philosophy of government

#26
#26
volinbham said:
Your close next door neighbor (shared driveway) decides to open a low rent whore house. Lots of drug use, people coming in and out all hours, several fights a day, and non-stop music.

Cool?
Click to expand...

You can always move....and without government regulation in the housing market, it's easy to move. Housing is actually affordable.

There are no perfect solutions, as you've shown. If you go with regulation we end up regulating EVERYTHING, we do it very poorly, and end up penalizing people that don't need the regulation in the first place.

Remember, if your neighbor opens a whorehouse you can always turn your property into a landfill.
 
#27
#27
volinbham said:
Your close next door neighbor (shared driveway) decides to open a low rent whore house. Lots of drug use, people coming in and out all hours, several fights a day, and non-stop music.

Cool?
Click to expand...

Uncool. But allowable.

Freedom has consequences. I am willing to accept those consequences.
 
#32
#32
#33
#33
RespectTradition said:
Housing prices would drop considerably without government intervention in the market. Just eliminating zoning laws would help a lot. Most areas with high costs of housing have the most restrictive property laws.
Click to expand...

I get that but the flip side is that the appreciation of land and housing is a significant financial resource that is used for moving/buying new property.

The overall value across the board should drop but I don't see that in an of itself as making it easier to move since likewise people's financial means would drop as well.

There will still be differential pricing based on any number of attractiveness factors (jobs, climate, terrain, etc.).

The absence of zoning laws would make finding those "good" properties even tougher since presumably virtually anything could be going on next door to any given home.

So, I agree that overall home values are likely to be lower across the board but likewise, people will lose wealth and arguably the good properties will be even more expensive relative to the whole. Don't see this as making it easier to move.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
I get that but the flip side is that the appreciation of land and housing is a significant financial resource that is used for moving/buying new property.

The overall value across the board should drop but I don't see that in an of itself as making it easier to move since likewise people's financial means would drop as well.

There will still be differential pricing based on any number of attractiveness factors (jobs, climate, terrain, etc.).

The absence of zoning laws would make finding those "good" properties even tougher since presumably virtually anything could be going on next door to any given home.

So, I agree that overall home values are likely to be lower across the board but likewise, people will lose wealth and arguably the good properties will be even more expensive relative to the whole. Don't see this as making it easier to move.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe the inflated profitability on the home sold is diminished, but what if they are first time home-buyers and don't have a home to sell? It's harder to get into an inflated market. What if they are upside down on their loan? If you get upside down in a house, it's a lot harder to get it right in an inflated market.

As the actual purchase prices of homes diminish, the price to renters will diminish. Overall we will end up spending a smaller fraction of our income on housing....and that means we are all wealthier.
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
Is this their right?
Click to expand...

So. What are your beliefs in regards to rights/govt/etc?

are you one of those willing to give up freedom for safety?

give up freedom for economic benefits?

give up freedom for convenience?

what are our basic rights? when can they be abridged? why?
 
#36
#36
RespectTradition said:
So. What are your beliefs in regards to rights/govt/etc?

more of the first/less of the second

are you one of those willing to give up freedom for safety?

false choice - the safety is typically protection from some form of rights violation. The police force takes some of my freedom but protects me from criminals. The Wild West had less government but routine loss of freedom (as you defined it in the OP) since criminals routinely murdered and stole.

Simply put, we don't live in a world where everyone respects individual and property rights so we choose the lesser of evils to minimize the intrusion on freedom. Sure it goes overboard but the ideal world you've presented simply does not reflect reality.

give up freedom for economic benefits?

same answer - it is a false choice. economic benefits provide freedom/choice.

give up freedom for convenience?

ditto

what are our basic rights? when can they be abridged? why?
Click to expand...

life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Any form of cooperation among individuals is in effect "government". It is a choice to subordinate some individual action for a collective action that is deemed to yield results of value. A National Park for example is a choice made by citizens to deem certain land ownable by no individual. This is government - rules made by the collective.

I'd say the basic rights are captured well by the Bill of Rights.
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Any form of cooperation among individuals is in effect "government". It is a choice to subordinate some individual action for a collective action that is deemed to yield results of value. A National Park for example is a choice made by citizens to deem certain land ownable by no individual. This is government - rules made by the collective.

I'd say the basic rights are captured well by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Happiness is property in said context.
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Any form of cooperation among individuals is in effect "government". It is a choice to subordinate some individual action for a collective action that is deemed to yield results of value. A National Park for example is a choice made by citizens to deem certain land ownable by no individual. This is government - rules made by the collective.

I'd say the basic rights are captured well by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

plus million
 
#40
#40
therealUT said:
Happiness is property in said context.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the founders viewed happiness as property. If they did, then someone making me unhappy would be violating my rights. According to the "liberty" video - they would be guilty of theft.

