- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There is no rights to balance, so that doesn't fly, sorry. They have no right of access towards the property in question and the other individual has the right to control access. Do you think that when we consider rights we should decide which rights to violate and which to not? If you do, then sorry, but that is the wrong approach to take in a free society.
My view is supported by reality itself, so I have little idea what you are talking about. Do you think law is all there is to consider?
Some method of argument you have there.
You make it up as you go along.
You never have to cite where you get this nonsense from.
You pontificate and invent rules which suit you.
You are not debating. You are playing God in your own little fantasy world where none of the other 312 million Americans have to live. That would be fine with me as long as you did not do it here so as to try and screw things up for the rest of us who are indeed grounded in reality.