Man gets 30 days in jail for unfinished siding project

[hornadylnl]

Accept? No.

However pragmatism is what it is.

Pragmatism kept people in slavery and under Jim Crow for years. So you feel no moral obligation to change immoral laws?

 

[Ted]

"There no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard."

-- Murray N. Rothbard

Yeah? I can quote myself too.

Once upon a time, citizens who didn't own real property suffered their right to and free exercise to vote infringed.

 

[thebishopp]

It sickens me that many are more interested in seeing laws enforced than troubling themselves to question the morality of those very laws.

I just watched a movie called The Help. You all should watch it. Those conditions lasted so long because it "was the law" and people never dared to question the morality of it.

Tearing a family apart over a dime bag of weed. "But it's he law!"

Throwing a man in jail over siding. "But it's he law!"

Fining a man because his grass is too tall. "But it's he law!"

Don't worry I'm sure gregrbuckingham will be along shortly to point out the fallacy of your position because you forgot the "t" in "the" of your last sentence.

 

[hornadylnl]

Don't worry I'm sure gregrbuckingham will be along shortly to point out the fallacy of your position because you forgot the "t" in "the" of your last sentence.

What code did I violate and how many days of jail will I get?

Typing this on the iPad. I typed "But it's he law!" once and copy/pasted it the other 2 times.

 

[GBuck]

Pragmatism kept people in slavery and under Jim Crow for years. So you feel no moral obligation to change immoral laws?

Slavery is immoral. Keeping the dead beat next door from risking others' health and property is not. Big difference. If I thought these type of laws were immoral I would oppose. These laws are not immoral.

 

[Ted]

Pragmatism kept people in slavery and under Jim Crow for years. So you feel no moral obligation to change immoral laws?

I do feel an obligation. Though I do have some individual values when pursuing change.

Do you feel that slavery is a proper justification for the loss of 620,000 American lives in the subsequent conflict?

 

[cobber]

As far as I can tell from the story, the Fabers did not object to the code, but only claimed that they were financially unable to finish the product.

The Fabers point to what they call far more glaring code violations outside other houses in their neighborhood. They’d like to know why they were targeted and others weren’t.
“It’s selective enforcement,” said Jean.

So for them it wasn't so much the principle of their property rights, but rather that they felt unfairly singled out for enforcement. Maybe the five years of noncompliance played some role?

If he had the money to do it in a timely fashion, he would have. And by the way, he says, why don't you go after my neighbors too?

Gandhi he ain't.

 

[hornadylnl]

As far as I can tell from the story, the Fabers did not object to the code, but only claimed that they were financially unable to finish the product.

So for them it wasn't so much the principle of their property rights, but rather that they felt unfairly singled out for enforcement. Maybe the five years of noncompliance played some role?

If he had the money to do it in a timely fashion, he would have. And by the way, he says, why don't you go after my neighbors too?

Gandhi he ain't.

I also find the "but he's doing to" defense repugnant. But it still doesn't change the fact that petty tyrants love beating others about the head with their code books.

 

[thebishopp]

Slavery is immoral. Keeping the dead beat next door from risking others' health and property is not. Big difference. If I thought these type of laws were immoral I would oppose. These laws are not immoral.

How can slavery be immoral? The Bible says it's ok. As long as you follow the rules.


How does the lack of siding on his house threaten your health and property?

 

[hornadylnl]

I do feel an obligation. Though I do have some individual values when pursuing change.

Do you feel that slavery is a proper justification for the loss of 620,000 American lives in the subsequent conflict?

Sure, if that were actually the reason the north fought the war.

 

[thebishopp]

I also find the "but he's doing to" defense repugnant. But it still doesn't change the fact that petty tyrants love beating others about the head with their code books.

Your grammar and spelling misuses are piling up.

 

[thebishopp]

What code did I violate and how many days of jail will I get?

Typing this on the iPad. I typed "But it's he law!" once and copy/pasted it the other 2 times.

I'm not sure but there is no excuse for your misuse. I'm sure it will be pretty severe but if you stop and repent now you may get off with a month or so of house arrest/detention.

 

[rambone]

You have no obligation to add to your neighbor's property value. You do, however, have an obligation to not detract from it.

No. I didn't sign any contracts promising that.

That's what Home Owner's Associations are for.

That is the glaring truth that doesn't get acknowledged: If you like HOA regulations so much, join a HOA.

The guy was given multiple chances to correct the situation that he caused. He chose not to do so.

And the fact that he didn't have $11,000 lying around without going into debt. But hey, the community demanded it.

If one can't handle the responsibilities of property ownership, don't own property.

This could be echoed straight back at the pro-regulation crowd.

 

[hornadylnl]

I love how some seem to think this line in the sand is immobile. But once it crosses their threshold, it will now be unjust.

"Your ammo stash is a fire hazard and puts my house at risk". Only 1 box of ammo is allowed now.

 

[steveh_131]

And these have been answered over and over.

You have no right to be protected against an ugly house or a fat, ugly person.

It is a matter of where you draw the line. As long as city ordinances focus on protecting the property rights of others, no throwing garbage in the street, no loud music, no throwing filth in your yard, etc., you are protecting the rights of others.

You STILL haven't answered the question.

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.

You have stated clearly that you believe the first example merits force.

Does the second example also merit government force? Yes or No are the only acceptable answers. If the answer is yes, I'll give you credit for consistency. If the answer is no, please explain why the two situations are different.

 

[cobber]

I also find the "but he's doing to" defense repugnant. But it still doesn't change the fact that petty tyrants love beating others about the head with their code books.

He got singled out. And then tried to rat out his neighbors. Gotta love it.

You STILL haven't answered the question.

You have stated clearly that you believe the first example merits force.

Does the second example also merit government force? Yes or No are the only acceptable answers. If the answer is yes, I'll give you credit for consistency. If the answer is no, please explain why the two situations are different.

Fat ugly people can go inside the ugly house, only the ugliness of the house abides. QED

 

[IndyBeerman]

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.

IT'S AN OPINION, what part of this do you not understand, opinion does not have a consequence on property value nor does it affect it.

There you go, now move along and try to again.

 

[IndyBeerman]

The genesis of the confrontation is SIDING.

He was SENTENCED to 30 days.

The title is just fine.

No he was sentenced to 2 days, with 28 home detention that was his choice or he could have had 30 days of 3 hots and a cot , and he was arrested FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR

“The homeowner also failed to appear in Court to turn himself in as was ordered by the judge,” Doll wrote. “Because of his failure to appear in Court on June 1, the City understands that the judge in the case subsequently issued a bench warrant.”
Faber said he had no idea that a bench warrant had been issued until he was stopped on a traffic violation on his way to work. He told KSTP that he was arrested and thrown in jail for two days without bail – all because he didn’t have siding on his house.

 

[rambone]

IT'S AN OPINION, what part of this do you not understand, opinion does have a consequence on property value nor does it affect it.

Aren't negative opinions the exact force that drive people away from buying houses at the highest prices?

Its not you can physically witness or measure your property depreciating in value. It is worth whatever someone will pay... someone with an opinion.

 

[level.eleven]

What a house weapon may look like.