I see the context as you are free to do the things that make you happy (of course provided they do not violate the rights of others which is the real problem with the theme of the thread - what is the boundary).
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Any form of cooperation among individuals is in effect "government". It is a choice to subordinate some individual action for a collective action that is deemed to yield results of value. A National Park for example is a choice made by citizens to deem certain land ownable by no individual. This is government - rules made by the collective.

I'd say the basic rights are captured well by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I agree, but voluntary agreements are not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about government authorized to use force against the people (especially when I never agreed to pay income tax).
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
I don't believe the founders viewed happiness as property. If they did, then someone making me unhappy would be violating my rights. According to the "liberty" video - they would be guilty of theft.

I see the context as you are free to do the things that make you happy (of course provided they do not violate the rights of others which is the real problem with the theme of the thread - what is the boundary).
Click to expand...

No, they meant property and they substituted the phrase "pursuit of happiness" because they saw them as one and the same. There is a mountain of evidence to support this.

And it's not "happiness" it's the "pursuit", so somebody making you unhappy wouldn't necessarily be violating your rights.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
I don't believe the founders viewed happiness as property. If they did, then someone making me unhappy would be violating my rights. According to the "liberty" video - they would be guilty of theft.

I see the context as you are free to do the things that make you happy (of course provided they do not violate the rights of others which is the real problem with the theme of the thread - what is the boundary).
Click to expand...

The phrase "the pursuit of happiness"comes straight from Locke. He defined it as wealth and property.
 
#44
#44
therealUT said:
The phrase "the pursuit of happiness"comes straight from Locke. He defined it as wealth and property.
Click to expand...

What's more, is that although some individuals try to paint Hegel as a socialist, he believed that property was an extension of the Self and personal property therefore has the same protections as persons.
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Any form of cooperation among individuals is in effect "government". It is a choice to subordinate some individual action for a collective action that is deemed to yield results of value. A National Park for example is a choice made by citizens to deem certain land ownable by no individual. This is government - rules made by the collective.

I'd say the basic rights are captured well by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Cooperation = government? This makes no sense. Government is organized violence. Cooperation is freely entered into. Government is coercion.

How is government a choice? There is no viable alternative to living in a nation-state.
 
#46
#46
nbakerld said:
No, they meant property and they substituted the phrase "pursuit of happiness" because they saw them as one and the same. There is a mountain of evidence to support this.

And it's not "happiness" it's the "pursuit", so somebody making you unhappy wouldn't necessarily be violating your rights.
Click to expand...

I agree with the latter and that was the reason for my post. If my happiness itself was property then someone making me unhappy would be stealing my property.
 
#47
#47
RespectTradition said:
Cooperation = government? This makes no sense. Government is organized violence. Cooperation is freely entered into. Government is coercion.

How is government a choice? There is no viable alternative to living in a nation-state.
Click to expand...

If all the people in the neighborhood decide to come up with common rules for the neighborhood then you have established government - you are collectively "governing" some affairs of the neighborhood. You can further choose to empower certain members with enforcement power or diffuse it throughout all the neighbors but it is government of the neighborhood affairs.

municipal, state and federal are simply more formalized and larger versions of the same.
 
#48
#48
therealUT said:
The phrase "the pursuit of happiness"comes straight from Locke. He defined it as wealth and property.
Click to expand...

I mistook your comment to mean that "happiness" itself (a state of mind) was considered property not that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" was a euphemism for wealth and property.

I was responding to the former and suggesting that a state of mind cannot be considered property in the sense of a right to protect said property from others.
 
#49
#49
volinbham said:
If all the people in the neighborhood decide to come up with common rules for the neighborhood then you have established government - you are collectively "governing" some affairs of the neighborhood. You can further choose to empower certain members with enforcement power or diffuse it throughout all the neighbors but it is government of the neighborhood affairs.

municipal, state and federal are simply more formalized and larger versions of the same.
Click to expand...

plus one
 
#50
#50
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin

Since we are talking about property use, what if you buy a building lot between two nice houses in Florida and when you go to build your retirement home you find a sign posted by the EPA that says the lot is protected Florida Scrub Jay habitat, do not disturb.

When you inquire with the EPA they say you cannot do anything to improve the property and if you ever sell the property it must be stipulated in the deed that the new owner will not do anything to disturb the habitat of the protected Florida Scrub Jay yet the local authorities say you must keep paying regular property taxes or forfeit the property.

This isn't a hypothetical situation, it happened to someone I know and it is happening all over America.

The EPA uses the endangered species act and other federal acts to tell you what you can or cannot do with your property.

In the above scenario they effectively confiscate your property without compensation which is unconstitutional.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top