Comments on: Are shopping malls “public spaces”? http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/ Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:44:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: The Height of Stupidity of Filipino Fascists « THE VINCENTON POST http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-3730 The Height of Stupidity of Filipino Fascists « THE VINCENTON POST Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:07:14 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-3730 [...] understand the concept of property rights with respect to our right to free speech, let me quote Tom Bowden: On private land, the owner rightfully limits how others can use it. Do you want to talk on your [...] [...] understand the concept of property rights with respect to our right to free speech, let me quote Tom Bowden: On private land, the owner rightfully limits how others can use it. Do you want to talk on your [...]

]]> By: Jake http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-3539 Jake Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:56:15 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-3539 So, the solution to the problem of arguing over issues while on public space is simply tyrannical arbitration of views based on the ownership of property? Doesn't that mean a return to "Votes only for landowners?" So, the solution to the problem of arguing over issues while on public space is simply tyrannical arbitration of views based on the ownership of property? Doesn’t that mean a return to “Votes only for landowners?”

]]> By: jon http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-3479 jon Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:52 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-3479 RULES are not Laws You Cannot enforce rules, BY LAW... Well Just another sheep on the way to the concentration camp ...THEY are not defined.. Private property and malls "The decision upheld a 1979 California Supreme Court ruling that defined shopping malls as the equivalent of public town squares" NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. Also how can Colorado Mills, A large mall in Lakewood Colorado, Have a Lakewood Police sub-station in the mall, (private property) and also deny people access to the police station, and a public bus stop in the PRIVATE parking lot. People have been ban from the mall for wearing a black hoodie. They were banned because the hoodie has been connected to crimes… Well the police have also been connected to crimes for years, Maybe the police should be banned from malls also. They can wear a t-shirt with George Jefferson on it that says HONKEY accross it. But I can not wear the same shirt replacing honkey with Nigger. Well it means the same to me.... I DEMAND equal rights under the LAW..NOT the RULES RULES are not Laws You Cannot enforce rules, BY LAW… Well Just another sheep on the way to the concentration camp …THEY are not defined.. Private property and malls
“The decision upheld a 1979 California Supreme Court ruling that defined shopping malls as the equivalent of public town squares” NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Also how can Colorado Mills, A large mall in Lakewood Colorado, Have a Lakewood Police sub-station in the mall, (private property) and also deny people access to the police station, and a public bus stop in the PRIVATE parking lot. People have been ban from the mall for wearing a black hoodie. They were banned because the hoodie has been connected to crimes… Well the police have also been connected to crimes for years, Maybe the police should be banned from malls also. They can wear a t-shirt with George Jefferson on it that says HONKEY accross it. But I can not wear the same shirt replacing honkey with Nigger. Well it means the same to me…. I DEMAND equal rights under the LAW..NOT the RULES

]]> By: Jon McClelland http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-3478 Jon McClelland Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:23:40 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-3478 Private property and malls "The decision upheld a 1979 California Supreme Court ruling that defined shopping malls as the equivalent of public town squares" NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. Also how can Colorado Mills, A large mall in Lakewood Colorado, Have a Lakewood Police sub-station in the mall, (private property) and also deny people access to the police station, people have been ban from the mall for wearing a black hoodie. They were banned because the hoodie has been connected to crimes… Well the police have also been connected to crimes for years, Maybe the police should be banned from malls also. Private property and malls
“The decision upheld a 1979 California Supreme Court ruling that defined shopping malls as the equivalent of public town squares” NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Also how can Colorado Mills, A large mall in Lakewood Colorado, Have a Lakewood Police sub-station in the mall, (private property) and also deny people access to the police station, people have been ban from the mall for wearing a black hoodie. They were banned because the hoodie has been connected to crimes… Well the police have also been connected to crimes for years, Maybe the police should be banned from malls also.

]]> By: James Hopes http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-3127 James Hopes Wed, 05 May 2010 12:45:31 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-3127 Nice post . It gives detail information on the topic . If you want to maintain a better economy, you should think about choosing better and more cost effective.http://www.mountorama.com/ Nice post . It gives detail information on the topic . If you want to maintain a better economy, you should think about choosing better and more cost effective.http://www.mountorama.com/

]]> By: Paul P http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-2515 Paul P Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:02:16 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-2515 Malls are public places on private property. Freedom of speech should be protected on them. Situations like the one standard newswire reported where a youth pastor was arrested simply for asking another shopper (who said yes) if he could talk to them about religion. It was overheard by a mall employee and the youth pastor was subsequently arrested. This is called facism and it should not be tolerated in society period. Malls are public places on private property. Freedom of speech should be protected on them. Situations like the one standard newswire reported where a youth pastor was arrested simply for asking another shopper (who said yes) if he could talk to them about religion. It was overheard by a mall employee and the youth pastor was subsequently arrested.

This is called facism and it should not be tolerated in society period.

