Quote:
Originally posted by Kyran,
Techno, I'll give you credit. You're being honest. And you're right, my comparison analogy was off. I knew that when I typed it.
Some people bluff though. They'll cause their own problems and lie about it to make the other guy look bad. I'm glad you proved me wrong. Now I'm on your side.
I understand your type of dilemma is commonplace among Americans. Community Associations, sometimes lone landlords, use the excuse of money to control the property of others. The double standard is, supposing you RAISED the value of your landlord's property...he doesn't have to give you a dime. These associations use county councils, sometimes city councils, to eject unwanted neighbors.
Don't you just love right-wing mercantilism? I'm serious bud, it's not capitalism. It's mob rule. This is why we need a property rights amendment to the constitution. The Dems and the Repubs are not gonna have it. Do you have any qualms with the libertarians? Because they are the only party interested in property rights.
The idea that your landlord or neighbors or the government owns your home is socialistic by nature. No one has the authority to rule you like this.
Are we in agreement? |
I think we see eye to eye on what the problems is which I had put into personal terms, but feel a lot of other persons have simular problems.
In it's pureist and most idealistic format all kinds of governments are workable, capitolism (not sure if that is the same thing as a republic or a democarcy?) with a open and free market does encourge progress and productivity, and is motiavtional for economic booming. Socialism also in it's most idealistic terminology is good, and even a dictatorship is fine if the dictator is someone like Jesus who might be fair to everyone and not just selfish. Needless to say all these political and religious ideas have been alternated from their original idealistic objectives (along with some of our drinking water).
On a smaller scale the rights of renters relative to the rights of Landlords is on less consitutional grownding, most of the time the Landlords win and the renters loose (in legal debates). Nearly every judge owns property that is up for rent or lease (as they like to invest money in real estate), and that conflict of interest is never concidered by renters who seek to make things better via the jusitic system, same is vastly the case with lawyers, doctors, and people who hold political offices. And so like the poster below suggested us renters are expected to be good little animals and adopt to the environment as it is.
Speaking of animals here comes a shocker for you (inspite of all my gripping) I do not think some rich guy who buys up a lot of property in a ancient redwood forest has the right to chop down all his trees on his property. (Which might get me booted from the Libertarian party, I think?). I think that environmentalists are correct in preventing him from doing whatever he wants on his miles and miles of forestest land. (in case you want to drift into another topic of debate which is sort of extended from this one?)
Anyway present news is.
I got rid of all the standing water in the street. I called their legal department and an hour ago someone showed up and trimmed the bushes in the unkept community property next to my driveway (wondering why? but they did act on my complaint a little). Do not know if I will get another notice of failure to conform with some kind of fine or whatever?
Technosoul.