Man gets 30 days in jail for unfinished siding project

[Kirk Freeman]

Isn't this the same argument for the Obama insurance mandate? Your lack of insurance is driving my healthcare costs up.

I think that is a fair analogy at least.

However, federal health insurance mandates are unconstitutional, protections of property rights, e.g. anti-crap shack ordinances, are not.

 

[hornadylnl]

Geez, how about a homeowner who for 5 years has failed to fix his house.

Or the fool that lived across the street from Horny.

Common sense man, this is not rocket science.

I didn't like my neighbors propert at all. I bought the house in 99 at $83k. I sold it last year at $63k. The quality of the neighborhood contributed to my lower purchase and sale price. I still don't want nannies dictating how I use my property.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How many millions of people in the city have their yards blocked by tall buildings?

That's not was asked. Would you seek legal remedy to 20ft brick walls, or would you simply state "their property, I can't do anything about it"?

 

[Glock21]

Fail again.

I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If you have that clutters your yard to the extent that rodents, trash, potential disease, ect..., affect my life and my pursuit of happiness, then you have violated my rights as an individual.

Financial success also falls under the pursuit of happiness, if your actions affect that right of property ownership to one day sell that property at a financial gain and not able to do so because of actions by an individual head that's properly is maintained in such a fashion that affects it, then you have had a direct affect on my pursuit of happiness.

So, what do you have say about the above?

I find it interesting that you seem to be more concerned about what your neighbors house looks like in relation to the value of yours, rather than what the Federal Reserve and derivatives market has done to the value of it.

My whole deal with all of this is that so many people are willing to get all worked up about neighborhood code violations but at the same time will allow themselves to get raped daily by a fiat currency and a government that has legalized theft.

"Yeah, I'm ok with being a slave, as long as the other slaves mow their grass!"

How about setting some priorities?

 

[hornadylnl]

I think that is a fair analogy at least.

However, federal health insurance mandates are unconstitutional, protections of property rights, e.g. anti-crap shack ordinances, are not.

And every gun law since the ratification of the constitution is unconstitutional. So do you support giving felons their second amendment rights back? Where is my right to be free from harassment?

I love cafeteria conservatives. Big government is good for them so long as they are the beneficiarys.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I find it interesting that you seem to be more concerned about what your neighbors house looks like in relation to the value of yours, rather than what the Federal Reserve and derivatives market has done to the value of it.

My whole deal with all of this is that so many people are willing to get all worked up about neighborhood code violations but at the same time will allow themselves to get raped daily by a fiat currency and a government that has legalized theft.

"Yeah, I'm ok with being a slave, as long as the other slaves mow their grass!"

How about setting some priorities?

Ok, I gotta admit, you make a good point...

Rebuttal: ("act locally, think globally?")

 

[mydoghasfleas]

[\quote]

You cannot shoot your lazy neighbor because you are not in danger of serious bodily injury or death by your neighbor's sloth.....

We have ordinances, protective orders and nuisance suits to property our right to our property values.

Indeed you can and DO shoot your neighbor because of the condition of his property.
If he does not show up to the court date, he gets a warant served(threat). If he continues to ignore, he gets time in jail(violates his liberty). If he refuses to go to jail he gets arrested. If he resists arrest he will be over powered and made to go. If he defends with force, HE GETS SHOT! At the end, there is ALWAYS a gun in the governments hand.
And the people that put that gun there were the neighbors who didnt like his looks or respect his liberty. That is what we have become. Users of government to force others to do as we would like, is ultimately putting a gun to thier head.

The burden placed on your home being worth less because of his house is a financial one.
The burden placed on him to be in compliance is a financial one. So who is violating who?

What if he went above and beyond to make his house look great and your house is now the ugliest one on the block? Can you be put on the defense? Put in court for hurting property values in the neighborhood? This should be allowed right? It is the same thing is it not? Sorry if you dont have the money to keep up with the Jones' you have to.

"But my home is not actually harming anybody, it just looks ugly"...
Sorry but you are harming others. You are hurting their property values.

"But I dont have the money to fix it up like their houses are"
Tough! Do it or go to jail! Resist and get killed!

"But I want to save my money instead, and I am fine with my house right now. Plus its is my house!"
CITIZEN!!!! OBEY YOUR CITY ORDINANCE OVERLORDS!!!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Indeed you can and DO shoot your neighbor because of the condition of his property.

No, I most certainly do NOT that.

If he does not show up to the court date, he gets a warant served(threat). If he continues to ignore, he gets time in jail(violates his liberty).

Correct, that is the rule of law, civil (which is INGO endorsed) or criminal.

The rule of law is to deal with the irresponsible a-holes. We do not go over and shoot the lazy in the head for throwing trash in the street or not cutting their grass. We call the city engineer or we sue them.

The burden placed on your home being worth less because of his house is a financial one.
The burden placed on him to be in compliance is a financial one. So who is violating who?

The slothful neighbor is violating me as he is misusing his property. With rights come duties. He has a duty not to turn his property into a fetid pile of crap.

