I hear you about saying no to depending on the rings of power.
Not sure about the regulatory part with Bob’s backyard. What about when Bob intentionally persuades everyone to route all their packages and mail through his house, which he routinely opens, reads and studies to determine their preferences and desires and compile psychological profiles of everyone in the neighborhood which he then discloses to various unidentified third parties including law enforcement, debt collectors, abusers and criminals? What about when Bob uses his control to deny people access to their own communications and stuff, on the grounds that they’re actually his now because it’s at his house and he decided for unspecified reasons that they broke one of his vague and unilaterally-defined rules? What if Bob does this at such a scale that he can now assist the government in undermining the constitutional protections against unwarranted searches, or uses his influence and knowledge to purposefully stoke and manipulate anger in ways that he KNOWS he can’t control and will get people killed or at least ruin their lives, but at least makes him more money?
Do Bob’s property rights need to be balanced against other societal needs then?
I can only control my own actions. If Bob does that then I'd stop being friends with Bob and stop going to his BBQs. If other people want to keep using Bob's services thats entirely up to them. And their continued use is entirely voluntary. If they want they can stop.
It's already balanced. All anyone has to do is make a personal choice rather than invoking calls for coersion.
Not sure about the regulatory part with Bob’s backyard. What about when Bob intentionally persuades everyone to route all their packages and mail through his house, which he routinely opens, reads and studies to determine their preferences and desires and compile psychological profiles of everyone in the neighborhood which he then discloses to various unidentified third parties including law enforcement, debt collectors, abusers and criminals? What about when Bob uses his control to deny people access to their own communications and stuff, on the grounds that they’re actually his now because it’s at his house and he decided for unspecified reasons that they broke one of his vague and unilaterally-defined rules? What if Bob does this at such a scale that he can now assist the government in undermining the constitutional protections against unwarranted searches, or uses his influence and knowledge to purposefully stoke and manipulate anger in ways that he KNOWS he can’t control and will get people killed or at least ruin their lives, but at least makes him more money?
Do Bob’s property rights need to be balanced against other societal needs then?