the Capitalist Dictators.

[Technosoul]

Amercia is free but we got a lot of dictators hanging around telling us what we must do.

I retired and own a mobile home that is located in community setting, they have in this enclosed community what are called "Mobilehome Resideny Laws" just for our "park" community. I rent the space that my mobile home sits on in this complex.

A new managment team was put in charge and they send out these property inspectors who make sure that everyone conforms to the rules. Our place has been here for over 20 years and due to age is a bit run down compared with some of the new mobile homes that have recently moved in.

Yesterday I got a notice that our place was in vilolation of their rules.

A leak in the outside hose that was causing standing water in the street.

They claim that I need a new paint job on the mobilehome and that repairs must be done (they did not state what repairs they mean). Also they said that I need to improve the landscaping (again no particular details). And that I was using a bedsheet to cover the windows (this one window has this curtain that I got but it has a design on it that looks like a bed sheet).

I have 7 days to fix these problems the notice demanded.

I do not know what will happen when I do not conform, if I would get kicked out or if they would add a fine to my next rental notice?

Anyway I wrote them back a letter because the standing water is in the street and not on my property, and because the street is poorly constructed so that the water cannot flow downhill to the crub drain. I am not authorized to do street repairs. I turned off the water at the main switch to quickly stop the leak into my planter box. I (again) trimmed the three bushes I have here.

I am flat brooke until next payday on the first of next month relative to having extra money to use for repairs. So no new paint job will be done within 7 days. (Last month I had the place cleaned with a high power water hose).

They basically have a law that I must keep up with the most wealthy Joneses in our community so their re-sale values on their sites do not drop, which also resulted in higher property taxas for my place which the landlords added on to my rental billing (fifty bucks more a month this year then last year) in order to help our new Republican governer and his budget problem in this state.
So that the managers who also sell the real estaste here can ask more money from new comers and thusly make greater profits.

This little personal story is reflective of much of the problems us low income people (living on fixed incomes due to retirement) must face. Living under the dictatorships of capitalististic (greedy) individuals of the private sector.

All they care for is the power of being in charge of everyone and their love for big bucks. Anyone who cannot afford to play that game is viewed with disrespect and they just say "it is your own fault you are not wealthy like us". But why should I give up my principles as a decent and compassionate person to live like they do in their uncaring would of selfishness? I worked my life away, I did my part and paid my dues to the boss dictators of our country, so why must I now be forced into homelessness? Just because I refused to take advatage of other people to become one of the fat cats of our society?

I am getting out my voodoo drum ... justice will be done.

Anyway the topic here is "what do you think about capitalism as an alternative method of having a dictatorship. Are you happy or unhappy with that development that has taken over America?

Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Capitalism and dictatorship are two different concepts really, but I feel that while it looks good on paper, capitalism is generally mythical. The real system is based upon greed more than success.

As far as your situation goes, do you have any kind of long standing contract which allows you to stay on that parcel of land, unless you violate some rule? You might also want to do a bit of digging in the public records and find out what all that land is worth if it is sold without trailers on it. Also, have there been any bids or development proposals in the area? Check out area developers and any property transfers in the area within the last couple of years. You might possibly be in for a surprise.

[Technosoul]

You are not far off base. Last year the orginal owener wanted to sell off the property but under law they had to everyone a chance to buy their own spaces (the land being rented under the mobilehome). This was done many did buy their spaces (on time payments) for a hugh sum of money and they set up a community oversite group that would be in charge of keeping up the commuity useage areas of the complex (clubhouse, swimming pool, and land areas not owned by the people living here, and the street system, etc. Under this plan the remaining people who did not buy their property could still continue renting from the original company and subject of rent raises - but they would be subject to the rules of the new community oversite group (made up of resident owners?). I signed no new contracts with them my self and so assume older contracts still apply. I rent monthy and have no long term lease as we have occupied the space long enough to cover that.

I did not qualify for the loan needed from a bank to buy my space location - and did not think it was a worthwhile investment because my mobilehome is not very new so I am hanging in as long as I can before looking at other options.

