Very true. In actuality, I agree with many aspects of true Libertarianism, just not Radar's strange version of it. My anti-Libertarian jab was meant to make a logical point using irony, not intended as a true criticism against Libertarianism itself. I wasn't sure if I made that clear enough in my posting. :)

Their sports section is good, though.

Well, its nice of Radar to finally break down and give us the insider tidbit that the woman actually bought tickets. Even so, merely buying tickets does not give one license to do as one pleases on someone else's property. Again, I speak from my experience selling roses. One night a really good local band was playing at a bar downtown. I wanted to take a break from selling flowers and go in and hear them. The manager let me pay the cover, but I had to leave my flowers behind the bar. My cover allowed me to go hear music, not solicit customers for roses, voter registration, the Jehovah's Witnesses or anything else.

Oh, you mean like the way you knew the exchange took 20 minutes?

Nobody said you had to have a warning sign, but you can't expect someone to know what behavior you do or do not condone on your property without one. Handing out voter registration forms is perfectly socially acceptable in virtially all locations without anyone being upset so most wouldn't assume you'd be put off by it.

If you order a pizza and he delivers it and you don't pay him, he won't leave your property and he'd be more than happy for you to call the police. And if he were to hand out voter registration forms to your guests while waiting for the police, he still hasn't committed trespass.

That is libertarianism. In libertarianism you do get your freedom and your property rights. But in Libertarianism your property rights don't override the rights of others to express themselves freely. You may ask someone to leave your home and even force them to leave if they don't comply. But if they are discussing it with you to see if you can work out a compromise and then leave after the conversation, your rights haven't been violated. Your rights don't include silencing anyone no matter what property you own. If you don't like that, I suppose you don't like libertarianism, or natural rights, or human nature, or reality.

It most certainly is not. Solicitation would be if they were selling voter registration forms or magazine subscriptions, etc. They were handing out a government form and had nothing to gain by doing it so it is not solicitation.

I don't have a version of Libertarianism. I use the same version of libertarianism that has been used by all libertarians for the last 300+ years. Your attempts to point out irony have failed because nothing I've said contradicts libertarianism.

This woman did not violate anyone's rights, especially not property rights and anyone who claims she did is a liar. She exercised her rights and did not violate anyone else's rights. That is the essence of libertarianism.

And for the example you used, let's say the pizza guy lives next door to you and he wants to stand on the edge of his yard and hand out voter registration forms to your guests who come close enough for him to hand them the form. You have no legal right to stop him.

If you read the post where I stated that, it was a guess. I didn't post it as fact, as you did with all of your unfounded assumptions. I'm a big enough man to admit that my assumption may have been wrong, though Wolf's info does support the possiblity that I am right.


I can expect them to know what behavior I do or do not condone if I TELL them, just as the theater did! Hooray for logic!


Virtually is NOT all. It obviously was NOT acceptable there, or they wouldn't have asked her to leave. Reasoning is our friend.


Just for future reference... changing the metaphor so that it is LESS like the reality does not make it more useful. In fact, it makes it LESS useful. Funny how that works.

There is no parallel to the "don't pay him" qualifier. Now, if the woman had tried handing out the forms before the movie, and had then been allowed neither admittance nor refund, that might apply. But that isn't what happened. Your adjusted metaphor is useless in this discussion.


I have no doubt that you believe that.


Yeah... I could also say that anyone who claims she didn't violate someone's rights is a retard who smells like ricotta cheese. But saying it doesn't make it so, does it? Nor does it strengthen an argument. It just brings back memories of the "liar liar pants on fire" defense from the third grade.


See above regarding the uselessness of making the working metaphor less like the actual events. If the facts don't support your argument, you're mistaken. You can't adjust the facts to fit your flawed reasoning.

Powerless for tresspassing but harassing is a different offense. ;)

They have the same deal over in Upper Merion Township. I usually spend some time chatting with the officer posted from that department, since i know most of them.

I haven't noticed visible police presence at Plymouth Meeting, though.

If you like high school football.

Long post warning:

The dictionary lists the definition of solicitation to be : 1 : the practice or act or an instance of soliciting. The Dictionary defines soliciting to be: 1 a : to make petition to : ENTREAT b : to approach with a request or plea 2 : to urge (as one's cause) strongly.

The request was to please take a flyer. That falls under the very definition of soliciting someone.

I used to volunteer for a group that had Canned Food Drives several times a year. We did it for the local food bank which then gave the food to poor and homeless members of the community. We always held them in front of a local grocery store. It was a win win situation. People would see us going into the store and buy cans specifically to donate on the way out. The grocery store made money off our food drive. We "had nothing to gain" by putting on the food drive. Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME we wanted to hold a drive we had to get permission from the store first. Sometimes they didn't give it to us, and we respected that choice and held it at a different store (getting permission from that store). Its private property (yes the sidewalk between the store and the parking lot belongs to the store), and we had to get permission. A grocery store that only profits from a food drive still has the right to tell a group no they cant hold one. So why doesn't the theater have a right to tell a woman no when she hands out flyer's without permission?

Someone comes to my house and does something I don't like, I then ask them to leave. They leave my house but mill around my driveway for several more min. They haven't actually left yet. The driveway is still part of my property. The theater is the same, whether they lease or own the property they still have rights to the parking lot. If they own the property then there is no question that the parking lot is also theirs. Why would someone buy a theater and not the parking space in front of it? If they lease the property they also lease the right for their patrons to use the parking lot. That makes the parking lot every bit their property as if they were the direct owners.

A manager of a store or business has the authority to act on the owners behalf. If I am a manager and I see some kid stealing merchandise I am not going to try and get the owner on the phone and ask if he wants me to let the kid steal the stuff or if he wants me to call the cops. A manager is hired to MANAGE things. That means he is in charge of dealing with anything that comes up and has the authority to act in the owners behalf. That means he has the right to call the cops and tell them someone has been asked to leave and is still milling around the property. Parking lot still equals property.

Was the theater management over reacting on this matter? I think they might have been. Were they within their right to call the cops on her? Hell yes. Both her and the police say she was asked to leave and she refused. Her own words "For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave.". She says she didn't leave so she was trespassing. Thats what she should have been charges with but regardless she is not an innocent victim being oppressed by the mighty corporate movie theater. She is in the wrong as much as anyone else who played a part in the whole overreaction.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

What you're saying is that my right to not be harrassed by Jehovah's Witnesses, on my own property, is trumped by their right to express themselves?

No, I haven't said that at all. I've said that if they came to your door, and asked to speak to you about their religion, and you said you didn't want to learn about it and could they please get off your property, then they asked if there were a better time for you, or whether you'd prefer visitors from a different religion, or if you would at least take a copy of their magazine, before they go, you're rights have not been violated. They have agreed to leave, but wanted to see if they could work something out first.

So we are determining what degree is the issue then correct?

No, they have not violated your property rights to any degree, nor did the woman violate the property rights of the theater owner.

So far you have offered no meaningful argument to support that assertion. And you've ignored a number of replies which nullify your assertions. Wishing something doesn't make it so.

Radar, I think what Troubleshooter meant by degree is, how long can they try to "work something out" before they're just stalling and violating your property rights?

You seem ok with a few minutes. So how about an hour? Can they continue to stand there "discussing" it with you for an hour without falling into the category of "refusing to leave?" How about 4 hours? How long before they ARE violating your property rights?