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

[JayC]

Laws being passed whether they be from elected representatives, or passed as a ballot item doesn't change the tyranny of the majority.  The government is violating the property rights whenever they pass a law that restricts the owners property rights without providing just compensation.  There is no way to square that circle... you can dress it up in a fancy dress and put makeup on it, but it's still a pig.

 

Lets pretend that a person is causing you damage by not cutting your grass..  we already have a method to deal with that outside of zoning restrictions...  you just file a lawsuit and prove harm by the landowners negligence and bingo the problem is solved.  Oh wait that would require you to prove actual damages, probably not something you could do over the lack of cut grass huh?

 

So instead you want to force through the threat of violence that somebody cut their grass because you think it *might* cause you some financial damage some point in the future?  But that isn't a form of tyranny?  Please.

 

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.

 

[JayC]

First you seem to have a misunderstanding of liberty...  Libertarians believe that you elect representatives to govern and make laws based on a limited list of enumerated powers and only those enumerated powers.  That private and civil solutions should always be used instead of the force of government... and only use government solutions when there is no private or civil alternative.

 

They also believe that the natural rights of a person stand above any form of government, including property rights.  

 

Again you continue to confuse contracts with government force...  Nobody has argued that HOA/deed restrictions violate a person's liberty... only that actions by the government violate property rights unless just compensation is provided to the property owner.

 

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.

 

[RobertNashville]

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.
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.

There is nothing authoritarian about people freely crafting what laws they want to live under in their community and for people who don't live in that community it's none of their business.

 

The person who owned their property prior has a right to make his feelings known, vote for representatives and/or for specific laws and then live with the consequences or try to change them or move. No rights violated...nothing unfair...nothing unequitible about that.

[RobertNashville]

I really appreciate you all trying to educate me on Libertarian thought and the Constitution....but I like to think for myself; thank you.

 

What laws me and my community chose to live under is no one's business but ours.

 

If we chose to use criminal codes rather than tort law to cover such issues as having standards for how property must be taken care of there is NOTHING wrong with that; all your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

[JayC]

Robert, what you're describing is the EXACT definition of authoritarian!  Some group of people take away some part of your property rights without your consent!  You had the right have uncut grass on your property one day, and the next even though you're totally opposed to it you no longer have that right....

 

How can you keep saying the community hasn't taken something away?  Hasn't taken a liberty (aka property rights) away?  How?  Your contention is that nothing has been taken, no liberty infringed, isn't logical.

 

And your entire premise that if I don't like my rights being taken away against my will is to leave my property and move...  that is the definition of tyranny.

 

Stop hiding and embrace your statist beliefs just say what you really mean...  you want other persons to conform to your vision of what society should do, and you're happy to use violence and the threats of violence to make them do what you want.  At least that argument would be logically valid!

 

 

There is nothing authoritarian about people freely crafting what laws they want to live under in their community and for people who don't live in that community it's none of their business.

 

The person who owned their property prior has a right to make his feelings known, vote for representatives and/or for specific laws and then live with the consequences or try to change them or move. No rights violated...nothing unfair...nothing unequitible about that.

Edited June 24, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

It is MY business because you and I live in the same community (generally speaking), and your statist views that you can force me to do whatever you want as long as 50%+1 of the voters agrees directly impacts my liberty and natural rights!

 

How doesn't your views that using violence and the threat of violence to impose your viewpoint on others not threaten me and my natural rights directly?

 

I really appreciate you all trying to educate me on Libertarian thought and the Constitution....but I like to think for myself; thank you.

 

What laws me and my community chose to live under is no one's business but ours.

 

If we chose to use criminal codes rather than tort law to cover such issues as having standards for how property must be taken care of there is NOTHING wrong with that; all your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[RobertNashville]

No one is taking anything without consent; these laws get passed through some mechanism or another by consent of the governed; just because someone else doesn't like them is immaterial and most especially immaterial if you don't even live there...it's not anyone's business what rules/laws my community in Murfreesboro decides to have unless you live there...our decisions don't impact your rights in any way.

 

I'm quite secure in my definition of freedom and liberty; that you or Chuck doesn't agree isn't going to change my mind.

Edited June 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

I'm quite secure in my definition of freedom and liberty; that you or Chuck doesn't agree isn't going to change my mind.

As secure as the calf was in its pen before it became my dinner last night.

[RobertNashville]

As secure as the calf was in its pen before it became my dinner last night.

Really bad analogy since the calf, I'm pretty sure, did not decide of his own accord to be there or have the freedom to leave anytime he wanted or change his "pen".

 

Why do want to keep going on and on about this?  Do you think doing so is actually going to bring me to see things your way?

 

How about you let me live the way I want and you live the way you want...just don't move to my community unless you are willing to live under the laws we've agreed to live under.

Edited June 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

Really bad analogy since the calf didn't put himself there of his own accord.

 

Why do want to keep going on and on about this?  Do you think doing so is actually going to bring me to see things your way?

 

How about you let me live the way I want and you live the way you want...just don't move to my community unless you are willing to live under the laws we've agreed to live under.