The value of this space is high because they just build a bunch of new houses in the surrounding neighborhoods that are in the high cost bracket. I live basically in a rich man's neighborhood near where Nixon was born.

And so it might be that the new home owners group would like to see us renters move out and the orginal ower would be pleased as now people can only buy spaces and no new people are allowed to just rent them. If I was smart I could sell the setting home cheap and use the money for payment of moving costs and startng rents somewhere else, I do not know if I can sell a totally worthless place for a inflated price legally?

Also they just added a rule that people who violate rules can be made to pay a fine which goes into the budget of the home owners group.

Technosoul. (sorry if too long winded).

[Kyran]

LMAO. Techno, if you don't like having a landlord...get your own property. You're blaming capitalism for trailer park owners? HHHHHHHHAAAAAAA. Okay, I've got to say something intelligent or it's a waste of time.

Whew. Okay I've finished laughing.

Look pal, just because you don't like the deal you're getting doesn't mean that capitalism is to blame. Would you rather deal with government bureaucrats telling you what to do to your property? Well guess what...your landlord is. And he so happily passes it on to you; the end sucker. From the looks of things, you are not enjoying it very much.

So I recommend you take a second look at capitalism. Instead of the government telling you (even through your landlord) how to care for the land you live on, you should support property rights and start fighting the bureaucracy. That way, if someone else doesn't like the way your yard looks...they can go **** themselves.

Yay me. Yay capitalism. And yay freedom.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Kyran, LMAO. Techno, if you don't like having a landlord...get your own property. You're blaming capitalism for trailer park owners? HHHHHHHHAAAAAAA. Okay, I've got to say something intelligent or it's a waste of time. Whew. Okay I've finished laughing. The same park rule would apply to both renters and owners of the tiny property spaces. Ho ho ho. To say that if you do not like the landlord then beomce a landlord is like saying the bible is true because the bible said that it true and that is circular reasoning and such is worthless thnking. - to say if you don't like being the lower class become the dictator is like saying give in and become the "no more mr. nice guy". For if you become a dictator then you beocme bad like them (capitolists) and so what is the point of that? Why can't they just bug off and let us live in peace? Why don't stop trying to force us into becoming greedy pigs? Onke if you like capitolism. Ha ha ha. Look pal, just because you don't like the deal you're getting doesn't mean that capitalism is to blame. Would you rather deal with government bureaucrats telling you what to do to your property? Well guess what...your landlord is. And he so happily passes it on to you; the end sucker. From the looks of things, you are not enjoying it very much. So I recommend you take a second look at capitalism. Instead of the government telling you (even through your landlord) how to care for the land you live on, you should support property rights and start fighting the bureaucracy. That way, if someone else doesn't like the way your yard looks...they can go **** themselves. Yay me. Yay capitalism. And yay freedom.

Is it not possible to fight using words and making information known on places like this forum? Is that not what I am doing here - fighting the good fight?
Am I not speaking out (and not just crying in my beer in some bar) about injustice and making more people aware of the need for changes? The dictatorship aspects of capitolism is a totally different animal the freedom or justice.

If they do not like my property then they can go move to a neighborhood with a view they would rather look at. Howabout that? I am not forcing them to stay here and put up with the likes of me. My only complaint is about their complaint letter(s) and their inspections. They stepped on my freedom with their capitolistic dictates (aka rules). And you dare call such capitolism a free state?

Try again my friend, I am not yet on that boat.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Also, Jeff - see how unkind and totally non-respectful you are telling me to "buy my own property like they did" when you know I have just posted that I am on a fixed income and could not afford to buy the property you suggested.

To say if I do not like rich people then become one instead of blaming them. Yeah, like wake up in the morning and say "from on on I will be one of the rich guys instead of a retired guy on social security". How unrealistic and likewise insensivtive your reaonsing is about other people. May the gods have mercy on you.

How about that!!! ho ho ho. Technosoul.

[Kyran]

Who's Jeff??????

Techno, it ISN'T your property. You are renting the land from someone else. That someone doesn't want you to trash THEIR property. How about I rent a room from you and then proceed to bust out the window, tear up the carpet, and punch holes in the walls. Wouldn't you be the big evil capitalist for telling me to fix the damage?

