(This is the second in my Free to Choose series. Please click here to read the first.)

At what point does one person's equal and unalienable rights usurp anothers?

Imagine that you are sitting comfortably in your home, engaging in some happy family activity. Now imagine that I'm walking down the street and see your house. I think to myself "That's a nice looking house. I think I'll go see what it looks like inside." So, I walk up and open the front door and just walk in. Do you have the right to make me leave? Since this is your private home and I just barged in uninvited, I have probably broken a few laws. So, I would say yes.

Let's change that scenario to where no laws are broken. Let's say I'm a family friend and that you have invited me over. We're all sitting around enjoying some fun, legal activity, but I start to behave in a way that you find objectionable. You inform me, but I say that I don't have to change my behavior and just continue on. You ask me to leave. I say that I don't have to. It's a free country and I can say and do what I want. Do you have a right to make me to leave?

Let's make one more change to the scenario. Let's say it's you that starts behaving in a way that's objectionable to me. I ask you to stop. You say "This is my house and I will do as I please". Do you have the right to make me stop?

In these scenarios, I gave reasons. Are reasons actually needed? If you call the police and just say "This is my home and I don't want this person here. Make them leave.", do you believe they should comply? Is Carl (from Caddyshack) speaking true when he says "I can do that. And I don't even need a reason."?

Now, let's change our scenario a bit. Let's leave the sanctity of home and move into the commercial arena.

You've always wanted to have your own business. Let's call it a widget shop. You find a nice little building on some land that would be perfect. You could rent, but you decide to buy. You fix everything up and make it perfect for selling widgets. There are still some things left to do, so your not quite ready to open up. You still have the front door closed.

Now apply the first scenario from above. This isn't your home, it's a business. So, you are probably a bit more tolerant to someone just walking in. Regardless, do you have the right to make me leave?

Now apply the second scenario. You've placed an "Open for Business" sign in the window which is an invitation to come in. I do come in and start behaving in an objectionable manner. You ask me to stop, but I say "This is a free country and I can say and do what I want.". Do you have the right to make me leave?

Now apply the third scenario. I walk into your store and determine that you are behaving in a way that's objectionable to me. I ask you to stop. You say "This is my business. I own it. I carry 100% of the risks and liabilities and I will do as I please." Do you have the right to make me stop in my own place?

In both of these scenarios, you are the property owner. The only difference is that one is your home and the other your business. Should a person have to surrender some of their fundamental personal rights as a property owner because they choose to invite in the public? Should the personal rights of a member of the general public who is not forced, but chooses to accept the invitation to enter usurp the rights of the property owner? Apparently. We're watching it happen every day.

Case in point - In Kerrville, Texas I cannot legally smoke in my own building if it is a business. Even if I hang a sign in my window that states "I smoke, so I allow others to smoke. If you don't like it or can't tolerate it, please go to the widget store down the street." In Kerrville, Texas, I can't choose to engage in a legal activity within the bounderies of my own property because the rights of others have been legislatively allowed to usurp mine. Others that carry no risk, responsibility or liability in my business or property.

We live in a complex world. I intentionally setup these scenarios as simple, black and white situations in order to demonstrate how we are allowing complexities to cloud our judgement. What should be fundamental "no brainers" concerning personal rights and personal responsibility are being drowned in a pool of details. Equality and fairness has nothing to do with my right to freedom of choice as an individual. It's getting rediculous and people need to start taking notice. If you don't, one day you just might hear "Because of the ever increasing blah blah blah, we now believe it to be in the best interest of the general public's health and welfare to allow unrestricted access to your home."