We're doomed

[BrokenPaw]

Right.  So when the people of the town got together and incorporated Rileyville, they, as the owners of their own land, voted to place their properties under the restrictions of the city zoning commission (that is, the government).

Thereafter, people who bought that land bought the zoning restrictions along with the land.  And people who don't want the restrictions the zoning board applies need not purchase land in Rileyville.

[Brad Johnson]

Mtnbkr suggests that one or the other of those persons is "rejecting reality and substituting his own," as a followup to Mike saying that water is only wet because one is "conditioned to believe it so."

Len, buddy, you are wound just a bit too tight sometimes.

The owner can. Nobody else can, including folks who claim they can because they're the "government."

Incorrect.  In most areas deed restrictions for a development can be changed by a majority vote of the homeowners.  Deed restriction changes for that neighborhood affect everyone there, regardless of whether or not you agreed to the change.  Those changes remain in effect and legally enforceable for the life of the property, regardless of owner.

Also, calling a condition of a sale a "deed restriction" is a misnomer.  Unless you are the original developer, getting a uniqie deed restriction applied to a property is usually very hard to do.  Plus, many title companies will not issue a title policy if the contract contains any deed restriction not part of the overall deed restrictions for that development. 

Remember that deed restrictions are an agreement between homeowners of a specific development.  Any "deed restrictions" placed on a property not within the boundaries of a platted or incorporated development are pretty much useless since there's no one else to agree with except yourself.  Some states may differ and may allow for stated restrictions to be enforceable but, for the most part, once the property sells it's the owner's to do with as he or she wishes.

So, to summarize.  Deed restrictions are a general term of ownership agreed to by the residents of a specific develepment.  The restrictions are legally enforceable should someone file against a neighbor for failure to abide by them, but only if the property is located in a platted or incorporated development.  Deed restrictions can be changed if a majority of the homeowners in that development agree to do so.  Groups of properties outside a platted or incorporated development may claim to have "deed restrictions" but they are usually by gentlemen's agreement and are legally unenforceable.

Right.  So when the people of the town got together and incorporated Rileyville, they, as the owners of their own land, voted to place their properties under the restrictions of the city zoning commission (that is, the government).

Thereafter, people who bought that land bought the zoning restrictions along with the land.  And people who don't want the restrictions the zoning board applies need not purchase land in Rileyville.

Zoning restrictions and deed restrictions are two different critters.  Zoning restrictions are usually enacted by a municipality.  They affect property and property owners regardless of any deed restrictions.

Deed restrictions are unique to a development and are an agreement between homeowners of that develepment to certain living and upkeep restrictions.  They are usually established by the original developer.  They may be changed by a majority vote of owners within that development.

Brad

[Len Budney]

The owner can. Nobody else can, including folks who claim they can because they're the "government."

Incorrect.  In most areas deed restrictions for a development can be changed by a majority vote of the homeowners.  Deed restriction changes for that neighborhood affect everyone there, regardless of whether or not you agreed to the change.  Those changes remain in effect and legally enforceable for the life of the property, regardless of owner...

You appear knowledgeable about the law. I'm certainly no lawyer--but that's OK, because I'm not commenting on the law anyway. Since the government (1) makes the laws, and (2) is the one committing the crime in the first place, it would be rather circular to argue that the government isn't committing a crime after all, because it has given itself permission.

Anyone who exercises authority over a person or his property without his consent is guilty of a moral crime. In particular, government is generally characterized by the fact that practically everything it does is a moral crime.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Anyone who exercises authority over a person or his property without his consent is guilty of a moral crime. In particular, government is generally characterized by the fact that practically everything it does is a moral crime.

Have you ever voted in a local election?  Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.

Unless you've always lived on a deserted island the statement "anyone who exercises authority over a person or his property without his consent" is pretty much guaranteed to include you.

Brad

[Len Budney]

Have you ever voted in a local election?  Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.

Um, duh? Of course not!

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Have you ever voted in a local election?  Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.

Um, duh? Of course not!

--Len.

Then that begs the followup question...

Have you ever voted in any election?

Brad

[Len Budney]

Have you ever voted in a local election?  Chances are there was an issue that affected a lot of people and the way they lived, even in the privacy of their own home.

Um, duh? Of course not!

Then that begs the followup question...

As an aside, it raises a question. It doesn't "beg" a question. "Begging the question" is something else. /grammarenpolizei

Have you ever voted in any election?

Are you getting paid a nickel per stupid question? I sure wish *I* were! I'll give you one guess.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Are you getting paid a nickel per stupid question? I sure wish *I* were! I'll give you one guess.

--Len.

Nice sidestep with accompanying noncommital reply.  So... voted in any election, Yes or No?

Brad

[Len Budney]

Are you getting paid a nickel per stupid question? I sure wish *I* were! I'll give you one guess.