Unlike you who has apparently done so quite willingly.  I understand that can be hard for you to understand this, but as the calf was unwilling, so was the person minding his own business before his neighbors decided to be busybodies and dictate how he/she was to make use of their own property. Neighbors who then believe it is appropriate to use the government threat of violence to enforce their will. I do find it quite amusing that when defending your position you slip into phrasing the issue in terms of the "democratic process" in the same manner the left defends their attack on the 2A. No "democratic process" may legitimately infringe upon the fundamental liberties of the individual, those things most succinctly described by three words, "life, liberty, property".

 

As far as why I keep going on with it, I just like to argue. I especially like to argue with folks who claim to believers in the constitution and its foundational principles of individual freedom with the rights of the individual to direct their own life, liberty and property but in reality are nothing more than authoritarian statists whose only real and substantial difference from the brand of marxist/socialist/communist statist they purport to stand against is in the details that they wish to control in the lives of others. 

 

If you live under an HOA, have no fear, I will never be your neighbor. Otherwise, I will ignore illegitimate diktats from petty tyrants and busybodies.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Chucktshoes]

[Worriedman]

 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.

Well, it might until annexation.  Then the story changes.

 

I like the premise though.  Taxes are a taking, I am all for getting the government out of my wallet, and my bank account. Y'all figure out how to forestall the City, the County and the School Board let me know.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

Unlike you who has apparently done so quite willingly.  I understand that can be hard for you to understand this, but as the calf was unwilling, so was the person minding his own business before his neighbors decided to be busybodies and dictate how he/she was to make use of their own property. Neighbors who then believe it is appropriate to use the government threat of violence to enforce their will. I do find it quite amusing that when defending your position you slip into phrasing the issue in terms of the "democratic process" in the same manner the left defends their attack on the 2A. No "democratic process" may legitimately infringe upon the fundamental liberties of the individual, those things most succinctly described by three words, "life, liberty, property".
 
As far as why I keep going on with it, I just like to argue. I especially like to argue with folks who claim to believers in the constitution and its foundational principles of individual freedom with the rights of the individual to direct their own life, liberty and property but in reality are nothing more than authoritarian statists whose only real and substantial difference from the brand of marxist/socialist/communist statist they purport to stand against is in the details that they wish to control in the lives of others. 
 
If you live under an HOA, have no fear, I will never be your neighbor. Otherwise, I will ignore illegitimate diktats from petty tyrants and busybodies.

The person wasn't minding his own business...he was refusing to comply with the laws he voluntarily agreed to live under.

As far as your referring ti me as being one of those "folks who claim to believers in the constitution and its foundational principles of individual freedom with the rights of the individual to direct their own life, liberty and property but in reality are nothing more than authoritarian statists whose only real and substantial difference from the brand of marxist/socialist/communist statist they purport to stand against is in the details that they wish to control in the lives of others." I'm not surprised you regress to such attacks.

 

I'm not surprised about the insults as it's a pretty typical response from Libertarians whenever someone doesn't agree with their particular brand of political thought. I've seen it happen for years now and in an especially vehement way during the last Presidential election cycle.  What I find strange is that Libertarians attack others in this way and then can't figure out why their ranks are small or why their candidates never make any real inroads.

 

Maybe insulting people as a way to get them to see things the Libertarian way works with some folks but it doesn't work with me and and think the Libertarian party's lack of success is a pretty good indicator that it's not working for many other people either. :shrug:

Edited June 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

 

"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."

  :)

...laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

My point all along in this discussion is that we need the right people elected to be our servants, (and they need to understand that they are supposed to be servants, not rulers) and then they need to listen to the petitioners, with reasonable request. 

 

If each of us gets to make all the determinations about how our property is used, well, I believe "Helter Skelter" is a term I have heard before...

 

Should I be able to simply shoot the criminal that runs a barbed wire fence across my 85 year old Father's property, attempting to, as they put it, "adversely posses it", (I call it theft)?  Sheriff knew who owned the property, but maintained that we had to pay for a survey and verify the deed that was held was valid before he would make them take the fence down, even though he grew up in the neighborhood and knew what was what. (This was not on some back acreage but rather through the middle of his front yard, cutting off his front door access.) Nearly two years later the crooks have not been held liable, no one has repaid my dad for the money spent on the survey to prove what we all already knew.  We retained council, sued for the money to pay for the survey and to this day have not received a court date.

You can fight City Hall and the County Court, but you will not win.  Pay your taxes and be a Tennessee Teacher of the Year, and the law will let a meth head terrorize you in your home in your old age.  You can give the Sheriff video of the neighbor parking their truck in such a manner as to shine its lights into your 84 year old Mothers bedroom window and setting the alarm off at 3 in the morning every day for a week, time stamped on a DVR, and they will tell you that they have to witness it happen to be a crime, while the neighbor is under a Restraining Order to leave the old folks alone.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Worriedman

[Chucktshoes]

Unlike you who has apparently done so quite willingly. I understand that can be hard for you to understand this, but as the calf was unwilling, so was the person minding his own business before his neighbors decided to be busybodies and dictate how he/she was to make use of their own property. Neighbors who then believe it is appropriate to use the government threat of violence to enforce their will. I do find it quite amusing that when defending your position you slip into phrasing the issue in terms of the "democratic process" in the same manner the left defends their attack on the 2A. No "democratic process" may legitimately infringe upon the fundamental liberties of the individual, those things most succinctly described by three words, "life, liberty, property".



