And still, not a single element in there about defining the boundaries between the commons and private property... so continuing to avoid the issue by pretending there is no issue... and pretending, still, that it is private property, only, and not the commons, that matter in understanding property rights.
Otherwise, beyond what it leaves out, there's only two things in your post for me to disagree with...
One exception is in its reversal of the relative merit in positions re advocacy for anarchy versus liberty in a democratic Republic. The advocacy for anarchy here... is contained in your argument about how the commons should work... either as an extension of the common public interest, as I suggest... or as a terra incognito open to colonization by who ever arrives first and imposes dictatorial rule, as you would have it. My examples of the commons are not incorrect... whether in regulation of the use of public lands... or the divisions and control of utilities, spectrum or airspace... The space in which speech occurs is not different.
A parallel problem exists in the anarchy intended by refusing to acknowledge that the incorporation and licensing of businesses defines, in law, whose property it is on which business occurs... thus subjecting business to the rule of law, and including it obviating business claiming rights that exceed what the law allows... on the property in question... which is NOT private property. The submission to law also applies limits on uses of private property... you can own a business... run it how you like... which doesn't enable you in violating the laws limiting business conduct, because your business is on private property.
Refusing to admit speech occurs in the commons... as it must for free speech to exist at all... is a pretty big tell. Ideas can be owned... only by being NOT spoken, or within limits, claimed for exclusive time limited use in a patent... or limited by contract as trade secrets. Words... when reduced to media, can be subject to copyright... a form of ownership... but, if you attend a speech, for which the author has a copyright, he can't own your hearing of it ? The commons are the medium in which the exchange of speech occurs... and no one can own them... or there is no free speech. That's the essential element being recognized in the telcoms not owning or controlling the manipulations of the ether that transit their wires.
"In sum, no, the Constitution does not force someone to allow you to spout whatever nonsense you like".
The Constitution does not empower ANYONE to PREVENT you from spouting whatever nonsense you like...which is the essential element of free speech... is that you ARE free to speak. You twist that and turn it on its head to manufacture a private right to suppress others speech... while claiming doing so is the essence of enabling it ? And, to get there... you have to pretend business has rights it does not have.
Yours is a patent absurdity... which is only sustained by refusing to acknowledge the commons exist.
The property rights issue... which is being avoided... is not about your control of your property empowering you in limiting others speech... which is not a power that attaches to private property ownership... but is instead about an attempted colonization of the commons... being used to claim that private property rights empower the colonizers in suppressing speech they don't like... which still fails in property ownership, whether legitimate, or fraudulent, as in the wrongful "takings" of the commons... still not containing any right to suppress others speech.
If you don't like what a dinner guest is saying... you can ask him to leave your property... but you have no right to suppress his speaking of words you don't like... even while he is on your property... as the limit in your right to property... extends to use of the property... not to ownership (and thus control) of others on your property... and not to ownership or control of the commons (as the virtual space in which speech occurs) abutting your property.
Otherwise, as a libertarian, and not an anarchist: I'm an advocate for strong property rights... without ever thinking that ownership of property grants any right or interest in anything BUT that piece of property as owned... with its limits properly defined... and the rights attendant still compliant with the law.
Your ownership of private property... grants you no right to limit my use of the commons... |