Look, you can whine all day long, but that isn't going to fix your situation. Here's the deal. Either you admit your predicament is your own fault and start talking to me with some decency or I leave you to deal with your own problems. I'll admit I'm insensitive, but I'm not cruel. I can actually help you beyond just advice, but not unless you are willing to be a man about this. If you want to hate your landlord, then you deserve your situation.

Choose wisely...because I don't bluff.

[Gorgo]

Capitalism as we know it and politics as we know it does form a type of oligarchy. However, I'm not sure that is totally what's going on here. Not sure that it isn't, either, but not sure that it is.

You bought into a park that has rules. You don't obey those rules, you pay the consequences. What will happen should be written in those rules. Is the fact that you don't know what's going on because you didn't look at the rules, or didn't ask or are there rules that were made without your knowledge or your cooperation?

Talking about global political solutions to this problem is fine, but that doesn't really solve your problem in the short term? Wouldn't it make more sense to get a copy of the rules and see what you can do about your problem directly?

To get back to the larger issue, again, I think it's fine to talk about how to make the world a better place, but on a daily basis, these kinds of daily problems will exist regardless of who runs things and how.

I'm a landlord, and I work for a capitalist enterprise, and I do my best with both. I don't like the fact that if people don't pay their rent I have to ask them to leave. I don't like the fact that if I come up with a better way of doing things at work, that might mean someone might lose their job.

I would rather have a better system. That doesn't exist and I didn't create this one so I have to do what I have to do to survive while doing what little I can to figure out how to make it better.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Kyran, Who's Jeff?????? Techno, it ISN'T your property. You are renting the land from someone else. That someone doesn't want you to trash THEIR property. How about I rent a room from you and then proceed to bust out the window, tear up the carpet, and punch holes in the walls. Wouldn't you be the big evil capitalist for telling me to fix the damage? Look, you can whine all day long, but that isn't going to fix your situation. Here's the deal. Either you admit your predicament is your own fault and start talking to me with some decency or I leave you to deal with your own problems. I'll admit I'm insensitive, but I'm not cruel. I can actually help you beyond just advice, but not unless you are willing to be a man about this. If you want to hate your landlord, then you deserve your situation. Choose wisely...because I don't bluff.

If the shoe does not fit you certainly do not have to wear it, and you are not the Landlord (the community overview group - or property owner) and so I would not hold you responsible in any way at all.

But your comparison is not right on target. I did not break windows or damage their property in any way I know of. The mobile home is mine, I only rent the flat land that it sits on which flat land is still flat land and has not changed. I am not wreaking things but over time things get old and start to look run down, that is a process called "ageing" and not a deliberate act of vandellism (spelling wrong?) as you suggested with your "comparrison" (my impression). I used to work in apartment managment and know the difference between normal wear and tear and trashing a place due to missconduct.

Many years ago when our parents died they left us this mobilehome in their will, and we put it up for sale through the person who owned this mobilehome park where it is sitting, who established it's market value. He was unable to get anyone to buy it for over a year and meantime we had to keep up the space rent and also we were renting a house, we had hoped to end up getting the 20 thousand they were attempting to sell it for but nothing happened and so we made a choice to move out of the house and live here, so that we were not paying rent on both places. So here I am. More or less due to circumstances.

Anyway I did get rid of the standing water in their street (for now) and like I said, trimmed the bushes (the bushes are not the property of the owner of the space, each person must install their own and in our case the plants were here before we occupied the rented space.

As far as giving the couch a new paint job, that is totally out of the question due to economic reasons relative to my pending outgoing expenses.
However it is not about painting the Landords property because he does not own the mobilehome nor am I renting it from him.

I did not create the systems used by banks, not is that my problem. Example: Let us say you build an expensive house in a neighborhood that has a few older houses that are not worth much, if the bank gives you a loan on your house they will estimate it's worth not only on the house you live in but also the neighborhood it is within, so if your nighbor has shack that could bring down the value of your house (because others might not want to buy it if it is not in a "high class neighborhood"). Get my drift? And so the people with new houses try to get regulations passed to bring up what is called community standards, and soon it is unlawful to have uncut grass in your yard, an old car in your driveway, or anything else that would suggest that you are poorer then the neighbors with their fancy new houses. (and I am not just talking about extreme cases like strange "pack rat" people. Plus, you cannot have anything radical in your yard, or cats that run around outside, etc.

