better stop watching tv & get your landscaping cleaned up this weekend.

[mikegideon]

I live at the corner of a county road and a state 'highway'.  I cut my grass oh, maybe 25-30 times a year.  The county mows the road shoulders maybe twice a year, and the state once a year.  Guess we need higher taxes.

 

Obama and Co. is working on that as we speak!

[Worriedman]

I'm sorry Robert but that is just plain wrong...  Their freedoms stops when they physically harm you, or steal from you...  If you don't want to have your property values  decline, buy a big enough place that it doesn't matter what your neighbors do...  or get together as a neighborhood and offer to help cut the grass of your next door neighbor...

 

Our country is not founded on a tyranny of the majority...  individuals have natural rights, the right to own property and use it without having that property taken (in part or in whole) by the government without just compensation.

 

This is what happens when you want to use the force of government to force people to live the way you want them to live...  Men with guns and badges show up at the persons front door and violate any number of civil rights in the name of the grass not being cut.

See Article 1 Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, then move somewhere that does not require conformance to what one's peers may require.  You peers may be the County, the City or the State.  What if your neighbor wanted to raise pigs on his property in the middle of town, with the flies and the smell, or put in a slaughterhouse?  Would your personal liberty beliefs protect him in such a situation?

 

I now live in the County, with a gun range in my back yard.  I understand the rules, and live accordingly.  If I lived in the City limits they would put me in jail for fire-forming 100 pc.s of brass on a Sunday afternoon, as it is, the choices I have made and the location I choose to live allow that activity.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Worriedman

[JayC]

The TN Constitution only grants the state, and therefore the subdivisions of the state certain enumerated powers.  Show me where landscaping, or zoning commissions are listed in those enumerated powers.

 

The TN Constitution (and Federal Constitution) specifically limits the ability of the government to take property without just compensation...  Limiting the ability of a poverty owner to use the land as they see fit is a violation of the taking clause...  See Section 21 of our state constitution.

 

So yes a jury of my peer can convict me of a criminal act as long as the law that specifies that criminal act is within the enumerated powers of the government body charging me with a crime...  I contend that in a free state with natural rights to own property our current constitution prohibits such laws without just compensation.  

 

Now that is criminally...  I do think that if somebody sets up a pig farm next door to your residence, and you're harmed by that pig farm, you do have a right to file a civil lawsuit and seek compensation for provable damages.  Just like if your neighbor has a pool that they allow to turn into a mosquito nest and you get sick with West Nile from mosquito's in that pool you should be able to file suit for provable damages from their negligence.

 

You don't need criminal laws...  to solve these types of problems.

 

See Article 1 Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, then move somewhere that does not require conformance to what one's peers may require.  You peers may be the County, the City or the State.  What if your neighbor wanted to raise pigs on his property in the middle of town, with the flies and the smell, or put in a slaughterhouse?  Would your personal liberty beliefs protect him in such a situation?

 

[RobertNashville]

I'm sorry Robert but that is just plain wrong...  Their freedoms stops when they physically harm you, or steal from you...  If you don't want to have your property values  decline, buy a big enough place that it doesn't matter what your neighbors do...  or get together as a neighborhood and offer to help cut the grass of your next door neighbor...

 

Our country is not founded on a tyranny of the majority...  individuals have natural rights, the right to own property and use it without having that property taken (in part or in whole) by the government without just compensation.

 

This is what happens when you want to use the force of government to force people to live the way you want them to live...  Men with guns and badges show up at the persons front door and violate any number of civil rights in the name of the grass not being cut.

Where in the Constitution does it say that freedom stops ONLY when there is physical harm?  I've looked...don't see it in there anywhere. And no one is taking anyone's property and even if they were, the Constitution provides for exactly that. The only mention of "property rights" in the Constitution is the Takings clause of the 5th amendment and it only states that a person must be compensated; not that property can't be taken.

 

Further, how can you call being held to a law or an ordinance that the person has voluntarily (either by direct action or inaction) agreed to live under "wrong"?

 

This is not tyranny, in fact, it's the opposite of it...whether by contractual agreement with a homeowner's association or through laws passed by elected representatives...if a person doesn't like the contractual agreement he shouldn't have entered into it...if he doesn't like the laws of his community then he should use the tools available to get them changed, comply, or move to a place that has laws he is more comfortable with.

