Town hall & the 51% majority

[ChelC]

I'm always surprised when siblings look so alike, because I'm used to my opposite children and I forget that everyone doesn't have adopted kids sometimes. You just get so used to looking at your own. The first several months after we adopted Juan Carlos and spending all day looking at his tan skin I would scare myself everytime I caught my pasty reflection in the mirror. When we first got home from Guatemala I thought everyone's kids looked ill.

They are so cute. Do they go to a private school, or are uniforms required in public school there?

[Moses]

I live in a small town. There has been much building lately. Many new subdivisions. I went to a heated city council meeting where many neighbors of a proposed new subdivision were there to protest. They didn't want their "views" of the mountains blocked. They didn't want the extra traffic on the roads. One of the council members (my old scout leader) got up and told these "socialists" that they should put their money together and buy the land. Then they could do with it as they wanted. He even offered $20,000. and he didn't even live in that neighborhood. The protesters of course thought that to be a bad idea because it would be at their expense. Fortunately the city leaders granted the new subdivision. The city didn't own the land, it was PRIVATE.

if the value of the property was devalued by X% then X% and more has effectively been stolen by the developer. What was that about theft being wrong? What was that about force?

And you think someone has the right to block out the views? The people who purchased their homes, when there was a view, would probably had to pay a premium for the view. I think that any payment ought to be "To the people who would lose their view" as a compensation, I would see it as an imposition to block their view. Why should the encumbent pay to have the view they already enjoy. Those homes are actually the fruits of those peoples labour. and the lost view is taking without consent.

This makes me mad. I think the city ought to have found in favour of the protesters.A gross injustice was done.

There ought to be a resource consent act to prevent such things happening . The people have a right of protection from greedy developers who have no desire to preserve the environment , just a desire to get rich and move on.

How about I come and build a wall in front of your home so you cant see out?

What you term as socialists are sensible people who have a genuine desire to have the right to the view they had when they purchased their homes.

[blakwatch]

Private property rights are often analogized to a bundle of sticks.

Contrary to sometimes popular belief, as a general rule, one of the sticks that doesn't come in the bundle of sticks you get when you buy property is the right to control what your neighbor does on his/her property.

This is an entitlement that does not and should not exist, except by contractual relationship between the parties, including CC&Rs, etc.

The only exceptions to this rule should be: (1) substantial risk or danger to the general public health and welfare, and/or; (2) substantial interference or impairment to a neighbor's property or use.

People are notorious for wanting to take sticks from their neighbors' bundle, and add them to their own without paying anything for the sticks they take.

This is theft.

[Moses]

If you buy a house because of its location, and then someone builds and blocks the very reason you bought it, and not only that, but reduces the value of that property. Then that person is due repairation.

The other party who then inherits the 'view' has stolen from the other party, that is theft.They have the value of the view, and have taken that value from the other party.

A decent local government would reject the planning permission based on the submission form the injured party.

That is proper, your suggestion is rather a perverse encroachment on a persons right to the enjoyment on the property they have purchased. The factor here is the pre existing situation , has to take precedence over the newcomer.

I

[jbalm]

You are foolish to buy property based on the characteristics of an adjacent plot. If you want to control the other plot, buy it.

I didn't want neighbors crowding me, so I bought on a road with 10+ acre lots and covenants prohibiting subdivision. The desired effect was achieved efficiently and without confrontation by willing parties making agreements at arms length.

How arrogant must one be to decide that everyone around them must conform to their tastes? A person is not entitled to government protection against the consequences of failing to look forward.

[jbalm]

The other party who then inherits the 'view' has stolen from the other party, that is theft.They have the value of the view, and have taken that value from the other party.

Can you reconcile this statement with your oft stated view that any legalized taking cannot, by definition, be theft?

[ChelC]

Jbalm is absolutely right.

Here's a situation for you... I bought my home in part due to our lovely view from the back. It is fields for several hundred yards and then a low bluff which is already developed nicely frames the mountainous view from behind. I only own 180 feet from the back of my house. Now the state may eventually place a large highway project through the far end of the fields, just below the bluff, marring up my view. Or one of the homeowners might choose to build a barn on the back end of their property. They may choose to sell off some land and subdivide it, which would sure make my back yard feel suddenly crowded.

Are you saying that in any and all of these cases I should be financially compensated? Only if it can be demonstrated that the value of my property declined? Or can I sue even if nothing valuable to anyone besides myself has been taken? Do I own the view, or am I just lucky enough to partake of it? If I bought my home because of the beautiful barn my neighbor had, and then he dozed it, would I have any right to object?

You say that we have human rights to medical care, and now you say that we have rights to property, compensation for devaluing of our property, but not necessarily for complete ownership and definitely not complete control of it.

