Man gets 30 days in jail for unfinished siding project

[steveh_131]

You use the term "fascist" so freely, I would be interested to see how you would react met with real fascist actions.

'Real' fascism begins with the small time fascism. Once you decide you can control the length of your neighbor's grass, it's easy to start wanting to control more and more.

Anyone who reads the news sees proof of this principle on a daily basis.

 

[GBuck]

Let me make sure I'm clear on where I'm coming from with this argument.

I am not interested in city ordinances or statutes. I am discussing property rights in more of a moral sense.

The problem with that is, people are no longer trusted to be moral, because there are so many people that have no morals. The moral thing to do is not be a dead beat on the upkeep of your house so that you don't have a negative effect on your neighbors values. However, people insist that they can destroy their property or let it turn into an eyesore and effect me. Therefore, there have to be codes to keep people like that from being a**hats.

Everyone is talking so highly on their definition of property rights. My opinion states that I have a right to have a good and fair value on my property proportionate to the work I put into my property. If you don't keep up your end of the deal it effects my property rights. See how that works?

Kinda the, "your right to throw a punch lands at the end of my nose" concept.

 

[steveh_131]

The problem with that is, people are no longer trusted to be moral, because there are so many people that have no morals. The moral thing to do is not be a dead beat on the upkeep of your house so that you don't have a negative effect on your neighbors values. However, people insist that they can destroy their property or let it turn into an eyesore and effect me. Therefore, there have to be codes to keep people like that from being a**hats.

Everyone is talking so highly on their definition of property rights. My opinion states that I have a right to have a good and fair value on my property proportionate to the work I put into my property. If you don't keep up your end of the deal it effects my property rights. See how that works?

Kinda the, "your right to throw a punch lands at the end of my nose" concept.

Then please answer the hypothetical questions that I posed.

 

[serpicostraight]

The problem with that is, people are no longer trusted to be moral, because there are so many people that have no morals. The moral thing to do is not be a dead beat on the upkeep of your house so that you don't have a negative effect on your neighbors values. However, people insist that they can destroy their property or let it turn into an eyesore and effect me. Therefore, there have to be codes to keep people like that from being a**hats.

Everyone is talking so highly on their definition of property rights. My opinion states that I have a right to have a good and fair value on my property proportionate to the work I put into my property. If you don't keep up your end of the deal it effects my property rights. See how that works?

Kinda the, "your right to throw a punch lands at the end of my nose" concept.

so if bill gates moves in next door to you and decides your little shack is an eyesore to his 20 million dollar mansion then it should be condemned and demolished?

 

[GBuck]

so if bill gates moves in next door to you and decides your little shack is an eyesore to his 20 million dollar mansion then it should be condemned and demolished?

No. Just because he says it is an eyesore means nothing. That is why there is a division of code enforcement. He can complain to them if he'd like, but as long as I'm holding up my end, there is nothing they can do.


Let's all remember, the title of this thread is grossly negligent. The man was not arrested for the siding. The "jackboots" did not demolish his house. He spent two days in jail for failure to appear in court.

 

[GBuck]

Then please answer the hypothetical questions that I posed.

The questions have been answered by someone else, I'm not re-answering something because you were not satisfied with the answers given.

 

[steveh_131]

The questions have been answered by someone else, I'm not re-answering something because you were not satisfied with the answers given.

Once again, I'm not discussing the legality. And that was the answer given.

In the hypothetical situations that I posed, would you feel that your property rights were violated? Why or why not? And why are they different than an unsided house?

 

[thebishopp]

No. Just because he says it is an eyesore means nothing. That is why there is a division of code enforcement. He can complain to them if he'd like, but as long as I'm holding up my end, there is nothing they can do.


Let's all remember, the title of this thread is grossly negligent. The man was not arrested for the siding. The "jackboots" did not demolish his house. He spent two days in jail for failure to appear in court.

Actually he can use his money and influence to get those "codes" to say what he needs them to say. Money in the right spots and "additions" or "changes" to certain city building codes and your eyesore of a house is no longer his problem.

The point I believe is that he should never of had to go to court to begin with.

 

[thebishopp]

My neighbor across the street rents out his property. I do not like this because he has new tenants every few months or so. They don't really do anything to me but I feel that he is "misusing" his property. I think it also lowers my property value having unstable neighbors. I need someone to sue him and maybe get him thrown in jail if he doesn't like it.

My other neighbor has a canary yellow house. I don't like canary yellow, it kind of offends me and I think it is a misuse of both the house and the color canary yellow. I need someone to sue him and maybe get him thrown in jail if he doesn't like it.

In fact while we are on the subject of "misusing" property. There is quite a lot of that going on. I think it is a "misuse" to own guns and not use them. and if you do use them I think it is a "misue" to use certain types of low quality ammo in them. We need the government to step in and require use of the firearms on a regular basis... but not OVERuse or that will be misuse as well. In addition government regulation requiring only high quality ammo.

Also gas, I think we it is a shame to put low quality gas in high quality cars. I think if your car is a certain type of car a government regulation requiring the use of only the highest quality gas should be instituted.

Also people who own pools but don't use them. What a misuse of a pool. Fines in order. We need them to supply actual useage dates to show that they are not under and thus misusing their pool.

Eating too much/drinking too much/etc. etc. etc., this is a misuse of a person's body. Need to get that under control. Let's get some jail time going on this one.... after all one's body is one's temple owned by and for the good of the state/nation.

