Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2016, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,726,771 times
Reputation: 9325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
Sure, because someone's hoped-for house-flipping profit is more important than a person's right to use their own land to live in a home they can afford.

If you buy a home and/or land, you should be able to have full control over it. And only that.
Then don't buy in a neighborhood that has restrictions. Problem solved.

Millions of us buy into HOA neighborhoods BECAUSE the have a HOA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2016, 10:37 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,440,907 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Because it is more important. Because someone's flipped home is property THEY OWN. The other is something they wish to have have, but do NOT OWN.

You do understand that "property" is not just "land", right? It means anything that someone owns. Like money. Or food. Or clothing. Or a car. What if I decided that your car equals "snobbery" and I should be able to use it 2 days a week, because I can't afford to buy one for myself?

I consider minimum lot size requirements a morally illegitimate hindrance to ownership. Funny how the morally illegitimate Constitution protects you from government taking property you OWN while it allows with impunity government hindrances to ownership which prevent others from owning.

If you own a Lexus, that doesn't stop me from owning a Yugo. But when you own a McMansion, that usually coincides with a government prohibition on the housing equivalent of a Yugo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,013 posts, read 14,186,291 times
Reputation: 16727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
... the poor have no voice in government, no power.
True, in a democracy.
False, in a republican form.

• In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
• If instead of endowed rights, you have "constitutional rights" (privileges), and mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government - by your consent.
• If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA - again, by your consent.

Among those endowed rights are life, liberty and absolute ownership (aka "private property" which is not synonymous with "real estate").
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
Note: the fundamental or natural rights are endowments of our Creator, and not subject to the government, nor a vote. However, if one consents . . . all bets are off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 10:49 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,773 posts, read 21,484,749 times
Reputation: 9263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
This is not unusual. Most government regulations keep poor people poor. This time is housing. But the poor have no voice in government, no power. So it's easy for Big Government to regulate them into poverty.

------------

US Government Declaring All Out War on Tiny House Living - Counter Current News
Voters in many states are voting in favor of increased minimum wages and its even being passed in some "red states"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 12:21 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,440,907 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
True, in a democracy.
False, in a republican form.

• In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
• If instead of endowed rights, you have "constitutional rights" (privileges), and mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government - by your consent.
• If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA - again, by your consent.

Among those endowed rights are life, liberty and absolute ownership (aka "private property" which is not synonymous with "real estate").
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
Note: the fundamental or natural rights are endowments of our Creator, and not subject to the government, nor a vote. However, if one consents . . . all bets are off.

What exactly does "by your consent" or "consent of the governed" even mean?

The Framers imposed upon landless citizens a Constitution in which they had no representation. How exactly did the landless consent to be governed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 12:29 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,440,907 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
Voters in many states are voting in favor of increased minimum wages and its even being passed in some "red states"

Voters in many states are voting in favor of increased minimum wages, because politicians and voters refuse to pursue the proper policy of allowing the private sector to deliver the supply and variety of housing that minimum wage advocates need most.

IOW, increasing minimum wages is a flawed response to the shortage of affordable housing, because NIMBYs keep the proper response of allowing the private sector to Build, Baby, Build off the table.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 05:37 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,964 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothere1 View Post
"Your voting residence is within your State of legal residence or domicile. It is the true, fixed address that you consider your permanent home and where you had a physical presence. Your State of legal residence is used for State income tax purposes, and determines eligibility to vote for federal and State elections and qualification for in-state tuition rates."
https://www.fvap.gov/info/laws/votin...ncy-guidelines

I'm still having trouble understanding how a homeless person votes without legal residence.
Their children are able to enroll in any public school they wish, no questions asked. I'm trying to figure that one out, too.

If you're in the Chicago area, think Stevenson HS, New Trier HS, Hinsdale Central HS, etc.

Last edited by InformedConsent; 10-04-2016 at 05:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 05:42 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,964 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
Sure, because someone's hoped-for house-flipping profit is more important than a person's right to use their own land to live in a home they can afford.

If you buy a home and/or land, you should be able to have full control over it. And only that.
I live on an oceanfront lot. I can only build on 25% of it (footprint regulation). Do you disagree with that restriction?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 05:50 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,964 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
You do understand that "property" is not just "land", right? It means anything that someone owns. Like money. Or food. Or clothing. Or a car. What if I decided that your car equals "snobbery" and I should be able to use it 2 days a week, because I can't afford to buy one for myself?
This exact issue is before the NC Courts right now.

NC claims the public has the right to use privately owned beach property, free of charge. That, of course benefits non-oceanfront rental property owners and the entire tourism industry, but doesn't compensate the landowner for that use. Meanwhile, the landowner is taxed on the land that the public uses and from which others profit. And the landowner is legally liable for injuries, etc., that occur on their land.

It's a mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2016, 06:07 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,752,379 times
Reputation: 24862
IIRC - In most New England states the public has the right to use any part of the beach below the mean High Tide Line. This was originally to allow shellfish collecting by anyone but has evolved to allow the public to walk from one part of the beach to another.


I once owned a piece of rural land and wanted to move my dilapidated house trailer to it so I could build my own house. The local zoning officer told me I could not do that because I might never build the house and the trailer was not worth very much so the town taxes would not be enough. While this annoyed the hell out of me. It worked out because after a few years I sold the lot for more then 5 times what I paid for it. That was the down payment on my current residence.


I still believe that a land owner should be able to pretty well do whatever they want on their own land. If I want to buy a few beautiful acres and live in a prefab shack that is my choice. I could care less what it does to my neighbors property values. That is their problem, not mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:57 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top