We have a God given right to medical care, but not a God given right to paint our home a color that we like? We have a God given right to gall bladder surgery paid for by government, but not a right to build a barn where we'd like on our property? We have a God-given right to prenatal care paid for by others, but we do not have the right to brick our home if everyone else says it should be stucco? God given right to get cavities filled, but no right to protect our children with a firearm if necessary. But police officers do have a right to carry a gun? Is that because protecting someone for financial compensation is a right, but self protection is not?

How do you reconcile this in your mind? What do you think ARE our God-given rights? How many people does it take for their "rights" to mean more?

[shadow]

Moses, why are you coveting land you have no rights to? You obviously are oblivious to what a "right" is. Private property somehow gets twisted into public property. all I can say is Wow!!

If you want a view, then buy the land around you to make sure your view isn't blocked. How sad that you would value your view (which isn't a right) more than your neighbors right to his land. Shameful and selfish. But I guess that's the effects if being a socialist.

BTW, not that it matters when rights are concerned, but this new subdivision will raise the property values of the houses around it. It usually happens that way.

[blakwatch]

I can't help but jump back in here.

It should be obvious from my posts that I obviously disagree with Moses on this issue.

And, I agree with virtually everything everyone else has said.

BUT, this is exactly the kind of exchange/attack that ChelC and I got in such a kerfuffle about.

Isn't it possible to disagree with someone and address (or "attack," if that is what has to happen) their ideas and expressions, without attacking them personally?

I'm tempted to repeat my earlier observation. I realize that many may disagree with Moses' views, but shouldn't we all respect, accept and tolerate others' right to express and say what they believe, even if we disagree?

We should be very careful about judging anyone until we have walked in their shoes.

Obviously, Moses has a different paradigm, and there's probably a reason for it.

Although I certaintly don't espouse Socialism, I have spent a fair amount of time in Scandinavia and elsewhere, and my guess is that the vast majority of Scandinavians -- even members of the church -- would not trade their system for ours.

Trying to convince them otherwise would be like batting your head against a brick wall.

So, what's the point?

[shadow]

I'm tempted to repeat my earlier observation. I realize that many may disagree with Moses' views, but shouldn't we all respect, accept and tolerate others' right to express and say what they believe, even if we disagree?

We should be very careful about judging anyone until we have walked in their shoes.

Right back at you I suppose.

Moses has made some pretty outlandish accusations. He can handle the rebuttals. Socialism has it's effects on it's society. They are obvious. Just look at Moses try to define a "right". He can't. That's the problem with socialism, there are no individual rights, only privileges. On one thread he says he supports property rights. Then on this thread I can only assume he means property rights belong to society as a whole, or 51%, not private parties. When one co-mingles the definition of a right with that of wishes, well.... expect to be called on it.

[blakwatch]

I don't disagree with you.

Moses has made some outlandish statements that I don't agree with.

But I can't see that he has attacked you. He hasn't attacked me.

So why attack him?

We're arguing about property here -- stuff. It's all just stuff.

In another thread, Moses did ask a legitimate question. What matters most, money (i.e., property, etc.) or people?.

Again, I don't agree with him, but he raises some interesting questions that are worth talking about without beating each other into oblivion.

Address the issues. Attack them if you feel you must, but why make it personal?

[shadow]

I haven't attacked Moses. Just his views. Like I've stated many times in different threads, it's the principle.

We're arguing "rights". Not stuff. It's the principle of who controls the "stuff". All property is Gods. But when one acquires a stewardship over property, it's his to control, to be a steward over.

[shadow]

.

[Moses]

Hey guys Im not offended int he slightest, I smile at some of your replies I am a seasoned and firm in my vfiews enough to not be hurt if someone challenges them

In my land(S) we do have resource consent actsThat places the environment above developers interests. That is the land was here before any of us. and is not ours, we are stewards of the land for the next generations.

I grew up in a heavlily industrial part of Northern England , our legacy from the greedy Mine owners was filthy slag heaps of coal waste all around and a smokey polluted air.

The so called Socialists of the post 50s have transformed the area into a green belt with clean air for all to enjoy. Life expectancy in our area has increased we get tourists , who bring their money and spend it in the town, where previously they would drive miles out of their way to avoid it. Industry has been made accountable for their waste and environmental activities.

Its no good turning the tables on me regarding what I said about theft. I thought you would be happy that I believed that peoples homes should be respected.

In my Lands(s) we have laws that stipulate we are not allowed to disadvantage our neighbours and before any new development can take place, we have to submitt plans , then the proposed plans are published in our local newspaper for 90 days ( on a weekly basis) where interested parties are invited to make submissions and reasons why the proposed development should or should not go ahead.

Usually plans are passed but if a person objects because it will take daylight from their home, then the plans are rejected. there are many reasons the plans may be rejected.

Sometimes the plans are accepted with amenments.

