Devil's Advocate

No it doesn't... That's my point. The likelihood of my death on your property isn't effected by wearing, or not wearing seat belts that you don't own. What matters is that I ought to be allowed to make that choice, because it legitimizes your choice to set rules that do matter regarding the ownership of your property. It only becomes complicated when one property owner negotiates with another from a position that negates the equity of a right to life (as the source of all rights), and its implementation. It reminds me of the Russian view of détente which was essentially, "What is mine, is obviously mine... what is yours, we can negotiate."

Your rule violates the use of my property. You can legitimately hold me responsible for reckless driving on your property, but your legitimate sphere of influence ends at the perimeter of my car, because you haven't negotiated for the ownership of it.

In this case you are presuming responsibility for the life of your guest... By what right? Suppose I agree to buckle up, drive into a lake, cannot be pulled from my vehicle (because the seat belt won't release) and drown... Does your seat belt regulation make you more or less responsible for my death? Why presume responsibility in the first place?

My objection is to the legitimacy of a term of use for property (based on a right to property, e.g. real estate) that negates a term of use for property (based on a right to property of another, e.g. a car). This presents a contradiction to me...

A foul mouthed guest is at least having an effect on the host and his property... What effect does wearing seat belts in a vehicle NOT owned by the host have on his property? I agree; there are limits to legitimate interaction between individuals with equal rights to self preservation; the legitimacy of a right to property depends on it. The threshold of legitimacy is crossed the moment one attempts to negotiate away the right to life of another. The landlord is essentially undermining the legitimacy of his own right to property by failing to respect a vehicle owner's right to their property.

The position that bartering away the implementation of a right to life, isn't a violation of that right, undermines the source of the right being implemented. We are in agreement on the issue of force; you'd needn't keep returning to it... Maintaining the safe operation of my vehicle on your road isn't driving "willy-nilly", and not wearing my seat belts certainly doesn't infringe on the ownership of your property.

Yes, I may choose to agree to buckle up in order to use your road, however my acquiescence doesn't confer legitimacy to your terms of use, because your terms violate my right to property (of my car). The violation of a right doesn't become legitimate because someone agrees to it. Again: "Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." ~ Property Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon My position is that the legitimacy of a right to property, as the implementation of a right to life, depends on maintaining an equal respect for the right to life (and property) of your trading partner. For example, a private road owner cannot place IEDs on his road and invite others to agree to using it. Why then is it legitimate for him to ask others to limit the safe operation of their vehicles (by telling them how to use their seat belts) while on his road?

Yes, having an ability to negotiate and abide by agreement is a necessary threshold. Similar to the emancipation of your dog, cows can remove themselves from the menu by staging a revolt.

Then we agree on the issue of coercion and that of a property owner's right to limit access. I think whatever difference of opinion remains has to do with the legitimacy of one property owner to attempt to limit another in the context of sharing a respect for property rights. A traveler on a private road can be understood to be in the process of exiting the premises, so the issue of trespassing is somewhat moot. As to the larger issue of whether or not a road owner can legitimately limit a car owner's use of his own vehicle, I'll again refer you to the Lexicon (as I did Matt): "Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." ~ Property Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon "No Trespassing" is legitimate. "Please use seat belts on this road" is legitimate. "Do as I say on my property, and as I say in your property" isn't legitimate.

Specifically, vehicle owners are entitled to the same respect for property that real estate owners are... "Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." ~ Property Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon

The difference being, the landlord owns the house and property, but not the vehicle which is his guest's property. Therefore he isn't entitled (as a property right) to coerce vehicle owner into wearing seat belts, or not to.

Not really; a homeowner's driveway makes a better analogy, unless your sofa comes with seat belts... Again the relevant issue is, how does failing to buckle up constitute a legitimate act of aggression against the landlord? How is his safety or real estate placed at risk?? In fact the reverse is true; any effort by the landlord to coerce the driver is an act of aggression against the owner of the vehicle, in that it attempts to force the legitimate owner of the vehicle to operate it in a manner contrary to the driver's own judgement of safe operation of his own property. We can agree that a private road owner can refuse passage to anyone, but he cannot legitimately bargain for unsafe passage by coercing a driver to use anything other than his own judgement for the safe operation of his own vehicle.

Yes

For clarity, my position is that the legitimacy of a landlord's right to property depends on a landlord's respect for a vehicle owner's right to property. Landlords can legitimately demand vehicle owners drive safely across their real estate, because damages caused by unsafe driving may be interpreted as an act of aggression against the landlord. However, how does not wearing a seat belt threaten the landlord's property? The driver's life and vehicle never legitimately become the landlord's possession, so where is this act of aggression against what the landlord owns??