Edited June 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

The TN Constitution only grants the state, and therefore the subdivisions of the state certain enumerated powers.  Show me where landscaping, or zoning commissions are listed in those enumerated powers.

 

The TN Constitution (and Federal Constitution) specifically limits the ability of the government to take property without just compensation...  Limiting the ability of a poverty owner to use the land as they see fit is a violation of the taking clause...  See Section 21 of our state constitution.

 

So yes a jury of my peer can convict me of a criminal act as long as the law that specifies that criminal act is within the enumerated powers of the government body charging me with a crime...  I contend that in a free state with natural rights to own property our current constitution prohibits such laws without just compensation.  

 

Now that is criminally...  I do think that if somebody sets up a pig farm next door to your residence, and you're harmed by that pig farm, you do have a right to file a civil lawsuit and seek compensation for provable damages.  Just like if your neighbor has a pool that they allow to turn into a mosquito nest and you get sick with West Nile from mosquito's in that pool you should be able to file suit for provable damages from their negligence.

 

You don't need criminal laws...  to solve these types of problems.

Actually, the Tennessee constitution has nothing to do with the issue since the incident didn't happen in Tennessee...I don't know if this issue violated the PA constitution or not but I suspect not; and it certainly doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

Further, any community where people voluntarily gather together in any state has a right to set its own rules and to enforce those rules and it's really no one's business other than the people of that community.

Edited June 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Boy.. I am so glad I live in the county

 

I rather live in my horse trailer  than in a HOA ruled  area.

[RobertNashville]

Boy.. I am so glad I live in the county
 
I rather live in my horse trailer  than in a HOA ruled  area.

Home Owner's Associations, dead restrictions, community ordinances, etc. do some very needful things. It would be wonderful if people would do the right things by their neighbors on their own but unfortunately, that often isn't the case today. One needs do no more than drive through neighborhoods where there aren't such restrictions to see just how much such restrictions are needed.

Grand Torino nailed it when he said...

It's called responsibility and pride in ownership. It's what happens when people lack it and are too lazy to get off their asses. A lot of what goes on with government involvement in our lives is because too many people refuse to do the right thing.

[Chucktshoes]

Boy.. I am so glad I live in the county

I rather live in my horse trailer than in a HOA ruled area.

Q4T!

No way in hell will I ever live under an HOA. While the intended purpose may be admirable (collective protection of property values and community standards) too often they are filled with busybody jerkoffs who wish to make their neighbors conform to their will. If they work for you, great. I'm too damn contrarian to live under one. You think you know best how I should use MY property? Offer to by it from me and when I tell you to piss off please go and promptly piss off.

[Worriedman]

The TN Constitution only grants the state, and therefore the subdivisions of the state certain enumerated powers.  Show me where landscaping, or zoning commissions are listed in those enumerated powers.

 

Your peers in the City or the County make the laws of the land that you will abide by.

Dodge and dive as usual, but violate a County or City restrictive code, ordinance or rule and you too can be cooling your heels in jail. 
That enumerated enough for you?

 

Or am I incorrect that City and County governments can take property by the power of imminent domain?

Edited June 23, 2013 by Worriedman

[mav]

Your neighbor won't cut their grass?  That is fine cause I can take care of that.  Spray their lawn with a 30% ammonium sulfamate solution and it will kill it all (weeds, grass, everything) within 2 days and it will stay dead for quite some time. ;)

[Spots]

Your neighbor won't cut their grass?  That is fine cause I can take care of that.  Spray their lawn with a 30% ammonium sulfamate solution and it will kill it all (weeds, grass, everything) within 2 days and it will stay dead for quite some time. ;)

 

Your neighbor runs his mower all the time? Drive some rebar in the yard at the right height and it'll destroy his mower. See how that works. How about we leave each other alone one their own property. HOA's do a lot. They make stupid rules, charge ridiculous fees, and generally are run by power tripping little jerkoffs who are way more interested in your grass being 1/2" to high than actually helping the neighborhood. You can come drive through my non-HOA controlled neighborhood anytime Robetnashville. All the lawns are cut, the fields are growing in fresh hay, and not one single fuck is given about what your neighbor is doing. We all mind our own business, and do as we please.