That trend started back in the 1950s and has become much more commonplace as time goes on. And the rules get passed because the lawmakers are also part of the upper class who have nice houses and who want to get loans from banks so they can pay off all their debts on those credit cards thay used to buy their new cars and all the pretty green stuff in their yards, etc. But to get those loans they must trample on the rights of their neighbors so that the neighborhood near them alos reflects their standards of living. Get it?
And so their house will go up in value before they sell it to move to another neighborhood.

So I ask you, if I own the mobilehome how come someone else has the right to tell me to paint it. Is that freedom to live as you wish? Who died and made them my dictator? In my opinion I can think of a lot better things to spend my limited in-come on then paint so why am I not allowed to make my own choices if I am not under some sort of dictatorship system? To say it is my fault for not getting educated and getting a big paying job is ....... (I'm being more sensitive this time) because I done retired and do not think I should have to start all over agian trying to climb the ladders of success, that is not where I am at at this stage of life. I am okay with living with what I got and within the income my retirement affords me, but such cannot be possible if some "community standards dictators" keep demanding that I spend money for their interests or to improve their life. If they do not like how my place is painted let them come over and paint it ( I am willing to cooperate in that respect). My paint does not bug me, not my problem, so if it bugs them then it is their problem and they should fix their problem thier with their money and stay out of my wallet.

Do you get where I am coming from?

Please add your comments and reported wisdom to those remarks.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Capitalism as we know it and politics as we know it does form a type of oligarchy. However, I'm not sure that is totally what's going on here. Not sure that it isn't, either, but not sure that it is. You bought into a park that has rules. You don't obey those rules, you pay the consequences. What will happen should be written in those rules. Is the fact that you don't know what's going on because you didn't look at the rules, or didn't ask or are there rules that were made without your knowledge or your cooperation? In another message in this chain I mentioned the circumstances that led to me moving in here. And they had a list of rules which I read. The idea of giving people a fine for non-conformity came into effect after the original owner sold most of the rental spaces to people living here. Because the fines go into their budget they have become more active in thier inspections which was not the case during the years preceding that "changing of the guard". The people who paid for thier spaces (property) now make the rules and those who still rent a space (me) have no say-so. These people have no real past experience when it comes to manageing a mobilehome park. And we have no on-site manager anymore, for example the street sign was busted down and the street lights went out on our street and remain unfixed for the past week, every request for repair must be written and mailed to some Real Estate Company in another town as they were hired by the "community group" do the management, but that company only has experience with apartments and not with mobilehomes. I have no idea what is going on with this new set-up. Talking about global political solutions to this problem is fine, but that doesn't really solve your problem in the short term? Wouldn't it make more sense to get a copy of the rules and see what you can do about your problem directly? To get back to the larger issue, again, I think it's fine to talk about how to make the world a better place, but on a daily basis, these kinds of daily problems will exist regardless of who runs things and how. I'm a landlord, and I work for a capitalist enterprise, and I do my best with both. I don't like the fact that if people don't pay their rent I have to ask them to leave. I don't like the fact that if I come up with a better way of doing things at work, that might mean someone might lose their job. I would rather have a better system. That doesn't exist and I didn't create this one so I have to do what I have to do to survive while doing what little I can to figure out how to make it better.

I also was part of the management team of a apartment complex, we had a total of 300 units (hired a security guard to hand out the evictions when needed). And everyplace has rules that must be enforced, like no loud noises, no unlawful activities (like selling drugs out of your apartemnt), parking rules,
and so forth. Rules are indeed a fact of life, and sometimes they can show no mercy because you have to have the majority of the apartments rented with paying people to make ends meet and to profit off the operation, if you have a bunch of unrented or unpaid for apartments the owner would become bankrupt. So such is understandable. Most rental agreements are standard thourghout the industry and so no one has much choice but agree to the rules (which favor the landlords) if they need to rent a place to live. Everyplace has the same rules and agreements as prepared by some legal team and all owners buy the same forms from that same source. Sign it or NEVER RENT - anywhere. Right?