In fact I think it is a misue of money when spent on frivolous things. After all isn't it a better use of our money to help our fellow man and also to get our nation out of debt? We should regulate how much money is spent on "non-essential" items or "luxury" items (Essential items would be like food that does not exceed the federally mandated daily caloric and nutritional intake law passed to control our misuse of our bodies).

Shooting too much of that federally mandated high quality ammo would fall into the misuse of money category.

 

[GBuck]

My neighbor across the street rents out his property. I do not like this because he has new tenants every few months or so. They don't really do anything to me but I feel that he is "misusing" his property. I think it also lowers my property value having unstable neighbors. I need someone to sue him and maybe get him thrown in jail if he doesn't like it.

My other neighbor has a canary yellow house. I don't like canary yellow, it kind of offends me and I think it is a misuse of both the house and the color canary yellow. I need someone to sue him and maybe get him thrown in jail if he doesn't like it.

In fact while we are on the subject of "misusing" property. There is quite a lot of that going on. I think it is a "misuse" to own guns and not use them. and if you do use them I think it is a "misue" to use certain types of low quality ammo in them. We need the government to step in and require use of the firearms on a regular basis... but not OVERuse or that will be misuse as well. In addition government regulation requiring only high quality ammo.

Also gas, I think we it is a shame to put low quality gas in high quality cars. I think if your car is a certain type of car a government regulation requiring the use of only the highest quality gas should be instituted.

Also people who own pools but don't use them. What a misuse of a pool. Fines in order. We need them to supply actual useage dates to show that they are not under and thus misusing their pool.

Eating too much/drinking too much/etc. etc. etc., this is a misuse of a person's body. Need to get that under control. Let's get some jail time going on this one.... after all one's body is one's temple owned by and for the good of the state/nation.

In fact I think it is a misue of money when spent on frivolous things. After all isn't it a better use of our money to help our fellow man and also to get our nation out of debt? We should regulate how much money is spent on "non-essential" items or "luxury" items (Essential items would be like food that does not exceed the federally mandated daily caloric and nutritional intake law passed to control our misuse of our bodies).

Shooting too much of that federally mandated high quality ammo would fall into the misuse of money category.

I don't recall anyone using the term "misue" nor do I know what that means.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't recall anyone using the term "misue" nor do I know what that means.

Here you go:

Guns is my basement hurt no one and as long as I do not misuse them. By letting your property turn into a fetid pile of crap you are misusing your property not in the Jeffersonia usufruct manner.

 

[GBuck]

OOOOOH, misuse... Ok, now I got ya.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm just going to keep asking, since no one wants to answer.

This entire argument is based upon the premise that we have the right to [utilize government force to] control our neighbors' actions if they affect the value of our property.

Problem: My neighbor's house is ugly.
Consequence: My property value is decreased.
Solution: The government should force my neighbor to make his house attractive.

Problem: My neighbor is obese and ugly.
Consequence: My property value is decreased.
Solution: The government should force my neighbor to become thin and attractive.

Do you agree with both of these? If you only agree with the first one, please explain why they are different.

Do NOT quote city ordinances or statutes or anything of the like. That is not an answer to this question.

 

[thebishopp]

OOOOOH, misuse... Ok, now I got ya.

I am sorry I have misused my spell checker and/or missed hitting the "s" key between u & e one time in that entire post. I submit myself to government regulation. I also think it is a "misuse" of everyone's time that you have no better argument then to critique a missing "s".

 

[GBuck]

I am sorry I have misused my spell checker and/or missed hitting the "s" key between u & e one time in that entire post. I submit myself to government regulation. I also think it is a "misuse" of everyone's time that you have no better argument then to critique a missing "s".

I have posted many things on here that are being ignored. Therefore, I'm over arguing about it. Feel free to block me if you feel like I am wasting your time.

I think your argument is whack, therefore you are wasting my time. See how I did that?

 

[thebishopp]

I have posted many things on here that are being ignored. Therefore, I'm over arguing about it. Feel free to block me if you feel like I am wasting your time.

I think your argument is whack, therefore you are wasting my time. See how I did that?

I never said "wasting" (please read my signature line). I said "misusing". Based on many arguments here (and possibly yours as well) one is merely annoying and the other is a government level infraction and you should be fined or thrown in jail.

 

[rugertoter]

Man, I would feel like a bum if it took me five years to get the siding finished on my house. I mean damn, five years? In fact, my wife would probably have been all over me to get it done way before that.

 

[thebishopp]

Man, I would feel like a bum if it took me five years to get the siding finished on my house. I mean damn, five years? In fact, my wife would probably have been all over me to get it done way before that.

I agree, still shouldn't be government regulated.

 

[rambone]

My opinion states that I have a right to have a good and fair value on my property proportionate to the work I put into my property. If you don't keep up your end of the deal it effects my property rights. See how that works?

That's a perversion of what a "right" really is. It comes from an entitlement mentality. You feel entitled to be a winner, in a marketplace that contains winners and losers.

That phony "right" exists up there with:

the "right" to health care,
the "right" to own a home,
the "right" to have a job,
the "right" to earn a good wage,
the "right" to an education,
et cetera.

If rights can just be invented, then all of our rights can be destroyed. And they are.

Kinda the, "your right to throw a punch lands at the end of my nose" concept.

That nose of yours is in everyone else's business. You want to go nosing through your neighbor's property, their lawn, their house exterior, their garden, their flag pole, their gutters, their shrubbery, their vehicles, their mailbox, their dog house, and so on.

And when your neighbor doesn't do what you want, you claim your nose is being figuratively punched.

 

[thebishopp]

That nose of yours is in everyone else's business.

I agree with this whole post but this in particular caused me to lol