[mav]

Your neighbor runs his mower all the time? Drive some rebar in the yard at the right height and it'll destroy his mower. See how that works. How about we leave each other alone one their own property. HOA's do a lot. They make stupid rules, charge ridiculous fees, and generally are run by power tripping little jerkoffs who are way more interested in your grass being 1/2" to high than actually helping the neighborhood. You can come drive through my non-HOA controlled neighborhood anytime Robetnashville. All the lawns are cut, the fields are growing in fresh hay, and not one single #### is given about what your neighbor is doing. We all mind our own business, and do as we please.

 

Dude, lighten up a lot.  ;) usually indicates someone is not serious, although I wasn't joking about the effectiveness of ammonium sulfamate; it will kill it all.

 

If an individual lives within the confines of a HOA, then they are obligated to maintain their property as the rules dictate.  If they do not want to comply, have their grass cut for them and stick them with the bill.  The police should never be involved.

 

If you don't live under a HOA, then do as you please outside of burning fields or something crazy that could endanger someone else's property.  An individual could plant fields of marijuana for all I care.

Edited June 23, 2013 by mav

[East_TN_Patriot]

I would suggest that in this case, it is the individual who wants to live in a way that is not consistent with community standards that has the obligation find a place where their lifestyle will not interfere with others, not expect everyone else to bend and tolerate their crappy habits.  If you want to trash your property, then move out in the middle of nowhere and trash your property to your heart's content.  People who live in a community with an HOA do so by their own choice.  They are informed of the community's requirements and agree to them when they purchase their property.  People who choose to purchase property within the limits of a municipality are obligated to abide by the codes and ordinances of that city, which are available to the public.  When we purchased our current home, we did not want to live in a community with an HOA.  We ended up compromising on a neighborhood that had minimal regulations that we thought were pretty reasonable and if we decide we don't want to follow them, we can either request a variance through the HOA or we can move.  I am content knowing that I live in a neighborhood where I don't have to worry about getting a new neighbor who will turn their front yard into a junk car lot and their backyard into a chicken and goat farm like happened where I lived before.  I respect another person's right to raise livestock on their property, but I also believe I have the right to choose to live in a neighborhood that collectively agrees to not allow raising livestock in a residential neighborhood.  

 

I wonder if these same "property rights" arguments would be voiced if your neighbor was the one with the crappy looking yard bringing down your property values, attracting varmints like snakes and rodents, and being a general eye sore every time you walk out of your door.  Do we have the right to play loud rap music until 4 in the morning?  I know of several people on TGO who were very vocally opposed to the property rights of those who wanted to build a mosque in central TN a few months ago.  

Edited June 24, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[mikegideon]

Your neighbor won't cut their grass?  That is fine cause I can take care of that.  Spray their lawn with a 30% ammonium sulfamate solution and it will kill it all (weeds, grass, everything) within 2 days and it will stay dead for quite some time. ;)

 

Is this recent research? :)

[mav]

Is this recent research? :)

 

No, it has been around for decades.  It is incredibly inexpensive (40 lb of a 30% solution would cost about $5.00 to make from sulfamic acid and ammonium hydroxide).  Don't mistake this for ammonium sulfate, which is ammonium hydroxide and sulfuric acid.

[enfield]

Boy.. I am so glad I live in the county
 
I rather live in my horse trailer  than in a HOA ruled  area.

Me too!

[JayC]

The constitution (state and federal) limits the laws that can be written to a small list of enumerated powers...  The scope of laws is limited by those restrictions...  So my peers can't make up laws and punishments for those laws out of thin air, without being granted those powers in the constitution. It's the entire reasoning behind our form of government....

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

No government can morally or legally take away those rights without the consent of the governed...  We did just that by passing both a state and federal constitution, which granted the federal government, and the state governments very limited powers...  now an argument can be made that we haven't held those governments (or subdivisions of those governments) in the proper check...  but it doesn't change the fact that we have natural rights that stand above any form of government, and among those rights is the right to own property - referenced in the Declaration of Independence as 'pursuit of Happiness' because some were concerned that saying property would have recognized the right to own slaves as a natural right.

 

You're right, run afoul of little petty despots "laws" and they'll send an armed gang to your house to take you by force, but that doesn't give them the moral or ethical authority to violate your rights, just because 9 men in black robes says it's ok.