Nice sidestep with accompanying noncommital reply.  So... voted in any election, Yes or No?

Boy, are YOU a lousy guesser! The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the answer should be equally obvious, but I suppose you'll proceed to ask it anyway. Well, go ahead--I can use the nickels. But fair warning, if you come back with the tired old, "If you don't vote, you can't complain," then you owe me $5 and a barf bag.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

"If you don't vote, you can't complain," then you owe me $5 and a barf bag.

In that case the money and the bag are in the mail.

Brad

[Laurent du Var]

Then that begs the followup question...
[/quote]

As an aside, it raises a question. It doesn't "beg" a question. "Begging the question" is something else. /grammarenpolizei

Have you ever voted in any election?

 !!Grammatikpolizei !! 


(Contested modern usage

More recently, "begs the question" has been widely used as an equivalent to "invites the question," "prompts the question," "raises the question," or to indicate that "the question ought to be addressed." In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase.)


Didn't somebody vote for a wording defining Property ?

[Len Budney]

"If you don't vote, you can't complain," then you owe me $5 and a barf bag.

In that case the money and the bag are in the mail.

Awesome. I hope you mean it. 

The reason that reply is asinine is that all choices are bad. In 2004, I could have voted for Bush, and we see what a disaster he's been--or I could have voted for Kerry, and you know what a disaster he would have been. Either one would have forcibly taken billions of dollars from unwilling victims; one to fund his illegal war in Iraq, and the other to fund welfare, socialized medicine, etc.

So given a choice between being strangled and being bludgeoned, I refuse to pick one. If I pick one, and then get it, you can legitimately say that I "can't complain," because I'm "getting what I asked for." And if I pick strangling, and get bludgeoning instead, then what? I have the comfort of being able to say, "Don't blame me--I voted for strangling!"? How asinine.

It's morally incoherent, in general, to try and choose between two people, both of whom are threatening to interfere forcibly in my life. Better to choose "none of the above," and to notify them that I'm armed.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

It's morally incoherent, in general, to try and choose between two people, both of whom are threatening to interfere forcibly in my life.

In which case the logical choice is the lesser of the two evils.  Not voting is NOT the same as choosing 'None Of The Above'.  It is a selfish cop-out to circumvent social responsibility while maintaining an inner (but false) sense of superiority.  You thump your chest that you "cared enough to do the right thing" when, in reality, all you've done is sit on your butt and complain to the rest of us who actually tried.

Brad

[Euclidean]

Len Budney's stance reminds me of the hypothetical dilemma of whether or not it would be okay to murder one person if it would cure cancer.

Personally, I make protest votes when it's none of the above.

[Len Budney]

It's morally incoherent, in general, to try and choose between two people, both of whom are threatening to interfere forcibly in my life.

In which case the logical choice is the lesser of the two evils.

Only if you've decided to give up on life and accept shooting or bludgeoning. By your standard, a man can threaten a woman with either rape or forcible sodomy, and you'd counsel her to "choose the lesser of the two evils." The man has no right to present her with such a choice, and she has no moral obligation to pick one.

Choosing 'None Of The Above' is a selfish cop-out to circumvent social responsibility while maintaining an inner (but false) sense of superiority.

If enough of us choose "none of the above," we can have it. Especially if all of us making that choice can pass the AQT and have a suitable MBR.

You can thump your chest that you "cared enough to do the right thing" when, in reality, all you've done is sit on your butt and complain to the rest of us who cared enough at least try.

What are you claiming you've "tried"? Choosing between two multi-billion-dollar thieves? Supposing you win, what are you proud of? That your guy stole one trillion, but the other guy might have stolen 1.3 trillion? Both guys are thieves. The only moral approach is to try and stop both of them.

It's possible I'll make an exception and vote for Ron Paul, because I believe that he will actually refrain entirely from stealing or killing. But between Bush and Gore? If I had voted, I would have voted for Bush--and subsequent events have proven what a mistake that would have been. Bush spent more than Clinton. Heck, he spent more than any human in the history of the universe. He's responsible for fewer deaths than Mao or Stalin or Hitler, but orders of magnitude more than Gore would have been. Even his damn Kyoto protocol would have been cheaper than Bush.

So take your pick. Feel free. Would you rather be shot, or stabbed?

Len Budney's stance reminds me of the hypothetical dilemma of whether or not it would be okay to murder one person if it would cure cancer.

I hate those college-course "dilemmas," but the answer is no: murder is not OK. The most evil invention of our species is the "greater good"; a concept that allows us to do evil in the name of good.

--Len.

[Euclidean]

Oh I agree with you, just trying to frame the concept in another context.

[Ben]

Well, this one's gone beyond the "polite" part of Armed Polite Society.