The Uncaring Tyranny of Government

[Dîn-Heru]

It is common sense , they could have hit him with a GF148 and throwed him in jail , putting people in jail costs money so this foreclosure is more fiscaly prudent .

Hehe, fair enough, perhaps common sense was the wrong term, (what the hell is common sense anyway), but the point still stands that there are different options that must be more preferable to both parties than the hassle for the government to get rid of the house and for the man to lose it ( even if it is caused by his own/(his brother's) stupidity.. )

[Hosakawa Tito]

Many communities have laws requiring license plates on vehicles simply because if they do not some people would allow their properties to look like a junk yard.

Seizing assets to pay for fines or taxes owed is reasonable, but in this case, the disparity between the asset seized and the minicule fine owed is not reasonable at all. They could seize the vehicle, garnish his disability/social security check or tax returns whatever. Making him homeless for a paltry $2600 is excessive in the extreme. Where is Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton when you actually need them?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

poor Pete must be white

[Tribesman]

Seizing assets to pay for fines or taxes owed is reasonable, but in this case, the disparity between the asset seized and the minicule fine owed is not reasonable at all. They could seize the vehicle, garnish his disability/social security check or tax returns whatever. Making him homeless for a paltry $2600 is excessive in the extreme.

Well I doubt that van would fetch much in the way of cash so why would the city want a pile of junk , as for taking it from other sources good idea , thats what they do when you co-operate , they come to an arrangement which you stick to to pay them their money , but when you don't co-operate and don't attempt to do a deal then they are going to do whats easiest for them and what guarantees they get the money .
In this case its siezing for sale the most obvious asset .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Does anyone kinda get the impression that in the main this topic has not gone in the direction the OP wanted

I see people saying one of 2 things:

A. The fine was absurd in the first place and the government shouldn't have done this.
or
B. The fine was appropriate but the seizure of the home was unconscionable.

Unless the OP was trying to get Tribesman to agree with people as to a reasonable understanding of an obviously bad situation, he seems to have relayed the point well. I can assure you that he had no such expectations for you - why would he going on experience?

[Tribesman]

Unless the OP was trying to get Tribesman to agree with people as to a reasonable understanding of an obviously bad situation, he seems to have relayed the point well.

Really ??? the uncaring tyranny of government
The judge delayed the implimentation of the siezure when during the hearing questions first surfaced about the mental state of the debtor , when the hearing relayed information they recieved on the day concerning the mental state of the debtor to the local government , the local government acted quickly with an intervention .
Where is the bloody tyranny ?
The only suggestion of "more government" making things better is the judge saying perhaps there should be a provision for legal representation for people who are too thick to read their own mail .

tyranny eh , pay up or lose your assets or come to an agreement before september to pay up and protect your assets .
Bloody hell the local government bent over backwards to accomodate this person once issues of his mental state were raised .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Really ??? the uncaring tyranny of government
The judge delayed the implimentation of the siezure when during the hearing questions first surfaced about the mental state of the debtor , when the hearing relayed information they recieved on the day concerning the mental state of the debtor to the local government , the local government acted quickly with an intervention .
Where is the bloody tyranny ?
The only suggestion of "more government" making things better is the judge saying perhaps there should be a provision for legal representation for people who are too thick to read their own mail .

tyranny eh , pay up or lose your assets or come to an agreement before september to pay up and protect your assets .
Bloody hell the local government bent over backwards to accomodate this person once issues of his mental state were raised .

"through due process, the state enforced the original $50 ticket and eventually decided to kill the Appellant and eat his bones". I don't care what the due process was and I'm pretty sure that nobody who decided on the law had home seizure in mind. If any type of punishment is cruel and unusual - this is it.

[Goofball]

Long story short - the government is taking this man's house because he didn't have a license on his van sitting in his driveway. He wasn't driving the van and the neighbors never complained, but the government believes that it is equitable to take his house for the offense.

Funny, if I were making this long story short it would read:

A man receives a ticket for being in violation of the law, and chooses to ignore it. At any time during the 4 years that he ignored the ticket he could have stopped the foreclosure process by picking up the phone and calling city hall, but he chose not to. Now the city is taking his house as they have been left with no choice, as opposed to the scofflaw, who had a choice the whole time, but chose not to do the right thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Funny, if I were making this long story short it would read:

A man receives a ticket for being in violation of the law, and chooses to ignore it. At any time during the 4 years that he ignored the ticket he could have stopped the foreclosure process by picking up the phone and calling city hall, but he chose not to. Now the city is taking his house as they have been left with no choice, as opposed to the scofflaw, who had a choice the whole time, but chose not to do the right thing.