As far as why I keep going on with it, I just like to argue. I especially like to argue with folks who claim to believers in the constitution and its foundational principles of individual freedom with the rights of the individual to direct their own life, liberty and property but in reality are nothing more than authoritarian statists whose only real and substantial difference from the brand of marxist/socialist/communist statist they purport to stand against is in the details that they wish to control in the lives of others.



If you live under an HOA, have no fear, I will never be your neighbor. Otherwise, I will ignore illegitimate diktats from petty tyrants and busybodies.

The person wasn't minding his own business...he was refusing to comply with the laws he voluntarily agreed to live under.


As far as your referring ti me as being one of those "folks who claim to believers in the constitution and its foundational principles of individual freedom with the rights of the individual to direct their own life, liberty and property but in reality are nothing more than authoritarian statists whose only real and substantial difference from the brand of marxist/socialist/communist statist they purport to stand against is in the details that they wish to control in the lives of others." I'm not surprised you regress to such attacks.

I'm not surprised about the insults as it's a pretty typical response from Libertarians whenever someone doesn't agree with their particular brand of political thought. I've seen it happen for years now and in an especially vehement way during the last Presidential election cycle. What I find strange is that Libertarians attack others in this way and then can't figure out why their ranks are small or why their candidates never make any real inroads.

Maybe insulting people as a way to get them to see things the Libertarian way works with some folks but it doesn't work with me and and think the Libertarian party's lack of success is a pretty good indicator that it's not working for many other people either. :shrug:

I'm not trying to get you to see things the libertarian way, I learned long ago that you are a statist and well, statists gonna state.


P.S. It's good to have you on the opposite side of the argument again. We have been agreeing on far too much lately.

[vontar]

Papers Please.

[tnguy]

I have a short 2' wide strip of land that's difficult to mow that I let get a little long one time and I got a letter from the city govt telling me to tidy it up or they would and charge me. Chapped my ass but if they're going to worry about it, that's the correct way. The letter suggested it was likely to be a home for rats or somesuch nonsense. I'm sure if it had been a hedge, there would have been no issue. (Hmm, now there's an idea).

 

On the other hand, if things get seriously delinquent, I can see that something would need to be done that's a step above that. I'm all for being able to do what you want with what you own but in some circumstances, you are agreeing to be bound by local standards (the property value thing is bunk though). I could never be in a HOA though. That's just selling your soul.

[tnguy]

 

This is a favorite quote of mine but I think it's important to note that Heinlein was putting these words into the mouth of one of his characters and it shouldn't be attributed to him directly.

[tnguy]

I think Robert's definition of freedom is the freedom to do what you're told to.

[Chucktshoes]

This is a favorite quote of mine but I think it's important to note that Heinlein was putting these words into the mouth of one of his characters and it shouldn't be attributed to him directly.

Fair Point. Though to be honest, when I read Lazarus Long, he has Heinlein's voice in my head. Edited July 2, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[tnguy]

Fair Point. Though to be honest, when I read Lazarus Long, he has Heinlein's voice in my head.

 

It's not Lazarus Long. I forget the name though. Google to the rescue... I believe it was Professor Bernardo de la Paz from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

[RobertNashville]

I think Robert's definition of freedom is the freedom to do what you're told to.

I think someone WHO JUST JOINED TODAY might do well to know somethng about a member here before they start speaking  :poop:  about him and insulting him.

Edited July 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

I think somone WHO JUST JOINED TODAY might do well to know somethng about a member here before they start speaking  :poop:  about him and insulting him.

 

I apologise if I incorrectly interpreted the words that you wrote.

[Chucktshoes]

Fair Point. Though to be honest, when I read Lazarus Long, he has Heinlein's voice in my head.

It's not Lazarus Long. I forget the name though. Google to the rescue... I believe it was Professor Bernardo de la Paz from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Doh!

[RichardR]

I apologise if I incorrectly interpreted the words that you wrote.

Welcome to TGO TNguy! You shouldn't apologize when you're right about something.

Don't get me wrong, I like ol'e Robert, I wouldn't swap spit with the man or anything but gladly I'd share a meal &/or drink a brewskie or two with him anytime..

He does however seem to have a great deal of personal tolerance for tyranny/authoritarianism, so I'd say you were right on target with your assessment.

But most Americans share this sort of tolerance of tyranny, because it is a "soft-tyranny", a for our own good tyranny, a to keep us safe tyranny, it has been packaged & sold to the American public in small, easy to swallow doses, flavored with sugary kool-aid goodness.

I will say that Robert is starting to show little signs of "waking up" but he still holds pretty fast (as most folks do) to the American 2 political party deception.