4 ms·

No different than any other prevention, or rule. Why shouldn't they be able to? If you moving to my community and doing whatever causes damage to the value of m

No different than any other prevention, or rule. Why shouldn't they be able to? If you moving to my community and doing whatever causes damage to the value of my property that's no different than doing damage to anything else. It's their community they set the rules. Why have communities or governments, or even countries for that matter? Fundamentally they do the same things. Why should I not be able to just come live in your house or just build a house in your backyard? Oh you have a great view? Let me just build a huge nonsense wall here and live in a small shack or something. Why not?

closeparen 9y ago
We have laws and governments to protect public safety (from hazards such as violence, unsafe driving, unsafe building design, fire, communicable disease, environmental toxicity, etc.), to enforce property rights over what people actually own, to provide essential services such as water, sewer, police, firefighting, and education, and to look after the interests of those who can't get their needs met in the market. There's not much precedent around protecting the scarcity of assets as a job for government. Maybe taxi medallions? >Why should I not be able to just come live in your house or just build a house in your backyard? Because I own my backyard. On the adjacent lots, if you can buy them, knock yourself out. No one owns their view, unless they actually own a view easement. The government has no business enforcing property rights that don't exist. >Oh you have a great view? Are you seriously suggesting that someone else should be prevented from living the life they want, the job they want, affordable rent, enough space to raise children, etc. to protect someone else's view? That's an unbelievably fucked up level of dystopian.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  K so I'll buy the houses surrounding yours and build some huge barbwire walls, then on the outside of the walls I'll just paint them with horrific images, just gross stuff that anybody would find disgusting to look at. You spent 1.5mm on that house, and now because it's surrounded with these walls the property value is cut to basically nothing. House appraised as worthless, financial ruin for you. But hey fuck you right? >Are you seriously suggesting that someone else should be prevented from living the life they want, the job they want, affordable rent, enough space to raise children, etc. to protect someone else's view? That's an unbelievably fucked up level of dystopian. Me me me me me. I want an affordable house, with enough space to raise children, affordable rent, the job that I want and I want to live right next to Breckenridge so I can ski all the time! Oh and I want a short commute, freshly paved roads, bike lanes, HUGE parks, the best schools, and free community events. That's the life I want. So I guess I get to move in and start demanding those things? Sorry. Life doesn't work that way. Whether it's somebody's view, or the neighborhood they moved in to, you aren't entitled to things like that. Housing will be expensive in desirable areas. You don't get to just move in and complain it's expensive. Move somewhere else or deal with it. Ridiculous.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    Neither views nor neighborhoods are considered to be property under real-estate law. Basically, no. Just no. Other people do get to spend their own money on property near yours and use it as they please. That's a free economy. If you don't like it, try some form of central planning. I think feudalism might really suit you.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      Ha! I'm an anarchist. But yes neighborhoods do get to control things like that and they should. Ever wonder why there are no skyscrapers in DC? Ever wonder why there are home owners associations that can dictate what colors and upkeep you do on your property? My example was extreme, but rules and controls exist for a reason. If you don't like it, then don't live there.
      - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        >Ha! I'm an anarchist. No you're not. You believe in private property in views.
        muninn_ 9y ago
        Yes I am. Want to try again? The fact that I'm critiquing a poor argument has nothing to do with my philosophical views. Just as I could argue a fascist policy would be poor to implement or is inconsistent (or the opposite), I can do the same with liberal democratic property rights. While a view may not be property (and this depends on what laws are written etc...) communities in this system of government regularly create laws and regulations for said communities. It's just a normal thing that happens in democratic societies. Being upset about that doesn't change that fact, nor does it make those communities immoral or unethical or anything like that.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    You're asserting an entitlement to control property you which is literally titled to not-you. You don't get to call other people entitled. Good day.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>It's their community they set the rules. Why have communities or governments, or even countries for that matter? Fundamentally they do the same things. Let's try changing this up. "It's my community, so I set the rules. We're seizing the means of production, and any bourgeois scum who don't want to give them up can be put against the wall and shot." Chances are you suddenly developed an objection. Maybe "we'll set the rules we want in our town" tends to get overridden from above for a valid reason? I dunno.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. That's far different than a home owners association or a neighborhood ordinance. Now you could go in and vote that ordinance out, but aside from that your analogy here is not good at all. And towns do set rules all the time. People get together, vote in legislators, and set rules. For example, building height restriction. I don't understand what your problem is here.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    >That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. Nobody cares about your Ayn Rand pablum anymore. Argue on morals that have any grounding at all in the real world.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      > Nobody cares about your Ayn Rand pablum anymore. Argue on morals that have any grounding at all in the real world. Who said anything about Ayn Rand? Are you unfamiliar with political philosophy? Have you read Robert Nozick for example? I find it curious that you're using Ayn Rand here. But with that aside, I am in fact arguing morals that have grounding in the real world. If you're unable to understand how force is abstracted then I can explain it for you, but you have to be willing to be educated on the subject. The analogy presented was incredibly poor, one is seizing property, the other is a normal function of a liberal democracy.