The guy has had quite a few physical and emotional issues. The reporter responded that the man frequently broke down and couldn't complete sentences in interview.

I'm the bleeding heart this time. If they guy had driven without a license - that would be one thing. He was literally minding his own business with serious physical illnesses, his parents died and he was having nervous breakdowns. My father has diabetes. If he were less of a man with the kind of stresses this guy was going through I wouldn't be surprised if he killed us all and danced on our graves.

I agree that his Federal payouts could have been garnished. That would have been a reasonable response.

I frequently disagree with both you and Tribesman. Why would this time be any different?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's a pretty petty law.

Submit citizen, for submission means freedom!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Many communities have laws requiring license plates on vehicles simply because if they do not some people would allow their properties to look like a junk yard.

Seizing assets to pay for fines or taxes owed is reasonable, but in this case, the disparity between the asset seized and the minicule fine owed is not reasonable at all. They could seize the vehicle, garnish his disability/social security check or tax returns whatever. Making him homeless for a paltry $2600 is excessive in the extreme. Where is Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton when you actually need them?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

poor Pete must be white

They didn't kick him out, he still lives there and pays rent. The only problem here was outlined by the judge--the government has no way of knowing if someone has a disability that interferes with there ability to pay the fine.

[m52nickerson]

The man should have payed the fine. If he needed help to pay the fine he could have called the local code enforcement to see if he could pay over the phone in in some other way.

Then if you want a law like this over turned you have to organize.

[Tribesman]

They didn't kick him out, he still lives there and pays rent.

He still lives there and still owns the house .
If he doesn't do a deal by the 11th of september then he can still live there and pay rent but not own the house .
All this arises becauseTubic decided he was going to fight the fine which he thought was unfair , but his idea of fighting the fine was to ignore it and do nothing .
Given that he is mentaly competant to pay all his other bills when they come in , keep up to date on his property taxes and choose to make donations to local politicians election funds it appears that his "mental illness" angle on this issue may just be a ploy .
Then again making donations to politicians does bring his mental state into question .

[Papewaio]

Proportional response is required.

If the guy is not mentally nor physically ill nor has been for the length of the fine. And had not stated that he was then selling his house is not proportionate for littering. Which essentially the fine is to stop people littering on their own property with an unlicensed vehicle.

If the guy states he was very sick and wasn't then seize and take the house if that is the result for perjury which is a separate issue.

If he has been mentally & physically ill. Been the primary care giver for his parents and otherwise a good citizen then they should wave the fine. Society should at all times look after its weakest and applaud those who do so as well. Also investigate if the brother was making malicious mischief with the law for personal reasons.

The escalation path for this should be something like this:
Fine $50.
Failure to pay:
Go to court:
Then pay a higher fine say $50 +court costs +cost of towing the offending unregistered vehicle away.
Vehicle impounded for six months. Then the vehicle disposed of. If any money is made from it then it can pay the costs of any outstanding fines and the rest returned to the original owner.

In short make the punishment gain the outcome in which the law was intended. They don't want old cars littering the suburb then have as part of the fine escalation should be getting rid of the litter.

As it stands the current outcome doesn't clean up the place and only has a heavy handed response way out of proportion to what the problem is.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You guys are all acting like its' the government who is being unreasonable.

You think it reasonable to fine people because the vehicles they have on their property do not have license plates, little sheets of metal and paint, on them? Is it reasonable a man cannot keep a van on his property without paying out to the government for a license plate? Is that what you consider reasonable?

What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?

No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.

As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.

The guy broke the law, didn't he? A law that has been voted in a democracy. As long as the law is valid, you have to obey it. If you don't like the law, vote for somebody who will change it or become a politican yourself.

The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?

You mentioned a democracy, though this is a republic. But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?

What a pathetic concept. Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.

Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.

And meek acceptance of the government as arbitrator of what is right will lead only to further erosion of liberty.

And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

It is hard to fathom the mind which assumes, which takes as a starting position that the government is always correct, that it's actions to enforce whatever ridiculous law are reasonable. How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.

Oh, but they cry, they weren't required to. As if someone who was so insensitive to the suffering of others, so uncaring of people, should be able to rule.

I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?