A right to property that doesn't respect a right to life isn't legitimate, regardless of whatever authority imposes regulation. Regulation is intended to secure interaction between individuals; not to coerce the actions (limit the freedom) of a person to act on their own behalf, where those actions pose no threat or inconvenience to anyone else. Seat belt regulation intended to prevent passengers in a collision from harming each other, might be considered legitimate. However seat belt regulation by a landlord, who doesn't own the seat belts in question, is absurd. Clearly the landlord's right to property doesn't subsume the vehicle owner's right to property. The fact the a owner/driver may choose to tolerate the illegitimate (in respect to the right to life of the vehicle owner) seat belt regulation of a landlord, only proves that, "experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" (source: Preamble, Declaration of independence). More likely the driver will simply buckle up, or continue unrestrained according to his own judgement regarding the safe operation of his vehicle; which more than anything implies the true authority regarding the legitimacy of seat belt regulation.

Car owners set terms for their property that you can agree to or ignore. You can choose to do what you wish but you cannot force drivers to cater to your whims and run their life to your convenience. You do not have a right to force yourself on the car owner as if you earned their life’s work and force them to obey you. If you don’t like how they drive their car, then you simply post "No Trespassing", or provide transportation for visitors according to whatever terms you do like.

Not at all; the driver is simply claiming the same right to the property of their car, that the landlord claims to the property of their real estate. The landlord doesn't own the driver's car, therefore any attempt to force the driver to wear his own seat belt is illegitimate. The landlord has only two legitimate options: 1) Deny passage to any vehicle, other than his own, on his land, or 2) Suggest that drivers of other vehicles wear seat belts; but not force them to.

The issue for me is the gratuitous use of force against an individual who represents no threat (or inconvenience) to anyone but themselves, by any authority. Government seat belt laws = clear violation of rights Private road with seat belt requirement as part of use agreement = Your choice as part of free trade (if an alternate route of travel is available), however... HOW does the implementation of a right to life in the form of a property right legitimize the suppression of a right to life in the form of personal reckless behavior? HOW does a private mandate for use of a path of travel differ from a government mandate for use of a path of travel, where no alternate path of travel is available?

I think it's fair to say both Locke and Marx were trying to establish a kind of social equilibrium regarding the distribution of natural resources based on the claim of a right to those resources for self preservation. The distinction being that Locke checks the ability to acquire common resources with a duty not to waste common resources, whereas Marx adds a duty to provide for those who lack the ability to acquire common resources. Essentially Locke is content to allow unclaimed apples to rot, and Marx thinks they ought to be delivered to those who can't reach them. The relevant issue for me is, if one claims a right to self preservation based on the necessity of privatizing finite common resources, I believe one is then obligated to allow others the same right. The implementation of a right to life, in the form of acquiring private property, cannot ethically work to the exclusion or waste of life sustaining property available to others.

I don't find this quote within the link I provided, nor do I believe this is a fair representation of Locke's position. The premise of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," as proposed by Karl Marx, is antithetical to Locke's view of private property as I understand it. If anything, Locke only seems to limit the legitimacy of an individual acquiring common resources for self preservation, by implying that waste as a result of acquisition, infringes on other individual's rights to self preservation.

Then I suppose John Galt's oath, "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine," needs to be appended with, "unless that other man is either my host or my guest." Perhaps you can point to any statement by Ayn Rand (or Objectivist philosophy), that ones right to property subsumes anothers right to life while on that property?

The premise that landlords are entitled to mandate the independent personal behavior of those who happen to be on their property is statism adapted to the private sector. The foundation of a right to life isn't the land one acquires, but the physical being of the individual; corpus individuo. Any application of force used to coerce the independent personal behavior of others, where the consequences of that behavior are delimited to an individual acting on their own behalf, is illegitimate. Put simply, a right to life isn't a mandate to live. Therefore the legitimacy of seat belt and helmet laws (regardless of their efficacy to save lives) is undermined by the same right they are tasked to secure.

LOL, that is an interesting idea... Ultimately it gets back to private owners can do whatever they want to EXCEPT coerce the independent personal behavior of other individuals where the threat is only to themselves; no one gets to do that. The legitimate threshold of coercion is the point where the restraint of independent personal behavior secures interaction with other individuals. In that context, I could buy into the idea that seat belts prevent individuals in a collision from injuring each other. In the context of a roller coaster ride on a private road, if the property owner provides those who use his road with cars, then sure, the owner is entitled to mandate the occupants of his vehicles wear seat belts.

Individuals rights are a useless concept, when dealing with stolen property?!

@ Matt, Grabbed the wrong snippet - what I meant to say was, I guess I'm missing what part of "which you are not forced to follow" equates to a mandate, as per your description of a policy. A private policy of issuing penalties for driving without a seat belt appears the same as a public law which issues penalties for doing the same. In either case, beltless drivers pose no threat to anyone else, so coercing them to buckle up isn't justified as a legitimate use of force.