closeparen 9y ago

We have laws and governments to protect public safety (from hazards such as violence, unsafe driving, unsafe building design, fire, communicable disease, environmental toxicity, etc.), to enforce property rights over what people actually own, to provide essential services such as water, sewer, police, firefighting, and education, and to look after the interests of those who can't get their needs met in the market. There's not much precedent around protecting the scarcity of assets as a job for government. Maybe taxi medallions? >Why should I not be able to just come live in your house or just build a house in your backyard? Because I own my backyard. On the adjacent lots, if you can buy them, knock yourself out. No one owns their view, unless they actually own a view easement. The government has no business enforcing property rights that don't exist. >Oh you have a great view? Are you seriously suggesting that someone else should be prevented from living the life they want, the job they want, affordable rent, enough space to raise children, etc. to protect someone else's view? That's an unbelievably fucked up level of dystopian.

muninn_ 9y ago
K so I'll buy the houses surrounding yours and build some huge barbwire walls, then on the outside of the walls I'll just paint them with horrific images, just gross stuff that anybody would find disgusting to look at. You spent 1.5mm on that house, and now because it's surrounded with these walls the property value is cut to basically nothing. House appraised as worthless, financial ruin for you. But hey fuck you right? >Are you seriously suggesting that someone else should be prevented from living the life they want, the job they want, affordable rent, enough space to raise children, etc. to protect someone else's view? That's an unbelievably fucked up level of dystopian. Me me me me me. I want an affordable house, with enough space to raise children, affordable rent, the job that I want and I want to live right next to Breckenridge so I can ski all the time! Oh and I want a short commute, freshly paved roads, bike lanes, HUGE parks, the best schools, and free community events. That's the life I want. So I guess I get to move in and start demanding those things? Sorry. Life doesn't work that way. Whether it's somebody's view, or the neighborhood they moved in to, you aren't entitled to things like that. Housing will be expensive in desirable areas. You don't get to just move in and complain it's expensive. Move somewhere else or deal with it. Ridiculous.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  Neither views nor neighborhoods are considered to be property under real-estate law. Basically, no. Just no. Other people do get to spend their own money on property near yours and use it as they please. That's a free economy. If you don't like it, try some form of central planning. I think feudalism might really suit you.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    Ha! I'm an anarchist. But yes neighborhoods do get to control things like that and they should. Ever wonder why there are no skyscrapers in DC? Ever wonder why there are home owners associations that can dictate what colors and upkeep you do on your property? My example was extreme, but rules and controls exist for a reason. If you don't like it, then don't live there.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      >Ha! I'm an anarchist. No you're not. You believe in private property in views.
      - muninn_ 9y ago
        Yes I am. Want to try again? The fact that I'm critiquing a poor argument has nothing to do with my philosophical views. Just as I could argue a fascist policy would be poor to implement or is inconsistent (or the opposite), I can do the same with liberal democratic property rights. While a view may not be property (and this depends on what laws are written etc...) communities in this system of government regularly create laws and regulations for said communities. It's just a normal thing that happens in democratic societies. Being upset about that doesn't change that fact, nor does it make those communities immoral or unethical or anything like that.
- closeparen 9y ago
  You're asserting an entitlement to control property you which is literally titled to not-you. You don't get to call other people entitled. Good day.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>It's their community they set the rules. Why have communities or governments, or even countries for that matter? Fundamentally they do the same things. Let's try changing this up. "It's my community, so I set the rules. We're seizing the means of production, and any bourgeois scum who don't want to give them up can be put against the wall and shot." Chances are you suddenly developed an objection. Maybe "we'll set the rules we want in our town" tends to get overridden from above for a valid reason? I dunno.

muninn_ 9y ago
That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. That's far different than a home owners association or a neighborhood ordinance. Now you could go in and vote that ordinance out, but aside from that your analogy here is not good at all. And towns do set rules all the time. People get together, vote in legislators, and set rules. For example, building height restriction. I don't understand what your problem is here.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. Nobody cares about your Ayn Rand pablum anymore. Argue on morals that have any grounding at all in the real world.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    > Nobody cares about your Ayn Rand pablum anymore. Argue on morals that have any grounding at all in the real world. Who said anything about Ayn Rand? Are you unfamiliar with political philosophy? Have you read Robert Nozick for example? I find it curious that you're using Ayn Rand here. But with that aside, I am in fact arguing morals that have grounding in the real world. If you're unable to understand how force is abstracted then I can explain it for you, but you have to be willing to be educated on the subject. The analogy presented was incredibly poor, one is seizing property, the other is a normal function of a liberal democracy.