 

[steveh_131]

The slothful neighbor is violating me as he is misusing his property. With rights come duties. He has a duty not to turn his property into a fetid pile of crap.

I'm going to ask you this hypothetical AGAIN.

You're trying to sell your house. I tell people that I think your house is ugly. This negatively affected your property value.

Do you sue me? Can you sue anyone who does anything that lowers your property value? Where does it stop?

My house is small and cheap looking, yours looks like a palace. Do I have a 'duty' to tear down my house and build a nicer one so that your property value doesn't suffer? Where does this end, Kirk? What if my vehicle is rusty? Am I allowed to own a rusty vehicle in sight of your home? What if I'm fat and ugly? Am I allowed to be fat and ugly on my own property if it is next to yours?

I know these are hard questions, and I know that's why you keep ignoring them. They illustrate the glaring inconsistencies in your arguments.

 

[Glock21]

With rights come duties. He has a duty not to turn his property into a fetid pile of crap.

I see no difference in that and saying "You have a right to life and your body, but with rights come responsibilities. Therfore, you must eat right and exercise, and you may not smoke or drink or do anything dangerous. You must get 8 hours of sleep. ...or you will be ticketed. And if you ignore that, we'll send you a summons. And if you ignore that, we'll send men with guns."

Embrace liberty before it's too late!

 

[mydoghasfleas]

No, I most certainly do NOT that.



Correct, that is the rule of law, civil (which is INGO endorsed) or criminal.

The rule of law is to deal with the irresponsible a-holes. We do not go over and shoot the lazy in the head for throwing trash in the street or not cutting their grass. We call the city engineer or we sue them.




The slothful neighbor is violating me as he is misusing his property. With rights come duties. He has a duty not to turn his property into a fetid pile of crap.

Exactly! You have the authorities shoot him for you.

Is it his property or yours? And is he violating you or the other way around?

His only duty to you with regards to his property is to not throw it on yours. If he wanted to paint it green with brown stripes and yellow polka dots thats the cost of living in freedom. Like Johnny Cougar/John Mellencamp/And I think even Johnson and Johnson says "little pink houses for you and me"

One could actually make the argument that you are using your property to violate his property rights via the force of the collective. (resistance is futile )


He has no duty or obligation to you in how he uses or does not use his property unless it physically violates your property. (I am aware the law says different, I am making a moral argument) If some of his house is coming onto your property then that would be different, you should be able to sue him personally. THEN YOU CAN GET THAT GUN PUT TO HIS HEAD. But not call on the city to do it for you. Why should I have to pay for you to sue your neighbor anyway? That is what creates some of the byzantine regulations we have in all the things we do. And do not do. We are steadily creating more and more of them. Government likes to grow only, never shrink. Its the ratchet effect.

There is a big price we all pay by violating people in this way.

The more property rights we take using the force of the collective, the less property the individual can actually have. In the long run stepping on property rights INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO FAIL WITH YOUR OWN PROPERTY'S STEWARDSHIP is actually no property rights at all.

 

[thebishopp]

I see no difference in that and saying "You have a right to life and your body, but with rights come responsibilities. Therfore, you must eat right and exercise, and you may not smoke or drink or do anything dangerous. You must get 8 hours of sleep. ...or you will be ticketed. And if you ignore that, we'll send you a summons. And if you ignore that, we'll send men with guns."

Embrace liberty before it's too late!

I agree.

I don't quite see how people don't understand this basic principle. They don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do but oh boy when they don't like something someone else is doing man they sure do want the government to step in and "do something". Yep we are all about our constitutionally protected rights until they are protecting someone else's rights that we don't like them exercising.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Jefferson.

If my neighbor wants to have a crappy house then let him have a crappy house. If/When his crappy stuff starts blowing into my yard or becomes such a hazard that it endangers my property or my life THEN and only then does it become my and/or the government's business.

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree.

I don't quite see how people don't understand this basic principle. They don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do but oh boy when they don't like something someone else is doing man they sure do want the government to step in and "do something". Yep we are all about our constitutionally protected rights until they are protecting someone else's rights that we don't like them exercising.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Jefferson.

If my neighbor wants to have a crappy house then let him have a crappy house. If/When his crappy stuff starts blowing into my yard or becomes such a hazard that it endangers my property or my life THEN and only then does it become my and/or the government's business.

This is a great summary as to why I'm no longer a republican.

 

[thebishopp]

This is a great summary as to why I'm no longer a republican.

Personally I do not like political parties in general. Too much like "gangs" imo. Gotta do what the "gang" wants or else.

I'm with "George" on this one:

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

 

[rambone]

Property is used as a weapon every day in this state.

Just move to a HOA where these so-called "weapons" are banned. Problem solved.

Everyone is hurt by a fetid pile of crap.

Everyone is hurt by collectivist code enforcement laws.

Guns is my basement hurt no one and as long as I do not misuse them.

If you cheer for tall grass being banned, then none of your property is safe from regulation. Keep dreaming.