 

And finally, you're not incorrect all levels of government can take property via eminent domain, but they must provide just compensation.  Where is the compensation for the landowners when the government passes new zoning laws that prohibit land owners from exercising their property rights.

 

BTW, this taking clause was meant to keep the government in check...  by limiting the amount of control that a government could have over private property only if they would provide just compensation for that 'taking' or control they attempted to exert over that property.

 

I know, it's only a little radical to suggest we force the federal government to operate within the confines of the constitution...  people have grown so accustomed to them violating those limits...  but we should also hold the state and the subdivisions of the state to that same standard as well...  which I understand is a lot more radical thought process for most people to grasp, but the real tyranny in our day to day lives is from petty despots who live next door and want to force their view of a perfect society on others.  

 

And trust me I try and keep my my radical views off the forums so I don't have to watch statism "conservative'" heads explode...  but the real radical notion is how can I be held to a contractual agreement reached by men who haven't been alive for over a 150 years, where they agreed to give up some of our natural rights in perpetuity without ever giving me a choice?  Wrap your statist conservative head around that one :)

 

And no I haven't lost touch with reality...  I know full well how our current 'system' works today...  and it's working so well that we shouldn't strive to change it back to one of liberty and natural rights  :)

 

Your peers in the City or the County make the laws of the land that you will abide by.

Dodge and dive as usual, but violate a County or City restrictive code, ordinance or rule and you too can be cooling your heels in jail. 
That enumerated enough for you?

 

Or am I incorrect that City and County governments can take property by the power of imminent domain?

Edited June 24, 2013 by JayC

[Raoul]

No, it has been around for decades.  It is incredibly inexpensive (40 lb of a 30% solution would cost about $5.00 to make from sulfamic acid and ammonium hydroxide).  Don't mistake this for ammonium sulfate, which is ammonium hydroxide and sulfuric acid.

I guess you're no longer looking for a mower? :-)

[mikegideon]

No, it has been around for decades.  It is incredibly inexpensive (40 lb of a 30% solution would cost about $5.00 to make from sulfamic acid and ammonium hydroxide).  Don't mistake this for ammonium sulfate, which is ammonium hydroxide and sulfuric acid.

 

I knew you had a recent interest in grass control :)

[RobertNashville]

The constitution (state and federal) limits the laws that can be written to a small list of enumerated powers...  The scope of laws is limited by those restrictions...  So my peers can't make up laws and punishments for those laws out of thin air, without being granted those powers in the constitution. It's the entire reasoning behind our form of government....

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

No government can morally or legally take away those rights without the consent of the governed...  We did just that by passing both a state and federal constitution, which granted the federal government, and the state governments very limited powers...  now an argument can be made that we haven't held those governments (or subdivisions of those governments) in the proper check...  but it doesn't change the fact that we have natural rights that stand above any form of government, and among those rights is the right to own property - referenced in the Declaration of Independence as 'pursuit of Happiness' because some were concerned that saying property would have recognized the right to own slaves as a natural right.

 

You're right, run afoul of little petty despots "laws" and they'll send an armed gang to your house to take you by force, but that doesn't give them the moral or ethical authority to violate your rights, just because 9 men in black robes says it's ok.

 

And finally, you're not incorrect all levels of government can take property via eminent domain, but they must provide just compensation.  Where is the compensation for the landowners when the government passes new zoning laws that prohibit land owners from exercising their property rights.

 

BTW, this taking clause was meant to keep the government in check...  by limiting the amount of control that a government could have over private property only if they would provide just compensation for that 'taking' or control they attempted to exert over that property.

 

I know, it's only a little radical to suggest we force the federal government to operate within the confines of the constitution...  people have grown so accustomed to them violating those limits...  but we should also hold the state and the subdivisions of the state to that same standard as well...  which I understand is a lot more radical thought process for most people to grasp, but the real tyranny in our day to day lives is from petty despots who live next door and want to force their view of a perfect society on others.  

