Man gets 30 days in jail for unfinished siding project

[steveh_131]

Haha, they're all good until you bring "their" movie into it. You should know they're allowed to say whatever they want, regardless of the quackery involved, but don't you dare bring up Firefly.

I was joking about firefly. Pretty sure kirk was too.

 

[Ted]

I'm not positive why some people disagree of a very basic premise within the law that are (almost universally) accepted by society at large:

• Everyone is free to exercise rights, except when they unreasonably infringe upon another's rights.

We largely accept and support that geographical locations are zoned by local governmental units, to prevent such things as pig farms and steel mills from being developed in residential neighborhoods. Imagine building a home with a mortgage for $100,000, only to have it's worth reduced to $20,000, because of the coal mining operation that started up 2 years after you moved in.

Likewise, residential homes within prime industrial real estate are kept at bay, to allow business to progress and economically succeed.

We largely accept building codes, to include minimal construction standards for architectural standards, structural integrity, habitatal space, and life safety.

So how is above unreasonable? Is not your money, your property? Isn't money subject to property rights? Why should economics be excluded as a premise from zoning and building codes, as some economic standards are built into virtually every other aspect of society?

If some of you believe that such community standards are unreasonable, and continually label them as the wages of a nanny state, you are certainly free to run for office, or otherwise engage in the political process to change them.

 

[Ted]

...I am no expert in 'the law', but I can score a score of over 600 on the LSAT with zero preparation. (who knows if I actually would study or take a pre-law exam.)

If you've actually sat for the LSAT, as I have, you would discover that it has very little to do with the law. Rather its largely of reading comprehension, analysis, and logical reasoning.

I don't know where you are obtaining your score prediction, as such are converted from a scale from 120 to 180, with a median score circa 150.

Here is the lengthy, modern definition out of Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition:

...

The key here is in the last paragraph. How does this not align with what I stated? How is that contradictory to the political system as you see it?
And, I do not pretend to know everything, but I certainly can see broken logic in an argument.

If I have used any, please point that out so I can learn.

Tough to read the last paragraph, when you fuse, or allow all the paragraphs to fuse.

I don't wish to engage in an elementary lesson in civics, but even a plain reading of the COTUS and the various state constitutions, reveals that the legislative branch creates statutory law, and is recognized to be such. How you don't consider it to be not so, is beyond my comprehension.

Black's is a dictionary. It has its use, but it is far from a hornbook upon the subject; which would be a far better authoritative reference upon law making.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I was joking about firefly. Pretty sure kirk was too.

Kirk joke around on the Internet? Shocking.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Another fundamental disagreement. This is the mentality that the Nanny State is built on. Government is not our parent, and my "room" is none of their business.

Not really fundamental, perhaps disagreement by degrees.

Let me make an argument you can potentially relate to, ram. Say Jayne wants to puch a whole in his quarters of Serenity but it will destroy the ship.

Since Jayne's quarters are his property, should he be allowed to do so or his room none of anyone's business?

Your property, when you allow it to hurt others, is darn well everyone's business. Again it depends on what it is and how it is handled. However, there is nothing either immoral or unconstitutional about code enforcement to prevent the slothful from hurting the rest of us.

 

[rambone]

I'm not positive why some people disagree of a very basic premise within the law that are (almost universally) accepted by society at large:

• Everyone is free to exercise rights, except when they unreasonably infringe upon another's rights.

The trouble comes when people bastardize the concept of what a "right" is. Rights can't just be invented. Our forefathers would have laughed at the concept of a "right" to see pretty houses from their porches. This is an invented right made up by modern day progressives.


Fictional rights:
There is no "right" to only see attractive landscapes and structures from your picture window. That's an entitled mentality.
There is no "right" to maintain or gain value on your investments. That's an entitled mentality.

Real rights:
You have a "right" to form contracts with your neighbors, agreeing to keep your property in a certain condition.


I'll ask again, to Kirk and company, why not just join a HOA? This is the principled solution that seems to be all but ignored by the pro-regulation crowd. If you voluntarily make a contract with your neighbors, then you can accurately state that your neighbors have a duty to cut their grass and clean their gutters. The HOA contract puts this duty into writing.

You can't involuntarily force people to live under your standards and call yourself a friend of liberty. Do things voluntarily -- join a HOA.

