My friend related the following story:
I was asked in ALDI [a supermarket] by the cashier if she could search my bag, I told her no. She called the manager and I gave the manager a lesson in property rights and freedom of contract. I told her that I didn't agree that my property rights be violated just because I entered the store. She said that there was a sign on the wall. I told here that a sign on the wall is not a contract and that if she wanted to search my bag, she should seek approval from me before I entered the store.
So who is right? The person who resists having his bag searched or the store?
Depends, what did your friend steal?
The State has accustomed us to regular, casual invasion of our person and property. The fact is that the store does not get a right to invade your person or property by virtue of your entering. To push it to the extreme to illustrate the point, imagine the store had a sign on the front "all who enter here thereby agree to be raped." It just doesn't make any sense. Read the first few chapters of Ethics of Liberty to get Rothbard's theory on this point based on the inalienability of the will.
Clayton -
I'm surprised no one mentioned the fact that the owner/manager of the store doesn't have to let the person in either. They can very easily have a policy that says "if you wish to enter, we reserve the option to search any bags you bring in".
Of course the person can refuse. But that doesn't mean he gets to walk freely around the store either. The owner/manager is perfectly within his rights to say: "Okay, fine. Get out. If you want to leave your bag in your car, or with someone else outside the store and come back in, fine. But unless someone from the store inspects the bag, it's not coming in."
If you're saying that the person was allowed in with the bag, and they wanted to search it afterward, then yes, that's the store's problem. They have no right to force someone to give up their property for inspection. If they are so concerned about theft, they should be more diligent about not letting bags in in the first place.
And as Clayton implies, a sign on the door does not a contract make. That wouldn't even make it to the courthouse steps without getting shot down like a low flying duck.
So to answer the question of the thread, there was no contract in place...so it's a useless question in this case. But in fact, it's a useless question in general because a "contract" is simply a designation of "property rights". Saying that a contract "trumps" property rights makes no sense. Like Clayton suggested, check out Chapter 19 of The Ethics of Liberty.
Clayton:The State has accustomed us to regular, casual invasion of our person and property. The fact is that the store does not get a right to invade your person or property by virtue of your entering. To push it to the extreme to illustrate the point, imagine the store had a sign on the front "all who enter here thereby agree to be raped." It just doesn't make any sense. Read the first few chapters of Ethics of Liberty to get Rothbard's theory on this point based on the inalienability of the will.
Right, this is basically the issue with using coercion to enforce promises. Inalienability of the will is essential to the principle of self-ownership.
A common objection to this goes something like this: "Well, a person can change his mind at any time." That's true. But there can be plenty of non-coercive consequences to something that are nevertheless seen as bad by the person on the receiving end.
For example, an employer could (in theory) suddenly decide to stop paying his employee. By the same token, however, the employee could then suddenly decide to stop working for his employer. The employer would be powerless to stop him. Presuming that the employer hired his employee for a reason (i.e. to help him operate his business), he would find his ability to do business hampered by the absence of the employee. All other things being equal, this would provide the employer an incentive to continue paying his employee.
In the store situation, if the manager at Aldi thinks Sukrit's friend stole something, do you all think the former might be within his rights to take the latter's bag and search through it, coercively if necessary? This doesn't mean preventing Sukrit's friend from leaving, and if he didn't steal anything, then the manager certainly would've committed a (minor) tort against him.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Given what I know about the libertarian concept of rights, I would wager that the customer was in the "right" on this one.
I'm more curious as to whether or not these notices are even legal at a state level. Where did this happen?
My friend related the following story: I was asked in ALDI [a supermarket] by the cashier if she could search my bag, I told her no. She called the manager and I gave the manager a lesson in property rights and freedom of contract. I told her that I didn't agree that my property rights be violated just because I entered the store. She said that there was a sign on the wall. I told here that a sign on the wall is not a contract and that if she wanted to search my bag, she should seek approval from me before I entered the store. So who is right? The person who resists having his bag searched or the store?
This isn't a question of property rights versus contracts. It's a question about the validity of implicit contracts. If you think the posting of the sign in a visible place constitutes the making of a contract between the store-owner and the customer, then the customer does have an obligation to let the store-owner search the bag. If not, not. Personally, I would say no contract has been made. Property rights only come into the picture insofar as the store-owner can demand that you do something (like open your bag) as a condition of you being on the property: but if you refuse, they can't make you do this thing, they can only demand that you leave the property.
she should seek approval from me before I entered the store.
If I was the manager I would have told her, "You shouldn't wander into private buildings with assumed expectations," and then "...get out." But that's just the kind of guy I am.
Oh we know what kind of guy you are...
Not exactly, that only says who I'm into, not who I am. The am is on a different level.
"You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps..."