CR

[KukriKhan]

Papewaio's solution is wise in a proposed measured solution, but ignores the central issues: the 'litter' is on so-called private property. What is the state's compelling interest in regulating that, and what is the state's right in enforcing that interest?

I agree that this fellow is not the most sympathetic poster-boy for property rights, for the reasons cited by Tribesman

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

All this arises becauseTubic decided he was going to fight the fine which he thought was unfair , but his idea of fighting the fine was to ignore it and do nothing .
Given that he is mentaly competant to pay all his other bills when they come in , keep up to date on his property taxes and choose to make donations to local politicians election funds it appears that his "mental illness" angle on this issue may just be a ploy .
Then again making donations to politicians does bring his mental state into question .

as well as the fact that he inherited the property vs having paid it down over a 30 year mortgage himself personally.

And both Andres and Hosakawa Tito make persuasive argument for compliance with the rule of law, no matter how silly or unjust that law may seem.

Bravo! for HoreTore's Rosa Parks reference. Well played Sir.

Many other posters want to solve the problem via Tubic's compliance with the pay-orders at various stages.

But - it - was - his - property.

Parked 20 feet southward of it's current position, on a public street, I can see the citation and fine, and the state taking action to remove a nuisance and impediment to public use of the public road, possible safety issue, and apparently-abandoned property revenue source.

But it's on his (inherited, but nevertheless: his) property. Why can his friends and neighbors, fellow citizens, dictate to him what he can and cannot display on his property? And then, seeing resistance to that claim to a right to dictate, levy onerous fines, and sieze, assume, and dispose of any and/or all properties of the alleged perpetrator?

To 'prove' the rule of law? To enhance ( or prevent the un-enhancement of) local property values? To punish a scofflaw, and deter other non-compliers from daring to challenge the right of society-at-large, which knows best, to impose it's will by force, on the individual property owner?

Granted, this is the 21st century, so such imperial confiscations and usurpations of "The American Dream" (tm) have become normal-ized. Two hundred years ago, we'd have reached for our pitchforks and torches (and yes, Tribesman, flintlocks) and defended miserable little Mr. Tubic's right (yes: right) to do whatever the hell he wanted to do on his personal property.

It's the big draw for immigrants here, legal and otherwise. Come here, work hard, eventually earn thru that hard work a chunk of land you can call your own, that nobody can take from you.

Except, now 'they' can.

Rights aren't given or bestowed, or granted, or levied. At least, not here. They just 'are'. Take your pick whether they 'are' because of some natural or divine inclination, or by agreement among men. They are in any case, unalienable; incapable of being alienated/separated from their holders.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But it's on his (inherited, but nevertheless: his) property. Why can his friends and neighbors, fellow citizens, dictate to him what he can and cannot display on his property? And then, seeing resistance to that claim to a right to dictate, levy onerous fines, and sieze, assume, and dispose of any and/or all properties of the alleged perpetrator?

This has been the most amusing thread for years based on the topsi-turviness of expected positions. But your post in its entirety, and this quote specifically provide a clue to help me understand why the conservative members are so keen to defend a law-breaker.

Americans clearly have a very different view of property than those of us from the other side of the Pond. It appears that there is a belief that property in private hands should be inviolable and safe from encroachment by the state - and by extension, the law.

So it appears that one may own slaves on one's own property, abuse one's own children therein and perhaps build a brothel there with appropriate displays. Am I correct? Or is there perhaps a reality that laws apply across even private property rights, when those laws are designed to preserve the balanced rights of neighbours and other interested parties?

The fact that the law in question may well be unjust is a side issue, to be fought in political discourse and protest with the relevant city hall. This fellow broke the law, tried to avoid the punishment and is now facing a - frankly over-fluffy and lovey-dovey librul - judge about to impose the final draconian penalty to solve the problem and serve as an example to others.

Had this chap been a young entrepreneur running a crack den I fear we would have heard somewhat less of inviolable property rights.

[Papewaio]

I'm not sure using criminal law scenarios apply in what would appear a civil law issue.

That is like comparing marriage with a french kiss.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's the big draw for immigrants here, legal and otherwise. Come here, work hard, eventually earn thru that hard work a chunk of land you can call your own, that nobody can take from you.