Imagine building a home with a mortgage for $100,000, only to have it's worth reduced to $20,000, because of the coal mining operation that started up 2 years after you moved in.

Maybe Obama should come in and shut down the industry and fire the workers. Hmm?

Is not your money, your property? Isn't money subject to property rights?

No. There is no right to be a financial winner.

If some of you believe that such community standards are unreasonable, and continually label them as the wages of a nanny state, you are certainly free to run for office, or otherwise engage in the political process to change them.

Its also important to understand your own principles and test them against real world situations.

 

[thebishopp]

Not really fundamental, perhaps disagreement by degrees.

Let me make an argument you can potentially relate to, ram. Say Jayne wants to puch a whole in his quarters of Serenity but it will destroy the ship.

Since Jayne's quarters are his property, should he be allowed to do so or his room none of anyone's business?

Your property, when you allow it to hurt others, is darn well everyone's business. Again it depends on what it is and how it is handled. However, there is nothing either immoral or unconstitutional about code enforcement to prevent the slothful from hurting the rest of us.

This is bad analogy. The "ship" doesn't belong to Jayne. In fact the entire ship belongs to the captain (or whoever actually owns the ship and has assigned the captain) and not to the individual crew members. Rooms on the ship are on "loan" for the duration that they are part of the crew. They do not "own" their rooms. Their rooms are not their property.

Now if you are saying that all of the land in the United States belong to the Government and we only a"rent" our properties then your analogy would be more accurate.

 

[rambone]

Not really fundamental, perhaps disagreement by degrees.

I would never consider using the government/parent analogy. Our differences on property rights are 180 degrees apart.

Let me make an argument you can potentially relate to, ram. Say Jayne wants to puch a whole in his quarters of Serenity but it will destroy the ship.

Since Jayne's quarters are his property, should he be allowed to do so or his room none of anyone's business?

Again, you want to relate American society to communist living conditions. On a ship, everything is collectivized. The captain gets the final say in every single matter. Rights do not even exist. Jane's quarter's are not his property; he is a guest. This is a terrible comparison to owning property in the "land of the free."

The collectivist might work in the Navy, not in a free & voluntary society.

Your property, when you allow it to hurt others, is darn well everyone's business. Again it depends on what it is and how it is handled. However, there is nothing either immoral or unconstitutional about code enforcement to prevent the slothful from hurting the rest of us.

I hear that they have these things called Home Owners' Associations. Slothful people aren't allowed to live there.

 

[LPMan59]

Now if you are saying that all of the land in the United States belong to the Government and we only a"rent" our properties then your analogy would be more accurate.

sadly, that's exactly how it is.

 

[jsharmon7]

Well the good news is that I've found a few people who will have me as their new neighbor. I'm starting my own free range rat farm. In the event of cold Indiana nights I'll be burning human hair to provide the rats with warmth. I've also heard that the rats like drawings of obscene body parts on the side of my house, so I'll make sure to get that done for the rats. Well, whichever of the rats decide to stay on my property.

 

[jsharmon7]

Standing up for your property rights is not imposing one's will on anyone. "Mom made me clean up my room."

As you know from reading common law cases it is a matter of protecting one's rights from the tortfeasor and the slothful.

They may take our lives, but they'll never take...OUR CRAPSHACKS!!!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's over . . . jsharmon has won by knockout.

 

[Ted]

The trouble comes when people bastardize the concept of what a "right" is. Rights can't just be invented. Our forefathers would have laughed at the concept of a "right" to see pretty houses from their porches. This is an invented right made up by modern day progressives.


Fictional rights:
There is no "right" to only see attractive landscapes and structures from your picture window. That's an entitled mentality.
There is no "right" to maintain or gain value on your investments. That's an entitled mentality.

Real rights:
You have a "right" to form contracts with your neighbors, agreeing to keep your property in a certain condition.

Rights are a gift from God to man. You continually speak of property rights, therefore God has granted each of us the ability to own property, subject law, to include the paying of taxes and other such obligations.

Apparently you don't see any compulsory reason to obey laws that are formed as a result of a representative government.

You can't involuntarily force people to live under your standards and call yourself a friend of liberty. Do things voluntarily -- join a HOA.

