The Universality of Those That Worship Statism?

[hornadylnl]

What are you talking about?

Why this ranting about your grass?

Your complaining about statists's desires to control economic and social policy. Yet you have no problem controlling others when it comes to your wallet.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yet you have no problem controlling others when it comes to your wallet.

Defending my rights is not controlling others.

I want to "control" others not to punch me in the nose.

I want to "control" others not to point guns at me.

I want to control others not to trespass on my property.

You seem to be laboring under a confused definition of statism. Perhaps you think any law whatsoever is statist. Ok, you may disagree with a way in which rights are defended and I failing the debate cannot disabuse of this notion, but this notion of yours that defeding rights is statist is incorrect as a matter of political science.

 

[jbombelli]

All this talk about rights when it comes to property value ... I want to know how someone has a RIGHT to some particular property value. There are no guarantees in the world. Not when it comes to stocks, bonds, options, commodities or real estate, or anything else in which you put your money. I cannot remember any right to some sort of return on an investment.

Where does this right come from?

 

[hornadylnl]

All this talk about rights when it comes to property value ... I want to know how someone has a RIGHT to some particular property value. There are no guarantees in the world. Not when it comes to stocks, bonds, options, commodities or real estate, or anything else in which you put your money. I cannot remember any right to some sort of return on an investment.

Where does this right come from?

Using the government to control others for your benefit is defending your rights. Others using government to control you for their benefit is statism.

 

[firehawk1]

You seem to be laboring under a confused definition of statism. Perhaps you think any law whatsoever is statist.

Ah... and IMO we have arrived at the definition of hardcore Libertarianism.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Using the government to control others for your benefit is defending your rights.

Using the rule of law to protect my rights is the purpose of the Constitution.

I do not know why this aggrieves you so.

 

[hornadylnl]

Using the rule of law to protect my rights is the purpose of the Constitution.

I do not know why this aggrieves you so.

How is my grass infringing on your rights?

 

[jbombelli]

Using the government to control others for your benefit is defending your rights. Others using government to control you for their benefit is statism.

That assumes I advocate using government to control others.

But my questions is ... where does the right I (in theory) would be defending come from? Since when is there a right to an increasing (or at least stable) property value? Or any other return on investment?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How is my grass infringing on your rights?

Just as when another's guns infringe on my rights when they are pointed at me.

One's property cannot be used to damage another. Using the rule of law to prevent injury is not statism. It may be a policy you disagree with, but it is not statism.

 

[hornadylnl]

That assumes I advocate using government to control others.

But my questions is ... where does the right I (in theory) would be defending come from? Since when is there a right to an increasing (or at least stable) property value? Or any other return on investment?

I'm curious of that answer as well.

I'm a good neighbor and take care of my property. But there will always be those who think I don't do enough and will turn to government because I'm not doing what they think I should. Those people ask for more government and we get it. It is these people who have created the beast responsible for this. https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/247217-nj_residents_may_be_fined_if_they_dont_fix_their_homes_in_15_days.html

 

[hornadylnl]

Just as when another's guns infringe on my rights when they are pointed at me.

One's property cannot be used to damage another. Using the rule of law to prevent injury is not statism. It may be a policy you disagree with, but it is not statism.

What is the injury?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But there will always be those who think I don't do enough and will turn to government because I'm not doing what they think I should.

One turns to the government (ordinance violation or civil suit) as one's rights are injured. The rule of law is applied and rights are protected.

How else can we protect our rights?

Should we turn to private action to protect our rights?

What is the injury?

When you point guns at another, without cause, then the other person or his property may be injured or lost.

 

[jbombelli]

Just as when another's guns infringe on my rights when they are pointed at me.

One's property cannot be used to damage another. Using the rule of law to prevent injury is not statism. It may be a policy you disagree with, but it is not statism.

Where have you come up with the right to a positive return on investment?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Where have you come up with the right to a positive return on investment?

What are you talking about? Who has advocated this?

 

[firehawk1]

What are you talking about? Who has advocated this?

Like trying to herd cats isn't it?

 

[jbombelli]

What are you talking about? Who has advocated this?

You.

Using the rule of law to protect my rights is the purpose of the Constitution.

One's property cannot be used to damage another.

One turns to the government (ordinance violation or civil suit) as one's rights are injured. The rule of law is applied and rights are protected.

How else can we protect our rights?

You're talking about using government force to protect the value of your property, are you not? (i.e. prevent a negative return on your investment)

So where is this right to property value coming from?

 

[hornadylnl]

One turns to the government (ordinance violation or civil suit) as one's rights are injured. The rule of law is applied and rights are protected.

How else can we protect our rights?

Should we turn to private action to protect our rights?



When you point guns at another, without cause, then the other person or his property may be injured or lost.

Grass is a gun. Got it.

 

[firehawk1]

Where have you come up with the right to a positive return on investment?

Where would one come up with the right to cause a negative return on someone's investment by their actions?

 

[jbombelli]

Where would one come up with the right to cause a negative return on someone's investment by their actions?

It's called the right to enjoy MY property as *I* see fit. This is the essence of property rights.

You want to mow YOUR grass? Have at it. Maybe I like tall grass. Maybe I prefer that rustic look. Why are you trying to force me to ruin MY property? I wouldn't tell you that you have to let your grass grow.

There's risk with every investment. When you buy a house or land, there's risk. When you buy stocks there's risk. When you buy commodities, there's risk. You're not guaranteed a positive return. On anything. Ever.

But some of you seem to advocate using government force to guarantee that positive return on your real estate.

 

[poptab]

Yea i fail to see how tall grass looks anything remotely like a gun pointed in your general direction.

If I buy a parcel of land why do I not have the right to grow whatever the hell I want there?

If you want a fancy neighborhood with prissy neighbors who mow every saturday buy a house in an area with a home owners assosiation. Then everyone has agreed to a set of standards and actually signed a contract.

Using government force on people who havent consented to whatever arbitrary lawn care rules you favor seems more like tyranny than rule of law to me.