 

And trust me I try and keep my my radical views off the forums so I don't have to watch statism "conservative'" heads explode...  but the real radical notion is how can I be held to a contractual agreement reached by men who haven't been alive for over a 150 years, where they agreed to give up some of our natural rights in perpetuity without ever giving me a choice?  Wrap your statist conservative head around that one :)

 

And no I haven't lost touch with reality...  I know full well how our current 'system' works today...  and it's working so well that we shouldn't strive to change it back to one of liberty and natural rights  :)

If changing it back means that my next door neighbor can decide to turn his lot into a junk yard then I'll more than happy to keep things as they are. I'm quite happy that I live; in fact I chose to live in a community that has basic requirements on what my neighbors (and I) can do and not do on my property because what those neighbors do can DIRECTLY affect my health and my finances and MY ability to enjoy MY property.

 

Show me where requiring someone to mow their grass is violation of the 5th amendment?

 

Tell me again where in the Constitution where it says citizens can't enter into contracts or voluntarily agree to abide by community standards (such as in a HOA or dead restrictions)?

 

If I wanted to live in a community that didn't allow anything but electric cars into the community and I join with fellow citizens who want the same, that Constitution you mention protects MY and my fellow citizen's right to enter into that contractual agreement (through a HOA or dead restrictions, for example). 

 

When it comes to actual community codes/zoning, etc. those "despots" you talk about were put into office by the very people who have to live under the laws they passed or in some cases, these laws are directly voted into law by those same citizens...that's not "out of thin air"; that's free people deciding how they want THEIR community to operate and frankly; it's really no one's business how that community operates except those who chose to live there.

Edited June 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

Robert,

 

First lets separate two things...  because they are not one and the same....  local laws by a government are different from deed restrictions or a HOA agreements that are part of the contract you enter into when you buy a property.  So don't switch back and forth between the two as if they're the same thing, because they're not.

 

If you want to buy up a 1,000 acres of land, develop it, and then sell the plots of land to people, and in that contract there are restrictions on what they can or can't do...  I'm perfectly fine with that (within reason and as long as it doesn't violate basic freedoms and the rule against perpetuities).  BTW the enforcement for this type of action is a civil one, not criminal.

 

Now lets deal with local, county, and state governments...  because they're a different animal entirely...  Our forefathers granted these governments very limited enumerated powers and if they act outside those powers, no matter how much the people want them to, they are a violation of our natural rights...   Both the federal and state constitutions have a taking clause in them that prohibits the GOVERNMENT from taking in part or in whole property from a person without just compensation.  Placing restrictions on a persons property in the form of zoning restrictions is taking away property rights from the owner, without providing just compensation.

 

BTW, lets run down the rabbit hole of people voted for these measures and therefore they must be legal...  One man can't take away my rights and enslave me, but if 50%+1 do so it's just fine?  That is the classic definition of tyranny of the majority...  You have a natural right to own property that is not unwillingly restricted by the 'government' period...  Our forefathers seeing that some cases may come up where it's in the public interest to place restrictions on property placed a balance on that action by saying you can take/restrict a person's property but government has to pay them just compensation for that taking.

 

BTW where is this contract I signed when moving into a community to live how they want me to live?  Because I sure don't remember signing that contract giving up all of my natural rights to the whim of the majority of my neighbors...  I'm pretty sure I didn't sign those rights away.

 

 

If changing it back means that my next door neighbor can decide to turn his lot into a junk yard then I'll more than happy to keep things as they are. I'm quite happy that I live; in fact I chose to live in a community that has basic requirements on what my neighbors (and I) can do and not do on my property because what those neighbors do can DIRECTLY affect my health and my finances and MY ability to enjoy MY property.

 

Show me where requiring someone to mow their grass is violation of the 5th amendment?

 

Tell me again where in the Constitution where it says citizens can't enter into contracts or voluntarily agree to abide by community standards (such as in a HOA or dead restrictions)?

 

If I wanted to live in a community that didn't allow anything but electric cars into the community and I join with fellow citizens who want the same, that Constitution you mention protects MY and my fellow citizen's right to enter into that contractual agreement (through a HOA or dead restrictions, for example). 

 

When it comes to actual community codes/zoning, etc. those "despots" you talk about were put into office by the very people who have to live under the laws they passed or in some cases, these laws are directly voted into law by those same citizens...that's not "out of thin air"; that's free people deciding how they want THEIR community to operate and frankly; it's really no one's business how that community operates except those who chose to live there.

 

[Chucktshoes]

I'm just gonna leave this here as this conversation is representative of the point the image is making.

