3 ms·

In most states no. It’s a feature not a bug. Property rights are considered sacred. Plenty of people don’t want the government telling them what to do on their

by wil421 7y ago

In most states no. It’s a feature not a bug. Property rights are considered sacred. Plenty of people don’t want the government telling them what to do on their property. It’s bad in this situation but good for owners in plenty of others. Fort Walton county is one of 2 counties in Florida where the property owners own the beach to the high tide line. You’re allowed to walk on the beach around the water line but not setup on the beach. The Sheriff and county decided they want to change it and is now suing all the beach owners in Fort Walton (my wife’s family being one of them). The Florida governor signed an emergency Bill that they couldn’t just take the land all of the sudden they had to go through the courts. The Sheriff’s office came out and said they would stop issuing or enforcing trespassing on the beach and lesson beach patrols. The home owners legally own the beach. The county officials want to take it from them without paying anything and change the uniqueness of the county that drew home owners in the first place. I can see both sides but the county government and Sheriff can’t just decide one day they want to take property. No vote or anything just we want to take it. My family owns a condo in the next county over. It’s a lot more noisy and I can see why home owners were draw to Fort Walton in the first place.

arcticbull 7y ago
> Plenty of people don’t want the government telling them what to do on their property. Sure if we pretend libertarianism exists as a functional concept. Can you build an enrichment facility on your property? No. Can you dump toxic chemicals into your well? Nope! Can you fly drones at 30K feet? Nah. Can you brew up a batch of grandma’s finest crystal meth? No siree bob. So yeah, you accept plenty of encroachment. The sanctity of your property is an arbitrary line you’re drawing to exclude campers, sunbathers and randos off on a hike. That’s sure to teach somebody... something...
- wil421 7y ago
  Could I buy property zoned for industrial use and build an industrial or chemical facility? Yes. Can I buy residentially zoned property and do residential things on it? Yes. Could you do illegal things anywhere? Yes but you’ll face the consequences.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    You're actually kind of making my point here. You're accepting the governments intrusion (defining what can and can't be done on "your" tract of land via zoning and law). And that's my point. Once you accept that it's a question of where you draw the line -- you're debating shades of grey and not moral black and white.

by wil421 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago

> Plenty of people don’t want the government telling them what to do on their property. Sure if we pretend libertarianism exists as a functional concept. Can you build an enrichment facility on your property? No. Can you dump toxic chemicals into your well? Nope! Can you fly drones at 30K feet? Nah. Can you brew up a batch of grandma’s finest crystal meth? No siree bob. So yeah, you accept plenty of encroachment. The sanctity of your property is an arbitrary line you’re drawing to exclude campers, sunbathers and randos off on a hike. That’s sure to teach somebody... something...

wil421 7y ago
Could I buy property zoned for industrial use and build an industrial or chemical facility? Yes. Can I buy residentially zoned property and do residential things on it? Yes. Could you do illegal things anywhere? Yes but you’ll face the consequences.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  You're actually kind of making my point here. You're accepting the governments intrusion (defining what can and can't be done on "your" tract of land via zoning and law). And that's my point. Once you accept that it's a question of where you draw the line -- you're debating shades of grey and not moral black and white.