# Big Oil vs. NRA...Dun Dun Dunn-n-n-n **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332 "2005-08-02T17:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/81 "2005-08-04T20:45:14Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > **Renob** , I believe that it’s the seeming randomness, and arbitrariness of the case in the OP which has a lot of people riled. I realize that, and I think Weyerhauser is a bastard for doing this, but they still have the right to do it. That’s all I’m saying. It amazes me that liberals continually defend abhorrent speech (like flag burning) by saying something to the effect of, “the freedom of speech is not about speech that’s popular; it’s about speech that’s unpopular.” Yet they cannot see the parallels here. The same sentiment applies to property rights. When people are being bastards on their property is just as protected as when people are doing good things. Property rights gives you the right to do what you want on your property, even if you’re being a jerk, just like freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want, even if you’re being a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/82 "2005-08-04T21:03:38Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > My ire is not about this one instance in particular. It’s about corporate feudalism in general. Do you think the other instances of firing people for things they do outside of work on their own time is okay? Well, if you’re talking about cutting employee’s health insurance because of smoking, obesity, etc., then yes, I do think it’s okay. Employers generally still pick up the lion’s share of the employee’s health insurance tab, and if they decide that employees who engage in unhealthy lifestyles, or even high risk activities, are a financial liability, as the greater payer I believe they do have the right. “High risk activities” include those who engage in motorcross riding, skydiving, and similar stuff. Now, if the employees were footing most of the bill for health insurance (unlikely, I know), then I believe they’d have the right to tell the Boss to “Stuff it, I’m going hang-gliding this weekend.” I had an idea for a small business a few years back, and took a Small Business Development Course at U.C.C.S. There were some eye-popping information covered in that course, and changed my attitude with regards to the employer-employee relationship considerably. I know it’s an apples-and-oranges comparison, but the general principles still apply. I’m off for a weekend of camping; I’ll check back Sunday for any responses, if any. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/83 "2005-08-04T21:20:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Property rights gives you the right to do what you want on your property, even if you’re being a jerk, just like freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want, even if you’re being a jerk. Another difficulty here is that Oklahoma state law, for many, many years prior to this incident, has permitted its residents who may legally possess firearms to transport and store them in their vehicles provided they are in a locked compartment such as the trunk making them not “immediately available.” OK law also provides for CDL holders to keep unloaded firearms _along with a loaded magazine_ in the cab of their vehicles. I wonder how Weyerhauser, and Conoco-Phillips would feel about truckers coming onto their lots with these protected guns. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/84 "2005-08-05T02:27:16Z")
Renob, I understand your position. I just find it so extreme that I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that way. Do you think Scrooge was OK in his treatment of Bob Cratchit? (pre-ghosts) ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/85 "2005-08-05T13:30:59Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Renob, > > I understand your position. I just find it so extreme that I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that way. You should meet some of the people I went to school with. They make me look like a moderate. > [@](#): > > Do you think Scrooge was OK in his treatment of Bob Cratchit? (pre-ghosts) Again, I think you’re confusing my statements. I don’t think it’s “OK” for companies to treat their workers like crap. I think companies have a responsibility to be good to their workers. However, I do not think that it should be illegal for companies to make ridiculous demands of their workers. Restricting this is a restriction of property rights. After all, if the company’s demands are so outrageous, why would anyone work for them? And if some workers accept the trade-off (or even like demands that others may call “outrageous”), the government should not tell these workers that they cannot work for this company. So while I may deplore the way Scrooge treated Bob Cratchit, I don’t think it should be illegal. I also think that Cratchit should have gotten a backbone and left Scrooge, too. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/86 "2005-08-05T14:14:09Z")
My biggest problem with the pure libertarian point of view you seem to hold is the asymetrical nature of reality. There are more workers than jobs so employers hold more power when the rubber meets the road. I think there should be limits on the types of demands companies can make. Otherwise employers can make demands that, based on the asymetry, translate to coersion. **Liberal** at least acknowleges that if rights arise from property, a man’s body and life is his property and he has rights to that. This means, if I understand his POV, there has to be a balance of the rights of the employer arising from the company property versus the rights of the worker arising from the ownership of his body. Goverment, or whatever judge there is, weighs those rights to see who would prevail. In my mind those rights that arise from self are more important and worthy of protection than those that arise from real estate. Therefore, my right to smoke on my free time, or lock a gun in my trunk or wear a dress on Saturdays is more important that your desire to fire me for those things. My personal rights trump those rules you would impose on me. In your libertarian world, what would happen if your neighbor decided to open a meat rendering plant next door to you? Would his right to private property mean that you just have to suffer the odor and decrease of your property value? Society needs rules like zoning, workplace safety and non-discrimination laws because men aren’t angels and will abuse power. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/87 "2005-08-05T14:30:27Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > My biggest problem with the pure libertarian point of view you seem to hold is the asymetrical nature of reality. There are more workers than jobs so employers hold more power when the rubber meets the road. Not necessarily; it depends on the industry. There are many industries where wokers have the upper hand. Sure, there are more unskilled laborers than there are jobs for them, but if a person gains more skills, he finds his value in the job market increases. > [@](#): > > I think there should be limits on the types of demands companies can make. Otherwise employers can make demands that, based on the asymetry, translate to coersion. Again, there is no coercion. No one is forced to take any job where there are harsh demands by an employer. A person freely chooses to take a job. That situation is between that person and his employer. It’s no business of a third party how they make their contract. > [@](#): > > **Liberal** at least acknowleges that if rights arise from property, a man’s body and life is his property and he has rights to that. This means, if