]]> By: Eric Maughan http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-2243 Eric Maughan Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:37:25 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-2243 I agree with your assessment of "public spaces" with regard to property rights and free speach; What do you think about the concept with regard to Tort law (negligence, etc.)? While I think the concept has been misused a bit, I hesitate to declare it wholly invalid. Is there anything to the idea that by inviting the public onto your property (as I think it is fair to presume business owners do) you take upon yourself certain duties, such as the duty to not harm them by your negligence? (for example: the planks on your stairs are so rotted through that the person falls through them and is injured) Under this usage of "holding ownself out to the public" you do not give up your control over your propert -- you can still expell the "public" at any time, and they must conform to your wishes to be able to remain on your property. But your relationship is not the same as it would be if you were meeting the person on the street; you have an obligation that you wouldn't otherwise have, to reasonably protect that person from harm. What do you think? I agree with your assessment of “public spaces” with regard to property rights and free speach; What do you think about the concept with regard to Tort law (negligence, etc.)? While I think the concept has been misused a bit, I hesitate to declare it wholly invalid. Is there anything to the idea that by inviting the public onto your property (as I think it is fair to presume business owners do) you take upon yourself certain duties, such as the duty to not harm them by your negligence? (for example: the planks on your stairs are so rotted through that the person falls through them and is injured) Under this usage of “holding ownself out to the public” you do not give up your control over your propert — you can still expell the “public” at any time, and they must conform to your wishes to be able to remain on your property. But your relationship is not the same as it would be if you were meeting the person on the street; you have an obligation that you wouldn’t otherwise have, to reasonably protect that person from harm. What do you think?

]]> By: Michael Fitzgibbon http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-2229 Michael Fitzgibbon Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:03:32 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-2229 Tom - well said! There was a case in Toronto where the women's hockey league threatened the city with a lawsuit because they did not get access to the "premier" ice times at municipal hockey arenas. The city immediately and irrationally relented. But there is even more damage resulting from a policy of public property. In addition to the conditions you point out in your blog, the city also destroys the market for private facilities because its promise to build more public facilities (which it usually fails to deliver) indicates over-supply in the market. This makes the risk/reward for private investors insufficient to build private arenas. Not to mention that the city makes it nearly impossible to build private arenas anyway, through unfair and excessive zoning regulations, essentially "loading the dice" in its favour. If the city would just stay out of it altogether, private industry would no doubt build sufficient facilities to meet demand and make a profit. The premier ice-times would go to the highest bidder. If any one group can't compete for the best times, they are free to build their own facility exclusively for their own use. P.s. - The situation in Toronto is desperate. Property rights are nearly non-existent. Unfortunately, citizens either fail to realize the depth of the problem or actually agree with the collectivized, central-planning approach of the City. A government is supposed to protect property rights, but in Toronto, the government is actually the biggest threat to property owners. Tom – well said! There was a case in Toronto where the women’s hockey league threatened the city with a lawsuit because they did not get access to the “premier” ice times at municipal hockey arenas. The city immediately and irrationally relented.

But there is even more damage resulting from a policy of public property. In addition to the conditions you point out in your blog, the city also destroys the market for private facilities because its promise to build more public facilities (which it usually fails to deliver) indicates over-supply in the market. This makes the risk/reward for private investors insufficient to build private arenas. Not to mention that the city makes it nearly impossible to build private arenas anyway, through unfair and excessive zoning regulations, essentially “loading the dice” in its favour.

If the city would just stay out of it altogether, private industry would no doubt build sufficient facilities to meet demand and make a profit. The premier ice-times would go to the highest bidder. If any one group can’t compete for the best times, they are free to build their own facility exclusively for their own use.

P.s. – The situation in Toronto is desperate. Property rights are nearly non-existent. Unfortunately, citizens either fail to realize the depth of the problem or actually agree with the collectivized, central-planning approach of the City. A government is supposed to protect property rights, but in Toronto, the government is actually the biggest threat to property owners.

]]> By: Richard Tibbetts http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-2223 Richard Tibbetts Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:23:29 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-2223 Well said. People who have yard sales, it could be argued, also "hold their property out as public space" yet no one would argue that the lawn or driveway that it is held on isn't private property. Also a number of busines's have signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Well said. People who have yard sales, it could be argued, also “hold their property out as public space” yet no one would argue that the lawn or driveway that it is held on isn’t private property. Also a number of busines’s have signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

]]> By: Terry Schaub http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/are-shopping-malls-public-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-2218 Terry Schaub Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:59:24 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=5001#comment-2218 Aren't 37 States now violating property rights when they created laws forbidding smoking in restaurants, bars, etc? Michigan just passed such a law. Shouldn't restaurant and bar owners be allowed to make the rules in their own establishments and let customers decide whether to patronize restaurants, bars that permit or forbid smoking? Aren’t 37 States now violating property rights when they created laws forbidding smoking in restaurants, bars, etc? Michigan just passed such a law. Shouldn’t restaurant and bar owners be allowed to make the rules in their own establishments and let customers decide whether to patronize restaurants, bars that permit or forbid smoking?

]]>