Even in the States it is simply not true that you can "do what you like" with your own land. Some things are illegal in themselves, for example running a brothel (in most states) or growing cannabis. Other things are a nuisance to the neighbours such as being noisy at night or running certain types of business. Once you admit the principle that your neighbours have a right to limited control on how you use your property because the impact of your activities on their enjoyment of their land and homes then this case is about degrees and reasonableness rather than fundamental rights.

You could make an argument that insisting that vehicles parked in your own drive are licensed is a step too far. Certainly in the UK no such restriction exists and to me it seems over the top. It would be interesting to know what the history of the particular zoning law that has been invoked. Was the clause introduced following complaints from householders about neighbours turning their streets into mini scrapyards or was it simply some officials adding restrictions because they though it was a good idea?

However if you argue that he should be able to keep his car their because he can do what he likes with his land then you have to concede to your neighbours the rights to allow their properties to fall to wrack and ruin, knock down their houses and build convenience stores or abattoirs, pile up rubbish on the front lawn, play loud music until 4 am or dance naked in the drive. It is their property after all.

Remember the seizure of his house is to settle a debt. It is the result of his failure to pay fines, not his failure to licence the van. He could avoid the loss of his house by paying the fine with money he has placed in escrow. He has until the middle of September to do this.

This is not an example of the government oppressing one of its citizens. At worst it is an example of an overstrict zoning law that the people of Milwaukee could overturn through the democratic process if they wished.

Peter Tubic is no 21st Century Rosa Parkes. Even mentioning them in the same thread demonstrates that whilst a terrible situation for Mr Tubic, this is not a significant issue in terms of fundamental rights.

[Andres]

You think it reasonable to fine people because the vehicles they have on their property do not have license plates, little sheets of metal and paint, on them?

Yep, because it's the law.

Like I said, if everybody could happily break the law without consequences because they deem it "unreasonable" or "ridiculous", then you'll find yourself in a state of total anarchy and you can say bye bye to your precious freedom.

Is it reasonable a man cannot keep a van on his property without paying out to the government for a license plate? Is that what you consider reasonable?

You call it "keeping a van on his property" others would call it using a residential property as a car cemetery or a trash heap. And wasn't the offense taking place while his mother was still alive? He inherited the house, so as long as his mother was still alive, I assume it wasn't his property, but the property of his mother (correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I interpreted the article incorrect).

Anyway, a law has to be obeyed. If a certain law is stupid or silly, then it has to be changed in a democratic way. As long as the law is legally valid though, it has to be obeyed.

What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?

He's a US citizen living in the US. US legislation applies to him

Are you saying that nobody living in the US has to obey the law because nobody signed an agreement with the US authorities?

No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.

But it has that power! And luckily for us westerners, only the government and no one else has that power.

As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.

Don't worry, I don't live in your country. My subversive opinions won't have any influence on your freedom

But I'm not a government apologetic. If the government breaks the law, it should face consequences too imo, but let's stick to the topic now.

The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?

So the law is just a piece of paper to ignore or obey as you see fit, depending on what's most beneficial for you? Do you consider total anarchy as utopia?

Besides, is it right or just to let a small fine for a simple offense escalate into this while a simple phone call or a transaction of 50 $ would have prevented all this?

If we're talking about freedom, than we're also talking about responsibility for your own actions...

But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?

Nope. But in this particular case, I don't see anything immoral and inacceptable. From a different point of view one could argue that it's not moral and acceptable that citizen A does not have to pay his fines because he tells a sad story to a newspaper and citizen B has to pay his fines because he does not want to hide behind a sad story.

(Don't forget, the guy was taking care of his parents, doing their groceries, cooking and cleaning for them. The article doesn't speak of other non payed debts, so he seems perfectly capable to handle his affairs. That and his brother is a jerk.)

Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.

"Justice"? How beautiful it may sound, basing laws on a vague and abstract concept as "justice" doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Many bad things happened in the name of "justice".

Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.

Ok, let's get rid of democracy then. What better alternative do you propose? Personally, I'd prefer myself to be your malevolent ruler

And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

He can go to court and try to invoke "freedom of expression" and let a court break that law?

How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.

The man could have easily prevented this himself by a) paying the fine, b) going to court and trying to convince the judge that he did not break the law, c) if he feels the law itself violates his basic human/constitutional rights, contest the law as such in court (in Belgium we have a Constitutional Court, that can break laws which violate certain basic constitutional rights, I assume the same possibility exists in the US?) Responsability...

I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?

To put an example? Not punishing the man, would set a bad precedent don't you think?