Land values in My country are not based only on square feet or meters, the aspect existing is also a factor. If you buy a house in a built up area, you probably pay $300,000
The same house in an area close by with views will bring $450,000.

In British Law and NZ law a person can sue for compensation if the owner of an existing house suffers a loss of view, or added noise by new roads.

They can seek compensation from the local government, and or from a developer who breeches the law. Or the developer can make an offer prior to putting in his plans to the owers of the house that he will affect.

Its all a matter of doing to your neighbour as you would have him do to you. dont do anything to him that you would not like done to you.

[shadow]

Its all a matter of doing to your neighbour as you would have him do to you. dont do anything to him that you would not like done to you.

Now that I can agree to. See, we do have some common foundation!!

[Moses]

Not sure what you mean by Moses not attacking. "Absurd remark", "Selfish", "Spoiled" - he posted that a few times, "Coveting", "I think before I act"- implying that I don't, "bankrupt of real objections"??
Maybe those are just mis guided innuendos?

Im trying to speak in principles not aiming at anyone particular.

Saying I think before I act, is in no way implying that you dont. Unless you feel it applies to you?

Spoiled,. yes overly dwelling on my rights does make one resemble a spoilt child.

Coveting was not introduced by me if my memory serves me well. I was replying to someone who mentioned the word ,by saying that we can covet our own property. And I was right.

Bankrupt of real objections. I guess what I am alluding to here is I hear the same old cliche's and old failed objections.

I dont think anyone can argue against the statement that people are more important than money. No but's if's or maybes. and as soon as any argument tries to justify to the contrary. There is something not right.

You can put all my statements into a pot and boil them down and my end product would be "PEOPLE "

However having said all that, I apologise if I have made anyone feel uncomfortable by my words or if any offence has been taken.

[Moses]

Can you reconcile this statement with your oft stated view that any legalized taking cannot, by definition, be theft?

Simple. Taxation is not theft, and its on a general level all who earn, pay it.

Your home is quite a different matter. 10000 times more relevant to the question.

I dont object to a dollar of tax, but I object to you dipping your hand in my wallet.

Ones personal and the other is not.

I think the fact that in your view , anything goes, when it comes to business really disqualifies your statements that Tax to give to the poor it theft.

[ChelC]

Did I miss a personal attack? I don't remember.

Anyway, I agree, do unto others. I would also add be patient and long suffering, not sue happy. Learn to view things differently too. Maybe when you learn that your neighbor painted her house that purple color because it was the same color as her now dead daughter's favorite dress, you might see the beauty of it. You just don't always know the whole story.

I would never expect to have interest in my neighbor's property unless they did something that limited the use of my own, like opened a brothel so I couldn't let my kids play outside. Probably wouldn't appreciate a small airport going in next door. They DO have stinky dogs, I mean not normal dog stink, but horrible dry heave kind of stink. I'm planting a lilac bush along the fence there, and I moved my fire pit to the other side of the yard. I could complain to the city, but I'd rather be friendly with the neighbors.

[shadow]

I think we're all trying to get down to principles. I know you haven't been offended by what's been posted, neither have I.

We can agree that all value is in people. If there were no people, all property would be worthless.

We just can't agree on the proper role of government and what a "right" is. We're all decent enough not to get into personal fights about it. We disagree, to that we agree! Moses likes his government system, my opinion is that if all under that government agree to it, then more power to them. But it wouldn't work for me. I'm have too much independence to have a nanny government boss me around. So for me I would feel "forced" to participate in such a system, as I feel forced in my own country. I love freedom. I love responsibility. I love failure (for that's how I learn). I love choice. I love growth. I love accountability. I hate shackles. For me, socialism is full of shackles. For Moses, it's not. To each their own so long as "their own" doesn't force the other.

[shadow]

Spoiled,. yes overly dwelling on my rights does make one resemble a spoilt child.

I believe that trying to infringe upon the rights of another is a result of being spoiled.

Bankrupt of real objections. I guess what I am alluding to here is I hear the same old cliche's and old failed objections.
And what failed objections are they? It seems the shoe is on the other foot on this one. Agency or force.

I dont think anyone can argue against the statement that people are more important than money. No but's if's or maybes. and as soon as any argument tries to justify to the contrary. There is something not right.
To that I whole heartedly agree!!

[Moses]

Isnt it nice when we can disagree without being disagreeable:)

My only qualm with all this is that there is a perception that Moses is living somewhere where hes not free.
Im sitting here now idle (shame) because I am enthralled by this discussion,. Now is there someone at my door telling my I have had long enough on my PC get off and ge to work?

I have a business which give me two homes, two free standing homes in nice areas. an upmarket store in a good part of town. Two cars ( one for her and one for him) a 2 minute walk to the beach. ( maybe ten haha) I dont see anything that limits me at all, I am 100% autonomous. Not saying this to boast, just to illustrate that hey its okay my government wont be here in ten minutes checkiong up on me, Even my tax return is unaudited

My kids attend a free school which gives them a great education. no hidden socialist agendas.

