied conesent If I've implied nothing? When you sign up for cable you know they're going to advertise, that's implied consent.

I never read anything that said they were going to pipe in porn. Make sure you get every thin dime that's coming to ya.

 

[Phaedrus]

However, I will say that inherent rights are always up to the individual to assert.

I recognize this as the reality, as I said this isn't practible. I don't believe this should be the way things are though.

 

[Joz]

I shouldn't be responsible for telling somebody to leave. They should be responsible for asking whether they can come. Asking isn't advertising. Inherent rights shouldn't be left to the individual to enforce.

You can ask me through a telephone whether I want to talk about such things. Better yet, there is a no call registry, add a little checkbox that asks if you want to receive religious calls.
Note: You still have no right to come on my property without my permission. It's a simple fact, inherent rights shouldn't be left to the individual to enforce.

What about the mailman or UPS/FedEx? They too, are trespassing when coming onto your property. So is the neighbor who comes to borrow an egg for the cake she is baking.

Just because someone knocks on my door doesn't mean I have to answer it. So I don't. Knock all you want. If I don't know who is on the other side or I'm not expecting anyone, tough. I had a man try & force himself into my house once. I have always abided by this but what made me answer it that one evening, I have no idea.

Feel the same way about the phone. I pay for it. It is there for me, not you. I don't want to talk to you, I don't answer it. Just that simple.

 

[Phaedrus]

I never read anything that said they were going to pipe in porn. Make sure you get every thin dime that's coming to ya.

You want the TV to tell you exactley what it's going show? Impractical. You agree to their service, not what it is.

 

[dilloduck]

I recognize this as the reality, as I said this isn't practible. I don't believe this should be the way things are though.

Get over it--it's all theoretical anyway.

 

[Phaedrus]

What about the mailman or UPS/FedEx?

Government sanctioned services. You can stop your mail to a degree. As to the phone, you pay for the service not for what they're providing. Part of what they provide is access to you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I recognize this as the reality, as I said this isn't practible. I don't believe this should be the way things are though.

How do you want things to be? No private property?

 

[dilloduck]

You want the TV to tell you exactley what it's going show? Impractical. You agree to their service, not what it is.

No--I just get tired of getting told if I dont like porn to shut off the TV---I also have a right to express my view that some stuff should stay on cable only.
Like your scenario----it ain't gonna happen.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Government sanctioned services. You can stop your mail to a degree. As to the phone, you pay for the service not for what they're providing. Part of what they provide is access to you.

UPS is a government sanctioned service? What does that mean?

 

[Phaedrus]

Get over it--it's all theoretical anyway.

If I wasn't over it, I wouldn't be saying it's impracticable. I think it's an interesting line of conversation though.

 

[Phaedrus]

UPS is a government sanctioned service? What does that mean?

Mail is a government sanctioned service.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Government sanctioned services. You can stop your mail to a degree. As to the phone, you pay for the service not for what they're providing. Part of what they provide is access to you.

you pay for the service, not what they're providing? They're providing the service! You really are quite mad.