The part I've bolded in this post is the TLDR version of what I'm getting across. To see how I arrived there (for the nth time in this thread), please read this whole post.
You've bought into the ambiguity that is created by those who want to impose restrictions everywhere by redefining 'public'. The standard differentiation between property owned privately and property owned by government is that the former is considered "private property" and the latter is "public property". But from their viewpoint, IF they can get everyone (or a majority or just the media) to accept "public" to mean every inch of space available - then it would follow that gov't has control of that space.
I would say I have not bought into the ambiguity that you are stating, at least in practice. I am saying this ambiguity exists for everyone and have cited a number of examples where I can see it arising. Again, I feel confident I could name dozens of examples of things any human could do in public space of a private property and feel in essence (or even reality) that the rule preventing that would likely be made up on the spot, thus not really an actual rule but a whim by the person managing the location that day. I also think in most, if not all cases, the dispute by management would be based on 'social norms' especially if could be shown that there is no direct harm / endangerment occurring. I think there would likely be ambiguity expressed on the endangerment claim and using that as expressed reason for denial, while in reality, it would mainly be something along lines of, "I am manager, this is my whimsical choice, you must abide." Though, of course, that would never be stated.
And the laws regarding those historically have been very distinct. Private owners could make their own rules whereas on public/gov't property there were laws that determined what could or could not be done.
And yet, if they don't write those rules down, then the ambiguity exists, no? Again, if bank has no written rule of no
vaping, and there is no local ordinance, and I vape there, but manager says no, is this because of "rule" or something else (whimsical decision on the spot)? I am saying it would be the latter in most, if not all cases, and is based on social norms of public space. For as long as humanity has existed in civilization.
Those who wanted to implement certain behavioral restrictions began speaking of 'public spaces' such as malls, businesses some private parks, that the 'public' ie. people, patronized. And thus began the redefining of the term so that they could also intervene into what are actually private spaces. And the 'rules' that were once the owner's privilege to decide became 'laws' which the gov't decides.
You keep putting rules in quotes, which conveys to me the ambiguity that I am attempting to pinpoint based on the little disagreement we are having. You can say all that you desire that I've given in and/or lack understanding of private property rights. I feel you are missing a point in this as well, but also care to discuss it because I think it is interesting discussion and because it could help me, or anyone, going forward with possible disputes. It may not, but I'm thinking it could.
To me, it might be as simple as saying that manager of a property property may have ambiguous rules that even they do not know about. I think this is very important consideration in the discussion. I'm pinpointing this to social norms (or perhaps another term is better, but suggest for discussion sake we go with that). I am saying when the (unknown) rule is violated, and is then decided to be a rule for the property, that the violation from management perspective is to probably disallow on the spot, and to inform the party of it being disallowed.
Whereas, government attempts to overcome ambiguity by enumerating things that perceived majority does not accept in public space(s) and pass this ruling onto all public spaces of all properties that are legally accessible to everyone/anyone.
From my perspective, both of them are things to be disputed. I'm up to that discussion when it occurs. I would possibly be very willing to dispute a private property owner or manager who very much appears to me to making decision (or rule) up on the spot. And like many people would dispute the governmental rules. I would be doing this to overcome ambiguity not just on exact wording of the rule, but rationale for why the rule exists at all. I don't think I'm alone in doing this.
I also don't think it is simply "private owner" or "government" involved in this equation, and do think it is various factions within civilization (i.e. liberals or religious right, but for sure more than these two) that would contribute to ambiguity and inconsistencies on such matters.
To the degree I don't dispute these items (which is perhaps most of the time for me), is my personal degree to which I accept "social norms for spaces where members of the public are legally able to visit."
And once that is allowed then the original definitions have been changed to where someone like you can bring into the discussion "what is accepted as 'public spaces'" and then use that altered definition to make some kind of spurious argument. When someone attempts to nail down the actual definitions and what the true separation is between what gov't controls and what private individuals should be able to control given the basis of private property, then they are accused of "using semantics" where the first misuse of semantics was the original ambiguity brought about by the redefininig of terms in order to enact regulations.
I would say original ambiguity is the unwritten rules of anyone, while allowing for the "my house my rules" things to stand as if that is not ever going to be ambiguous and/or inconsistent. Ambiguity would not exist for public spaces if all things were enumerated and made aware to all people in a reasonable fashion, rather than on the spot when violation occurs. If violation occurs and specific rule that is violated cannot be shown to be something that has been previously thought of, then the ambiguity is there. Right there. But because of "my house my rules" logic being perceived as trumping all, or most other rules, then the perception is (IMO), there really ought to be no ambiguity in that moment. In reality, I think it is still there, but people either care to move on or escalate the dispute, in their own way.
And once again, I am saying this ruling on the spot thing stems from any person (or all persons) sense of social norms for spaces where the public is free to congregate. And has been this way, forever.
After reading thru all that I've written, I'm compelled to note that things can, and sometimes do, go the other way. As in ruling on the spot could be to allow. When that occurs, I think it can muck things up, but is usually not realized until later on. Like if manager of bank said, "sure you can vape in here" that would set a precedent that would probably lead to a whole lot of testing by others until that policy (allowing vaping) is enumerated in a specific way. And of course, even after rule is specified, disputes are entirely possible, if not likely.
For me, I think the primary issue here arises from mentality of "my house my rules" when there is zero accommodation for anything that is perceived as going against that. How we change that, I'm not sure. But I have my ideas on what works and what can be done in public spaces where things are disallowed, and yet still occur.
