I was wondering that myself.
Libertarianism and property rights
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
I was wondering that myself.
Since I see him in practically every Libertarian thread on TOL. Besides, Tom's hatred of me obviously comes from me exposing and mocking Libertarian ideology and it's political movement.
:darwinsm:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
To my knowledge an ugly paint job never killed anyone.
Now to answer your question: If that person lives in a gated community where legal agreements were written up stating that homeowners must comply to certain standards, then no, that person doesn't have a right to devalue the value of the entire community.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
To my knowledge an ugly paint job never killed anyone.
Now to answer your question: If that person lives in a gated community where legal agreements were written up stating that homeowners must comply to certain standards, then no, that person doesn't have a right to devalue the value of the entire community.
I was just answering the question as you asked it. You did not ask about what I think should be acceptable, you only asked what is lawful.
There is a reason for the laws we currently have regarding building codes and land use. In general, I agree that those laws are reasonable. I do think that some of the land use laws and zoning requirements go farther than they should but that is because we have lost the ability to actually talk to our neighbors.
Building codes do not protect you from your neighbors house, building codes protect you from yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let me phrase it so that even those with one live brain cell can understand it Doper:
Health and safety codes were made because of people like you.
That's why we have laws Doper, amongst other things is to keep drug addicts like you from being behind the wheel of a car.
(Ummmm...do I need to buy some weed and smoke it in order to understand this?)
You were obviously hiiiiiiiiigh and couldn't care less about anything let alone failure to comply with building and health code laws.
(Ummmmm...I guess I need to upgrade to LSD in order to have a conversation with this Doper).
That's why we have jails Doper...
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let me phrase it so that even those with one live brain cell can understand it Doper:
Health and safety codes were made because of people like you.
That's why we have laws Doper, amongst other things is to keep drug addicts like you from being behind the wheel of a car.
(Ummmm...do I need to buy some weed and smoke it in order to understand this?)
You were obviously hiiiiiiiiigh and couldn't care less about anything let alone failure to comply with building and health code laws.
(Ummmmm...I guess I need to upgrade to LSD in order to have a conversation with this Doper).
That's why we have jails Doper...
Are you saying that a fire has never started in a house and spread to others?
I agree 100%. Red tape and government bureaucracy is definitely a big strike against responsible private property owners.
I think he does, and I think a lot of "contracts" should be deemed null and void because you have no authority to sign and make those agreements.
Kind of like signing a lease where the owner states he can keep the security deposit whether there is damage or not. Many states have laws saying those contracts are invalid. And they should be.
If you don't like your new neighbor, you move.
I have seen a forest of trees catch fire and spread to a house. I have seen a house catch fire and spread to other houses. I have seen houses catch fire and spread nowhere.
Building codes protect the average homeowner from themselves, at least in an ideal world. Most homeowners have no clue how to build a deck or install a furnace or wire up their basement or plum a sink or install a shower drain. If they do these things wrong they can start fire or cause nasty molds to grow or have their brand new deck collapse in the middle of a party. Fires are fairly rare. There are a great many other things that can go wrong that effect nobody but the homeowner and their family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now to answer your question: If that person lives in a gated community where legal agreements were written up stating that homeowners must comply to certain standards, then no, that person doesn't have a right to devalue the value of the entire community.
Private gated communities are like clubs, they have their own rules and if you don't want to abide by them you can either not join that club or quit.
Remember Nick, co-ops (which gated communities pretty much are) have property rights as well.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now to answer your question: If that person lives in a gated community where legal agreements were written up stating that homeowners must comply to certain standards, then no, that person doesn't have a right to devalue the value of the entire community.
Private gated communities are like clubs, they have their own rules and if you don't want to abide by them you can either not join that club or quit.
Remember Nick, co-ops (which gated communities pretty much are) have property rights as well.
ACW isn't happy unless he fits everyone into his little boxes. Since I am sympathetic to minarchist philosophy I usually get lumped in with the Libertarians....No big deal. I'm registered Independent. :idunno:
I would disagree. People can enter into any contract they wish. Courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of HOA's so they are a legally binding contract that you agree to as a condition of purchase. We lived with one for years. That is why when we went shopping for our new house the first thing I told the realtor was not to show us any properties with a HOA. If you don't want to live under an HOA, don't buy there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Are you saying that a fire has never started in a house and spread to others?
Remember that emergency personnel that respond to house fires, collapsed buildings etc. are putting their lives in danger as well.
In any event, thanks for showing that building codes are important, as they save lives.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Are you saying that a fire has never started in a house and spread to others?
Remember that emergency personnel that respond to house fires, collapsed buildings etc. are putting their lives in danger as well.
In any event, thanks for showing that building codes are important, as they save lives.
While I don't want to derail my own thread and start talking about Libertarianism and all of the loony things that go with it, you're worth it Tom.
Tell us the major differences between "minarchist philosophy" and Libertarianism.
shagster01
New member
Streets are public. My house is not. Do you need me to explain the difference?
I'm convinced that nothing will help you understand the ways of the world, but try weed and see what happens I guess.
You're wrong again.
You think people who build something not up to code should go to jail?
(The things I learn on TOL. I always thought that shag, like most dopers do, still lives in his mother's basement).
You're catching on shag, the thread is about private property. Now if you would like to share what you think you should be able to do with or on your own property that is currently illegal, please do.
It's the same as the major differences between "conservative philosophy" and Republicanism. :yawn:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Tell us the major differences between "minarchist philosophy" and Libertarianism.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy will most likely lead to economic prosperity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
Same ole stench as Libertarianism, just a minor change in details (i.e. you don't want to privatize police and fire depts., but you're both against "aggression" being used against anything that consenting parties engage in. (drugs, deviant sex, etc.).
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Tell us the major differences between "minarchist philosophy" and Libertarianism.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy will most likely lead to economic prosperity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
Same ole stench as Libertarianism, just a minor change in details (i.e. you don't want to privatize police and fire depts., but you're both against "aggression" being used against anything that consenting parties engage in. (drugs, deviant sex, etc.).