The law, made by the democratically elected legislative body, is perfectly clear: don't do A, get fined, no room for discussion. Don't pay your debts, we will seizure your assets, sell them and use the money to pay the debts you are unwilling to pay. The excedent is for the culprit of course (no, the government won't keep the 275.000 $, they will just keep what the guy owes them).

Would you prefer the executive body and its' employees to apply the law as they see fit? Than you would have an arbitrary government.

[Tribesman]

You think it reasonable to fine people because the vehicles they have on their property do not have license plates, little sheets of metal and paint, on them? Is it reasonable a man cannot keep a van on his property without paying out to the government for a license plate? Is that what you consider reasonable?

Yes , its perfectly reasonable .

What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?

The agreement , that would be the agreement a property owner has with the local authorities , you know the sort of agreement that says there are local laws for local people and if you want to be a local you live by the local laws .

No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.

Errrr..... No the government has that power , it always has had the power , it always will have that power , its what a government does .

The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law?

Errrrr...since the laws and compliance with laws are central to the theme then the law is important to this topic .

And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?

Ah an extreme example , perfect , thank you Rabbit .
There was this fella who bought a big castle next to a lake on the outskirts of town , a rather nice castle but in need of lots of repair .
Being a rather old building there were lots of laws that meant that all his renovations on his home which was his private property was very expensive .
Since he wanted all the comforts of home he decided that a coat of render would make his big stone house more weather proof .
The government said no a castle is a big stone building you cannot plaster it as it would look funny and not like a historic castle at all .
Did he plaster it and say bollox to your silly laws and ignore them ?
No he fought the decision and showed that these buildings were rendered and the reason people think they were not is because it had all fallen off over the years and not been replaced .
So he won that little one but on the condition that he only used lime based render in keeping with the historic concept of the building .
Then he decided to paint it ...bright pink .
Now you can imagine how the government acted about this huge 6 story bright pink box next to a scenic lake set against tha backdrop of the hills .
They were not happy bunnies at all .
Did the owner say bollox and ignore them when they said to change it ?
No he fought their decision and showed that the pink was a natural colour based on paint made from the local soil which is exactly what the local people would have used in past times .
So did he garner support to change the laws of the country ? No .
Did he just sit back , say bollox and do nothing like Tubic did ? No
He worked within the law and complied with the law .
And got his property just how he wanted it .
Well Rabbit I heartliy thank you for unwittingly providing a perfect example of what to do if you think the governments interpretation of the law is wrong .

Whoda thunk it , I suppose you thought a silly example like a paint job would be a good idea to support your views eh

Had this chap been a young entrepreneur running a crack den I fear we would have heard somewhat less of inviolable property rights.

What you mean like the other story from the same paper about the same town where the evil government was taking someones property not because she was a drug dealer but because her tennants were engaged in prostitution and drug dealing and despite repeated requests she had done nothing to resolve the problem .
No takers on the poor victim of tyrannical government there eh ?

[KukriKhan]

Our European friends are correct, of course. America has moved, in fits and starts, toward the euro model of property ownership since the 30's and FDR. We like to think that the object of our years of blood, sweat and tears (our land) is "inviolable and safe from encroachment by the state"... but in practice, as we see, it is not.

We just don't like it. Some of us 'just don't like it' a lot. For if personal property is not inviolable and safe from encroachment by the state, then the truth is that the state is the actual owner of all property, and we so-called "owners" are not that at all, but merely stewards, caretakers, serfs, beholden to our sovereign (and hopefully benevolent) Lords, who know better than we what is best for us.

A couple hundred years ago, we fought revolutions and civil wars over this. Today, it's not so likely, I guess.

[HoreTore]

Bah, Kukri. For a society to function, you need some level of regulation. It's simply because humans are very good at being inconsiderate idiots.

Let's take the example of storing trash in your yard. Let's say you buy a house for 300k. The price on any home is affected by the neighborhood, by the view, etc. If some guy moves in next door and basically turns his property into a sewer, the price of your house will fall dramatically, and you'll lose quite a lot of money. And so will the rest of the neighborhood. Not very nice, eh? That's the reason for regulations like this, people don't like to lose 100k because the guy who moved in next door is a complete jackass.

However, in this case, the regulations are way to strict. If he had like 10 wrecks stored in his yard, it would be something else... But one car without license plates is nothing.

[Andres]

A couple hundred years ago, we fought revolutions and civil wars over this. Today, it's not so likely, I guess.

