superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 13,335
I was reading a court case today -- I'll get to the substance later -- in which the conservative judge argued that "the power to exclude implies a power to expel." This is of course not established by logic, so the judge offered an analogy to explain:
Take a hypothetical. Imagine you are serving as a bouncer for a Christmas gala. In that role, you are to exclude anyone you think poses a danger to any of the guests. The day of the
event comes, and you are stationed at the entrance. A nefarious-looking gentleman approaches and begins inquiring into the whereabouts of one of the guests. You grow suspicious.
You determine the gentleman may pose a danger. So you deny him entry. A few moments later, you spot the gentleman advancing a couple steps into the venue, apparently attempting to
sneak up behind the very man whose whereabouts he had inquired about. What to do? Must you stand on the sidelines and watch, simply because you only have authority to deny entry?
Of course not. The authority to deny entry naturally brings with it some authority to remove.
I would argue that actually bouncers are not given the free floating power to remove patrons from the establishment without explicit permission. That most bar owners recognize that keeping people out is not the same thing as forcing them out. That's true for a lot of reasons, right?
I mean, law shouldn't turn on the conventions used by bars, but the judge offered that as analogy to defend his position. If the analogy fails on its face, that tends to suggest that his position is entirely made-up and illogical, born of prejudice and not rationality. Also, he said he chose this example because it was the subject of a debate between Kant and some other guy. LOL.
What do people think?
Take a hypothetical. Imagine you are serving as a bouncer for a Christmas gala. In that role, you are to exclude anyone you think poses a danger to any of the guests. The day of the
event comes, and you are stationed at the entrance. A nefarious-looking gentleman approaches and begins inquiring into the whereabouts of one of the guests. You grow suspicious.
You determine the gentleman may pose a danger. So you deny him entry. A few moments later, you spot the gentleman advancing a couple steps into the venue, apparently attempting to
sneak up behind the very man whose whereabouts he had inquired about. What to do? Must you stand on the sidelines and watch, simply because you only have authority to deny entry?
Of course not. The authority to deny entry naturally brings with it some authority to remove.
I would argue that actually bouncers are not given the free floating power to remove patrons from the establishment without explicit permission. That most bar owners recognize that keeping people out is not the same thing as forcing them out. That's true for a lot of reasons, right?
I mean, law shouldn't turn on the conventions used by bars, but the judge offered that as analogy to defend his position. If the analogy fails on its face, that tends to suggest that his position is entirely made-up and illogical, born of prejudice and not rationality. Also, he said he chose this example because it was the subject of a debate between Kant and some other guy. LOL.
What do people think?