How about other standards, such as removing hazards that are a menace to those around your land?

Maybe Obama should come in and shut down the industry and fire the workers. Hmm?

Non sequitur response.

No. There is no right to be a financial winner.

There is, however, a right to be able to reasonably protect your investment. If can dump industrial pollutants that can migrate to pollute your drinking water from your well, why do I need to pursue a remedy, instead of preventing it from occurring.

Its also important to understand your own principles and test them against real world situations.

So what will you about it? Just continue to complain?

 

[Ted]

sadly, that's exactly how it is.

I believe its termed as eminent domain.

 

[rambone]

The victim says that he had to borrow $12,000 so the government would leave him alone.

Land of the free!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE-ka2nt6DY[/ame]

 

[rambone]

Rights are a gift from God to man. You continually speak of property rights, therefore God has granted each of us the ability to own property, subject law, to include the paying of taxes and other such obligations.

God didn't grant you a "right" to only see pretty houses from your porch.

The founding fathers would laugh at the concept.

Apparently you don't see any compulsory reason to obey laws that are formed as a result of a representative government.

Not especially. Some laws are just plain wrong. I wouldn't turn in my guns or my gold or my children just because a representative government told me to obey. I'm a supporter of civil disobedience.

There is, however, a right to be able to reasonably protect your investment.

If you change the word "investment" to "property, then I agree.

You don't have a right to receive the market value that you think you deserve.

You do have a right as a property owner to not allow other people to physically damage or alter your physical property.

If can dump industrial pollutants that can migrate to pollute your drinking water from your well, why do I need to pursue a remedy, instead of preventing it from occurring.

If somebody pollutes a your water supply, they have physically damaged your physical property. This is a valid place for government to exist as a mediator.

So what will you about it? Just continue to complain?

I cannot tell you how many times that someone has huffed the "internet complainer" response at me at the end of a debate. Usually it includes some pejoratives and some smack about living in my mother's basement.

I am very politically active in my area. My fellow residents and I were successful in defeating an anti-property rights ordinance in our town last year. The control freaks in charge wanted to be able to inspect the inside of every rental unit in town without consent. Government inspectors would have demanded to enter apartments and snoop through every room... for the same exact reasons we see here: Health, safety, property values. No thanks to the Nanny State.

I believe its termed as eminent domain.

I believe he may be referring to the fact that "free" Americans are forced to pay rent on their land in the form of property tax; another forfeiture of property rights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So please explain to me what Firefly has to do with this thread?

It's the very basis of modern libertarian thought. I kid you not, they worship the television show and movie.

Heck this month's issue of Reason, I kid you not, has a fangirl article about Firefly and that hunky Captain on page 72. This line of reasoning about property rights is straight from Firefly.

The founding fathers would laugh at the concept.

Got to be kidding me. After what Jefferson wrote about usufruct use of property. No.

You do have a right as a property owner to not allow other people to physically damage or alter your physical property.

My rights extend beyond just physical damage or alteration of my property. Governments exist to protect my rights. Nothing wrong with government setting a floor to protect against the slothful.

My fellow residents and I were successful in defeating an anti-property rights ordinance in our town last year.

Go for you, ram.

 

[Ted]

My rights extend beyond just physical damage or alteration of my property. Governments exist to protect my rights. Nothing wrong with government setting a floor to protect against the slothful.

This.

The neighbor that decides to built a fence with horse manure, or allows water to stagnate, or throws his kitchen garbage onto his front lawn, etc.....which also brings vermin to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of my home, is violating my rights.

The neighbor that stores radioactive waste that transmits gamma radiation through my home and results in a cancerous disease, also violates my rights.

The line has to be drawn someplace.

Such local laws were created to be enforced by local government, in part, to prevent individuals taking the law into their own hands. Lest, arson and other such acts would become a common occurrence.

 

[LPMan59]

i have a love/hate relationship with the HOA. I hate that I need permission to build a fence or a plant a tree on my property.

But I love that it prevents morons from parking their beater cars on their lawn or using old tires for flower pots.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Such local laws were created to be enforced by local government, in part, to prevent individuals taking the law into their own hands. Lest, arson and other such acts would become a common occurrence.

Right, like I said upthread, the proper remedy is to give the slothful a ticket, not a bullet to the head.