My Prime minister came to our stake house and gave a talk on education her ministers often pop in and sit in our stake conference.Occasionaly giving talks.

Its all dogma, rethoric, and fear of the unfearful. I am okay we are okay we live a free life.

Just to say that Soviet russia and Red China are nothing to do with us......

NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL ANTHEM

God of nations! at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our Free Land.
Guard Pacific's triple star,
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand

Men of ev'ry creed and race
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our Free Land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our State,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our Free Land.
Lord of battles in thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.
Let our love for Thee increase,
May Thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
God defend our Free Land.
From dishonour and from shame
Guard our country's spotless name
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.

May our mountains ever be
Freedom's ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto Thee,
God defend our Free Land.
Guide her in the nations' van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out Thy Glorious plan,
God defend New Zealand

[shadow]

Moses, I would imagine your country is probably more free than mine.

[Moses]

I feel that wherever we are we can feel free, or feel like we are oppressed. Its that which is inside us that is importabt , not that which is outslde.

Shadow , your cool.... thanks for those kind words. You know how to reach someone, dont you? Thank you. so much , you made me feel happy

[jbalm]

Simple. Taxation is not theft, and its on a general level all who earn, pay it.

Your home is quite a different matter. 10000 times more relevant to the question.

I dont object to a dollar of tax, but I object to you dipping your hand in my wallet.

Ones personal and the other is not.

I think the fact that in your view , anything goes, when it comes to business really disqualifies your statements that Tax to give to the poor it theft.

I really fail to see how you don't see causing a subjective decrease in real estate value as "personal" and having your paycheck looted as "not." How is an income tax not having someone dip their hand in your wallet?

I also think that you try to bolster your argument by trying to paint anti-tax people as anti-poor.

Do you consider it wrong for a government to tax citizens to engage in immoral wars? What about using tax revenue to help JP Morgan take over Bear Stearns? What about using tax revenues to prop up foreign dictators because some domestic businesses may benefit?

There are lots of reasons to feel violated by taxation.

In my land(S) we do have resource consent actsThat places the environment above developers interests. That is the land was here before any of us. and is not ours, we are stewards of the land for the next generations.

I grew up in a heavlily industrial part of Northern England , our legacy from the greedy Mine owners was filthy slag heaps of coal waste all around and a smokey polluted air.

The so called Socialists of the post 50s have transformed the area into a green belt with clean air for all to enjoy. Life expectancy in our area has increased we get tourists , who bring their money and spend it in the town, where previously they would drive miles out of their way to avoid it. Industry has been made accountable for their waste and environmental activities.

At least we can agree on something. Sort of.

Callously destroying the environment for gain is evil, whether done by an evil private citizen or a magnanimous, all-loving government entity.

But actually attributing environmental cleanup to socialism is, in my opinion, a bit displaced. History provides plenty of examples to illustrate that socialism and environmentalism are not synonyms.

Read some of Brigham Young's teachings. He was an environmentalist, but certainly not a socialist.

[ChelC]

New Zealand does have a cool national anthem.

I don't believe that you can be free anywhere, it isn't a frame of mind. No way. I do believe that the Lord can bless you with peace and happiness in any situation, but a Jew in Nazi Germany wasn't free, no matter how much they told themselves so.

I live in America, I enjoy many freedoms. I cannot compare my existence to anything resembling nazi germany. I fear for the future though, because I know where this road goes. Thank Heavens I know where the road ends! I am not as free as I should be, even here. Have you never looked at a bird with envy? I have! I was in the city yesterday taking the kids to a children's museum. It was fun, but my spirit was aching for wide spaces by the time we were done. The human soul yearns to be free and peaceful, that means different things to different people. Some birds are loners and they soar in wide spaces, some fly in tight knit flocks. People are much the same. Why then can we not allow each other the freedom to find our own way? It isn't one size fits all. We're supposed to drop to our knees with Thanksgiving to almighty government for allowing us the privilege of having an equal slice of the pie. Anyone who has kids knows it can never be equal. I don't want the fancy clothes or the fancy cars. Give me land and some independence and I'll find my way. I'll pay my share of what I use. I'll be a neighbor. I'll help my community. Let me figure out how when and how much. Leave me alone. Let me teach my children without arrogantly assuming I'm not educated enough to do it. Let me keep the animals I believe will comfortably fit in my parcel of land. Let me drive my truck with the crack in the windshield. If I think it's blocking my vision, I'll replace it. I value my life more than you. Stop micromanaging me! Mind your own business! Stop reading tabloids! Worry about yourself! If I need help I'll ask my family, friends and neighbors for it.

I don't think I'm alone in my yearning to get the heck out of dodge and just live.