Revolutions and wars because of property rights and land.

Because people have the illusion that the land and what's built on it belongs to them.

We humans can be such idiots, can't we? The land was there before humankind and will still be there after all of us died yet we think its' ours because we gave some pieces of paper called "money" to another guy who had the illusion of being the owner.

From a certain point of view, the importance we adhere to the ownership of material things is absurd. We say "we don't have time" and "we have a house and some land". When we die however, the house and the land will still be there, but you won't own it anymore, somebody else will. The only thing related to the house and the land that was and always will be really exclusively yours was, ironically, the time you spent in the house and on the land.

Sorry for derailing the thread with cheap random pseudo filosophical thoughts.

Back to work so that I can continue to pay Mister Mortgage, because if I don't, he'll sell "my" house

[KukriKhan]

Bah, Kukri. For a society to function, you need some level of regulation. It's simply because humans are very good at being inconsiderate idiots.

I stipulate that. But: the less, the better. This guy's case is something much more; it points to the fact that we only own what we can successfully defend. And what we can, as individuals, defend is becoming smaller and smaller, in the interest of 'the public good'.

What is the state's compelling interest in regulating property values in particular neighborhoods?

[LittleGrizzly]

Could americans really do what they wanted in thier own properties before the 30's ?

Obviously crimes against others are still covered but i would assume there would be issues with some drugs and errm prostitution ?

The law in this case does seem overly strict, im not sure we have similar laws here in the UK, i do see old cars without plates but mainly on farms rather than in residential areas, to clarify would it have been ok if it was parked in a garage, is it just the public display at the front of the house of an unused vehicle that caused the fine ?

I can sympathise with the intent of the law, you wouldn't want your nieghbour having the equivelent of a scrap yard out in his front garden, or most people wouldn't.....

What is the state's compelling interest in regulating property values in particular neighborhoods?

I would say its the wellbeing of others that the goverment is protecting rather than property values, seen as the property values go down when someone makes the place a worse place to live, just because someone owns the land next to you does that mean they should be able to wreck it and drag your nearby plot down by association, im fairly sure this would be covered by other laws these days but imagine your nieghbour who was usually downwind from you regularly had fires in his back garden, in doing so you have a constant barrage of ash and smoke coming at you the moment you step outside your house, it is of course a case of degrees....

[HoreTore]

What is the state's compelling interest in regulating property values in particular neighborhoods?

The state = the society.

[KukriKhan]

The state = the society.

Exactly. That apparently works well for you guys, based on your history, culture, and inclination, and I'm glad for you. Over here we had something else in mind: the supremacy - to the maximum extent possible, of the individual citizen.

I paid $200,000 for the home I live in, 4 years ago. Last week, a similar home down the street sold for $156,900. Since the state feels compelled to control everything I do with my home, to whom do I send the bill for my $43,100 "loss"? It's loss in value is certainly not due to any action or inaction on my part, or that of my neighbors.

[Andres]

I paid $200,000 for the home I live in, 4 years ago. Last week, a similar home down the street sold for $156,900. Since the state feels compelled to control everything I do with my home, to whom do I send the bill for my $43,100 "loss"? It's loss in value is certainly not due to any action or inaction on my part, or that of my neighbors.

Aren't you exaggerating now? The state doesn't control "everything" you do with your home.

Besides, did the government create the real estate bubble? I thought free market did that...

[LittleGrizzly]

Exactly. That apparently works well for you guys, based on your history, culture, and inclination, and I'm glad for you. Over here we had something else in mind: the supremacy - to the maximum extent possible, of the individual citizen.

Im sure that works great in sparesly populated areas but when people live in such close proximity to each other laws have to made to force people to be considerate to each other, it would be great if we didn't need such rules, it would be great if we didn't have to stop people trying to kill each other, unfortunatly its the few bad apples that spoil it for the rest.

Is it paticularly this case that has you bothered ? or is it your rights in your own home in general ?

Because im sure if you had a new neighbour move on who let the place become rat and other pests infested and dumped all his waste out on his garden you would soon be unhappy and calling up the goverment to help....

[KukriKhan]

Aren't you exaggerating now? The state doesn't control "everything" you do with your home.

Besides, did the government create the real estate bubble? I thought free market did that...

Heh. I've been exaggerating, as most here have, this entire thread, with the purpose of examining, discussing and testing these ideas of individual rights vs the collective well-being.

So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?