Like if you buy a new car you must sign an agreement and if you checked all over town you would find every dealership uses the same basic standard agreement forms. The landlords and dealers do not make them up their self but depend on forms prepared by some publishing company that prepared them with the help of a legal team. So in effect rules have become a monopoly of sorts, rather then providing the consumers with a wide choice of options.

Technosoul.

[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?

[Gorgo]

These people run a park and they have rules and if those rules are broken, what do you expect them to do? They have to live their lives too.

Sorry, but while I prefer that things aren't this way, they are, and while they are that's the way that they are.

[Technosoul]

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.

[Kyran]

Well Techno, you've chosen sides.

There's no point in me running circles here. You want to control other people's property, and others want to control your property. The solution is for everyone to leave everyone else alone. Don't expect to have property rights unless you are willing to respect the same rights of others.

If you feel that some landowner can't chop down his own trees, why shouldn't you be told what to do by your landlord? Isn't that a double-standard? I believe in all people having the SAME rights, not one person having more rights than others.

You're right. That would get you booted from the LP. I can tell you are a Radical. It's my term for a libertarian-liberal; which means you are neutral to capitalism and socialism. Your opposing ideology is neo-conservatism; you hate Dubya with a passion. You value personal freedom.

You can always change your mind. You've been honest enough to admit where you stand. Will you concede to equal property rights or would you rather things stay the way they are?

[Technosoul]

You have jumped the gun a bit too quickly with such a big comeback but now allow me to reason form my side of such a debate.

You have framed it as being an issue of personal property rights which you assume are the same for a house owner and a big company.

The owner of the company that would buy up massive real estate is only interested in fast bucks and not using the property as a private dwelling place for his self or his family. No one is telling him what he can do at his big house in Texas which is miles away from his company property in northern california.

Some of the gaint trees are over 200 years old and were standing at that location long before our pioneers came here and before they wrote the consitution. No one should have had the right to buy that property in the first place but Regain said "if you seen one tree you have seen them all" and released some lands to his logging "special interest" group and/or person. At the time the Repubicans thought that more logging jobs were more important then a anicent rainforest that is just standing there doing nothing but "being".

So this rich oil guy buys up a lot of forested real estate and then is making contracts with loggers to distroy it so he can have a little extra pocket money because just one president is not environmentally sensitive. The rich guy claims property rights, and the environmentalists say he is a company and cannot violate laws that preventing impacting nature in a negative or dooming way.

It goes to court and the logging is put on hold pending the outcome of those hearings. Does a company have the same rights as a private homeowner? Is saving an ancient redwood forest the same thing as telling someone to mow their grass?

After Reagan the Democrats move into the White House but the logging case is still a hot topic. It was found that the rich guy owed millions in unpaid taxes and so the lawyers were able to workout a deal to make the rainforest the payment for that debt. However the real case was never completed and so the "property rights" issue was left unresolved.

However I only stated that one type of case as being the exception to the rule about eveyone having the same property rights. That is because that land and it's primitive forest is of greater value to America as a whole then are the rights of one guy who's only real interest is his bank account.

I do not think that a large company (aka super rich guy) or industry should be able to stand behind laws that were designed only for small home ownership and/or the personal freedoms that being in your own house or yard would grant.

Can you see that we have a difference in types of ownerships of private property and for different reasons and that one law might not be applicable to every private ownership situation?

Technosoul.

[Comrade]

What? We could uproot a few trees and put them in a museum.

Let's see, let's balance here.
Save the rainforest vs. Productivity in the economy (the trees aren't just cut down for fun). Hmm...
Environmentalists make me mad, because the only time the environment is doing anything for me is when its being destroyed.

[Kyran]

Techno, it is your opinion that property rights are not applicable to every situation. You are asking for power over things that do not belong to you. You think it's justified to use the government to control other people's property in the name of Environmentalism.

And what I'm tellin ya is that landlords, as well as homeowner associations, think it's justified to use the government to control your property in the name of Land Value.