You are in danger of being hurt financially and that is why we have ordinances, protective orders, or nuisance suits to protect the property rights of the non-slothful. Suing, not shooting, is the proper remedy.

If you think you are entitled to some of your neighbor's money when his property makes yours less valuable, then do you owe him money when his property makes yours MORE valuable?

It is not absurd. It is existing case law.

That does not instill confidence. A lot of case law totally derides property rights and is supported by absurd progressive logic.

We have ordinances, protective orders and nuisance suits to property our right to our property values.

A right? Name another investment that you think you are entitled to profit off of.

This is economic hogwash.

Fail again.

I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So does your neighbor. You can't force people do things to contribute to your happiness. That violates THEIR rights.

Financial success also falls under the pursuit of happiness, if your actions affect that right of property ownership to one day sell that property at a financial gain and not able to do so because of actions by an individual head that's properly is maintained in such a fashion that affects it, then you have had a direct affect on my pursuit of happiness.

So you think you're entitled to profit? Really??

Who should we arrest when your stock portfolio falls?

 

[rambone]

The slothful neighbor is violating me as he is misusing his property. With rights come duties. He has a duty not to turn his property into a fetid pile of crap.

When you actually own something, you have no duty or obligation to treat it in a manner that makes your neighbor happy.

Being able to alter or destroy your own property is part of what it means to OWN it.

I'm going to ask you this hypothetical AGAIN.

You're trying to sell your house. I tell people that I think your house is ugly. This negatively affected your property value.

Do you sue me? Can you sue anyone who does anything that lowers your property value? Where does it stop?

My house is small and cheap looking, yours looks like a palace. Do I have a 'duty' to tear down my house and build a nicer one so that your property value doesn't suffer? Where does this end, Kirk? What if my vehicle is rusty? Am I allowed to own a rusty vehicle in sight of your home? What if I'm fat and ugly? Am I allowed to be fat and ugly on my own property if it is next to yours?

I know these are hard questions, and I know that's why you keep ignoring them. They illustrate the glaring inconsistencies in your arguments.

I'd love to see all of these points addressed by the pro-regulation crowd.

 

[GBuck]

When you actually own something, you have no duty or obligation to treat it in a manner that makes your neighbor happy.

Being able to alter or destroy your own property is part of what it means to OWN it.

Now you're just pointing out what I have started to see. You are so caught up in the possibility that the "facists" are going to take over your land that you're teetering on forgetting what it means to be a decent human being. There shouldn't have to be "codes" saying how to treat your property, but when you get someone that has no regard for anyone else or how their actions effect others, the government feels the need to step in. I feel sorry for your neighbors if this is really your attitude and you're not just an internet stirrer.

 

[rambone]

This debate is like listening to gun control advocates talk about "common sense" restrictions on our rights.

"I'm pro-gun, but I think gun owners should have to pay for permission, carry around a government license, receive background checks, register their guns, yada yada yada."

"I have a right to not see any weapons, therefore open-carry is a violation of my rights."

"You don't have the right to drive a truck down a sidewalk, therefore you don't have the right to shoot on your own property."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Exactly! You have the authorities shoot him for you.

The authorities do not shoot him. The authorities give the slothful a ticket/summons.

Stepping away from the narsassism of libertarianism, we have due process to protect both us and the slothful. The authorities do not come over and shoot the slothful, they give him a summons, he goes to court and is provided an opportunity to be heard. We then have a decision.

You cannot do whatever it is you want with your stuff. If you abuse it, there will be consequences.

Why should I have to pay for you to sue your neighbor anyway?

You pay for the court system which is used to resolve our differences via due process of law. Otherwise we are back to trial by combat of an L. Neil Smith novel or shooting the slothful in the head, both of which are Murder.

The more property rights we take using the force of the collective, the less property the individual can actually have. In the long run stepping on property rights INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO FAIL WITH YOUR OWN PROPERTY'S STEWARDSHIP is actually no property rights at all.

We take no property rights by ensuring that some do not harm others.

The RKBA is unimpacted by prosecuting people for Murder, Attempted Murder, Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon, inter alia.

Everyone is hurt by collectivist code enforcement laws.

Individual property owners are protected by prosecuting those that misuse their property.

A right? Name another investment that you think you are entitled to profit off of.

I am entitled to profit off all my property, personal and real. It is one of the bundle of sticks of my property rights.

Those that attack my rights should suffer consequences.

This is economic hogwash.

No, it is one of the underlying tenets of property law.

So you think you're entitled to profit? Really??

Who should we arrest when your stock portfolio falls?

Yes, it is my right. If someone intereferes with my right to profit by my stock portfolio then I sue or prosecute (SEC) that invidivudal or invidividuals.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"You don't have the right to drive a truck down a sidewalk, therefore you don't have the right to shoot on your own property."

If your property is misused or used to hurt others, then you do not have the right to shoot on your own property.

You cannot do whatever you want with your rights, you must respect the rights of others.