I understand his POV, there has to be a balance of the rights of the employer arising from the company property versus the rights of the worker arising from the ownership of his body. And there is a balance. The company (or person owning the company, as is often the case) decides what he or she will permit on that property. The worker then decides whether or not this is acceptable. If not, then the worker walks and the company loses and employee. If so, the employee works and everyone gains. Pretty simple balance. It’s up to each person to decide this for himself. The government should not butt in and make arbitrary determinations about what people are allowed to choose. > [@](#): > > In my mind those rights that arise from self are more important and worthy of protection than those that arise from real estate. Where is there a difference? Property rights arise from self, as you would say. > [@](#): > > Therefore, my right to smoke on my free time, or lock a gun in my trunk or wear a dress on Saturdays is more important that your desire to fire me for those things. If I do not want to pay you money, it’s a violation of my rights to force me to do that. > [@](#): > > My personal rights trump those rules you would impose on me. No one is imposing any rules on you. A boss is simply asking you to do certain things in return for money. If you choose not to do those things, you forgo the money. If you choose to do those things, you get the money. Nothing is imposed; you are free to walk away at any time. > [@](#): > > In your libertarian world, what would happen if your neighbor decided to open a meat rendering plant next door to you? Would his right to private property mean that you just have to suffer the odor and decrease of your property value? If there is harm to me, I can sue him. > [@](#): > > Society needs rules like zoning, workplace safety and non-discrimination laws because men aren’t angels and will abuse power. Yes, men will abuse power, and these rules give men the power they will abuse. These laws are used to harass and abuse productive members of society. I’m not saying that all businessmen are angels, but we don’t need these laws to address abuses. If there is truly harm to anyone, then there are always the courts. It’s a well-established principle of common law that if someone harms you then you seek redress with the courts. That works much better than arbitrary regulations that are abused by petty regulators and dissatisfied workers. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/88 "2005-08-05T17:15:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, in the first case, the argument seems to be that the guns are to be used merely for harmless personal recreational purposes off-site. The fact that they happen to be in employees’ cars on-site is nothing but an accidental consequence of the workers’ commuting schedules, and there is no intention or need for the workers actually to use them until they leave company property. Thus the guns shouldn’t be scrutinized or restricted any more than any other sporting equipment. > > In the second case, the argument seems to be that employees’ bringing guns onto workplace property must be protected because they have a constitutional right to have access to their guns, even on other people’s property, because such access is crucial for maintaining the security of a free state. I still don’t see how the arguments conflict or interfere with one another. The first argument leads to the conclusion that the company policy is _pointless_; the second argument leads to the conclusion that the company policy is _antisocial_. The two issues are completely independent of one another. > [@](#): > > I say we do with gun ownership what some suggest we should do with abortion: Keep it legal, but trash the far-fetched notion that it deserves to be constitutionally protected as a special right. Well, then, try to get another amendment ratified to repeal it. Let me know how that works out for you. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/89 "2005-08-05T17:24:41Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > It’s pretty inconsistent for conservatives to howl about how the _Kelo_ decision infringes on property rights and now to support a state law that infringes on those same rights. WTF? The people in question aren’t lifting a finger to support or oppose the state law. They are, instead, opposing the action of ConocoPhillips in filing suit by withholding their patronage – a thing they have a right to do for any reason, or for no reason. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/90 "2005-08-05T17:27:36Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > What I’m wondering is why people chafe at government imfringing on their freedom and liberty but will gently assent to any damned thing the bossman wants.\*\* The fact of the boycott shows that, in fact, people are **not** gently assenting to any damned thing the bossman wants. If the bossman wants to remain the bossman of a viable business, he must not offend his customers’ opinions too severely. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/91 "2005-08-05T17:33:54Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > The right of someone to control his own property (or of a company to control its property) isn’t dependent on whether or not you agree with what he/she/it does on that property, much like the freedom of speech isn’t dependent on whether or not you agree with the speaker. Even from a strict libertarian viewpoint, one’s right to control one’s property **is** dependent on whether it involves the creation of an unreasonable hazard. For instance, Conoco doesn’t get to patch up leaky chemical vats with duct tape and prayer, property rights notwithstanding, because this creates an unreasonable safety hazard. There is at least some rational basis for determining that requiring law-abiding gun owners to disarm themselves also poses an unreasonable safety hazard. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/92 "2005-08-05T18:00:04Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > WTF? The people in question aren’t lifting a finger to support or oppose the state law. They are indirectly supporting a state law that infringes on property rights. > [@](#): > > They are, instead, opposing the action of ConocoPhillips in filing suit by withholding their patronage – a thing they have a right to do for any reason, or for no reason. I’m not saying they don’t have the right to do this. I’m saying that on the one hadn the scream about Kelo infringing on property rights and on the other they oppose a company (Conoco) that’s standing up for property rights. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332/93 "2005-08-05T18:44:28Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > It’s been 10 years since the Rochester Fire Department required that all its employees be non-smokers. This is not the top of the slippery slope, it’s the bottom. The Oklahoma Legislature is doing nothing about it, except to privilege one particular right, to bear arms, above all the others which an employer can take away. With your “consent,” of course. Bad example. Firefighters can often claim chronic respiratory ailments and or lung cancer as work related injuries due to regular exposure to less than pleasant atmospheric conditions around fire scenes. The rule is in place to try and differentiate firefighters legitimately injured in the line of duty from those who are disbled from their own poor life choices. OR maybe its ok with you that a smoker can file workmens comp claims for the aftermath of personal non work related habits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-vs-nra-dun-dun-dunn-n-n-n/315332.md?page=4)