Ever hear of treat others as you wish to be treated?

Apparently this just isn't good enough for you. Okay, fine. You don't have property rights. Don't like it? Tough. Until people like you decide everyone should have the same rights (regardless of race, gender, financial status, or any other stupid discriminatory qualifiers) things will remain as they are.

[Technosoul]

Kyran.

You did not really address the points I made at all but just returned to the simple concept that one law should fit all.

But are things all that simple? Are there not exceptions and complexities in real life?

Is private ownership by a company the same as private ownership by a homeowner, would the Libertarian party get rid of all zoneing laws and allow someone the right to use his private property to fuild a factory in a housing track next door to your kid's schoolyard?

Could I use my private property for a nudest camp in a conservative housing track? In other words, is it unfair to have zoneing laws that seperate housing and commercial properties?

If you live downstream from me can I use up all the water in the stream before it reaches your property, if it was on my property first?

Under the thinking of environmentalists some of our remaining wildlife areas should be seen in the same manner as waterways, and as beaches on the ocean, and like we might some important historical landmark. Something that belongs to everyone and that can be handed down to future generations so that students in the future can study nature in it's orginal habitat. Those remaining wildlife areas represent what Ameirca was like before it became America. I guess the only reason the rainforests in our North West remained unused was because until that case was because no one could afford to buy it, or because the area was not yet zoned for private useage. Each redwood tree is worth millions and so a forest full would be something only a billionaire could dream of investing in, which is not fair to all the rest of us who do not have a billion bucks to buy up the land for so-called envirnomental reasons (unless done so collectivly via taxes).

So we have issues that go beyond individual rights.

So here are my questions for you.

Should we get rid of zoneing laws? Should private ownership be liberated come zoneing laws so that we place no differnence on property used for dwelling purposes, for commerical or industrial purposes. Should the same laws be used for each of those zones now in effect (in most locations).

Next: Should human rights be the only rights worth concidering, or should we as humans also respect the rights of other animals and life forms that we share our planet with?

How can a spotted owl get a job and pay for it's right of private ownership under our human system of thinking?

You need to address those questions that go beyond the more simplistic concept that you are attempting to hold onto, first by saying what you think about those additional insights.

(1) do future generations have any rights or should we have all the rights just so we can gooble up all the natual resources before they are born (which, with modern technology could be done as swiftly as a hurricane blowing away Jed Bush's house).

(2) do other speicies of life (other then human beings) have any rights relative to total termination from ever appearing again on the face of our planet?

(3) can I have an ant farm next to your bakery shop?

(4) should we abort all zoneing laws now in effect?

(5) should laws be flexable enough to compensate for speical needs or should they be written in stone as unchangable standards no matter what the particular circumstances might recomend.

(6) can we have a law that all people must respect the environment and those concerns reguardless of who they are, be they rich or poor, black or white, religious or secular? Without stereotyping that respect as pandering to just one special interest group?

Your turn.

PS: Yes, if giving up my rights here on this tiny rented space could save a gaint rainforest from distruction, I am willing to surrender my individual rights for that greater cause.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Comrade, What? We could uproot a few trees and put them in a museum. Let's see, let's balance here. Save the rainforest vs. Productivity in the economy (the trees aren't just cut down for fun). Hmm... Environmentalists make me mad, because the only time the environment is doing anything for me is when its being destroyed.

Comrade.

Then I suggest you wait til your anger passes so your brain and clear up and then you will be able to think logically instead of emotionally, a nice wooded area would help you because each plant is redating green peace and if you sit quite like in the woods that would restore for you some peace of mind so that you are not mad all the time at environmentalists.

Technosoul (wearing my Dr Phil hat).

[Technosoul]

PS.

And so if the logging industry would treat the spotted owl the same as they want to be treated then such conflicts would not be present.

Animals have their dwelling places just like I have my dwelling place, why should some money man who is not living in my house come around and tell me it should be changed or knocked down? The same rights should apply to the endangered Spotted Owl that I want applied to my individual dwelling place.

How about that for some "logic" and "fairness"?

Technosoul.