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

 

First lets separate two things...  because they are not one and the same....  local laws by a government are different from deed restrictions or a HOA agreements that are part of the contract you enter into when you buy a property.  So don't switch back and forth between the two as if they're the same thing, because they're not.

 

If you want to buy up a 1,000 acres of land, develop it, and then sell the plots of land to people, and in that contract there are restrictions on what they can or can't do...  I'm perfectly fine with that (within reason and as long as it doesn't violate basic freedoms and the rule against perpetuities).  BTW the enforcement for this type of action is a civil one, not criminal.

 

Now lets deal with local, county, and state governments...  because they're a different animal entirely...  Our forefathers granted these governments very limited enumerated powers and if they act outside those powers, no matter how much the people want them to, they are a violation of our natural rights...   Both the federal and state constitutions have a taking clause in them that prohibits the GOVERNMENT from taking in part or in whole property from a person without just compensation.  Placing restrictions on a persons property in the form of zoning restrictions is taking away property rights from the owner, without providing just compensation.

 

BTW, lets run down the rabbit hole of people voted for these measures and therefore they must be legal...  One man can't take away my rights and enslave me, but if 50%+1 do so it's just fine?  That is the classic definition of tyranny of the majority...  You have a natural right to own property that is not unwillingly restricted by the 'government' period...  Our forefathers seeing that some cases may come up where it's in the public interest to place restrictions on property placed a balance on that action by saying you can take/restrict a person's property but government has to pay them just compensation for that taking.

 

BTW where is this contract I signed when moving into a community to live how they want me to live?  Because I sure don't remember signing that contract giving up all of my natural rights to the whim of the majority of my neighbors...  I'm pretty sure I didn't sign those rights away.

I'm well aware of the difference between the two issues; HOA/deed restrictions and laws/codes of the community.

 

With regards to community laws, no one stole or is steeling anyone's rights...laws are usually made by elected representatives; elected by the people who have to live under the laws these elected representatives make. That is  not despotic...that is not taking your rights away...or making up laws out of thin air...that is our system of government.  If a person doesn't like those laws they have some choices, live under them anyway, try to change them, move or don't follow them and face the consequences.

 

Whoever owns the property in this story is facing the consequences; that seems totally fair and equitable to me.

 

You also seem intent on ignoring one very simple point; when a property owner living in a community decides to not take care of his property in the way the laws of the community require, he IS impacting his neighbors and that impact can have a negative financial and a health impact on that person's neighbors...your property rights do not grant you the right to hurt me financially or impact my health whether it's not maintaining your yard, storing junk cars in your front yard or any number of other things.

 

The takings clause doesn't apply here; requiring someone to mow their yard is not "taking" anyone's property or causing that person any undue hardship that he needs to be compensated for.

Edited June 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I'm just gonna leave this here as this conversation is representative of the point the image is making.

there is nothing more libertarian than people freely entering into contracts that establish how a community member must do things like maintain his property in that community.

 

Similarly, it is quite libertarian for people to elect representatives to represent their interests and, when needed, establish laws that require residents to maintain their property in that community in a certain way.  No one is being forced to live in a community with those laws...no one is being held in that community against their will and all who do live there can use the democratic process to try and change or remove laws that they believe should be.

 

Part of our "freedom" is the freedom to chose where we will live and what laws we want to live under.

[Chucktshoes]

there is nothing more libertarian than people freely entering into contracts that establish how a community member must do things like maintain his property in that community.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is disputing the validity of a voluntarily entered into contract such as an HOA. Some of us just don't like them, so we won't enter into those contracts.

Similarly, it is quite libertarian for people to elect representatives to represent their interests and, when needed, establish laws that require residents to maintain their property in that community in a certain way. No one is being forced to live in a community with those laws...no one is being held in that community against their will and all who do live there can use the democratic process to try and change or remove laws that they believe should be.

Part of our "freedom" is the freedom to chose where we will live and what laws we want to live under.

You need a new dictionary as the definition of words like "libertarian" in yours seems to have fallen from an inter-dimensional portal from Bizarro Land. :lol: What you described is quite the authoritarian position.

What about the person who owned their property prior to their neighbors electing some busybodies who then enacted a law requiring action by that landowner in regards to their property? Your right to use the government to control your neighbors begins and ends at YOUR property line, just as their right to do the same ends at their property line. Edited June 24, 2013 by Chucktshoes