What is Libertarian?

[flacaltenn]

I am glad I need to base my life on a company that makes kids toys! gotta love capitalism.

next.....support McDonalds..a place you never eat at and makes crappy lousy food! But it's capitalism and we gotta support everyone and everything involved in it, even if it's a useless and worthless product!

So screwing 1000 of small biznesses is Okee-Dokee because "it's not part of your life"..

Now that's not selfish or purposely insensitive is it? Whatever YOU are -- is part of the problem with our rights and liberties slipping away...

hey! you could always....BAIL THEM OUT! ahahahahahahaah!!!!!!!

No, I DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT feel sorry for those who take a chance in the world of capitalism, especially they whine and expect the g'ment to support them! ESPECIALLY, and I REPEAT, ESPECIALLY when they make bullshit items and really contribute nothing to this world. McDonalds can fail all day, go under, and I DONT GIVE a gosh darn. and that is TRUE conservative and libertarian ideas there!

If you can confuse McDonalds' with the plight of 1000s of self-employed mom/pop craftsmen who may be put out of a job because of stupid ass govt regulation -- maybe this thread is a little too deep for you.. Those folks are not asking for bailouts -- they never wanted to be brought into a political struggle for their economic freedom. But now they are victims of overbearing govt.

Besides being incapable of following the differences here -- I consider your responses pretty selfish, unsophisticated, and callous.. Notice I've left out plain stupid -- because MAYBE you're doing this on purpose. In the belief that there's a party out there that will benefit from your anti-capitalist spew... Maybe the Greens -- eh??

 

[Foxfyre]

We draw the line at the will of the people. If you don't want a bar or liquor store in town, the people should be able to specify that we don't want a bar or liquor store in town. Etc. Those who really want to run a bar or liquor store will need to find a town that does want or allow those types of businesses. If a community is stupid enough to want a community of nothing but ice cream parlors and flower shops, the people should have the freedom to have that kind of community. There is no slippery slope if the people themselves choose what sort of society they wish to have and treat everybody the same within that society.

That is the freedom the Founders wanted people to have regardless of whether it was smart or not or created an adequate tax base or not. If people don't have the right to be prejudiced or narrow minded or foolish or set themselves up for failure, they have no rights at all.

The only problem would be if a Christian or friend of the mayor was allowed an exception but a Jew or a stranger to town was not; if a local good old boy was allowed to do it but somebody the folks didn't like much was not. Then we could be getting into a violation of rights and that would warrant a closer look.

But see, now you're ruling by mob mentality.

Like I said. Slippery slope.

Not at all. Short of infringing on the rights of others, people are either free to live their lives as they choose or they are not. Short of infringing on the rights of others, they are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have or they are not. The Federal government should not be telling any community that it must have a bar or that it cannot have a bar. But each community should be able to decide that for itself.

Such is not mob rule. Such is social contract mutually decided by the community. And it is a component of liberty.

 

[flacaltenn]

In other words you have no idea and since they are neither Republican nor Democrat you assume we are "moderate."

Your tiny world can conceive of only Republicans and Democrats. And they are in the end the same. It's actually pretty funny.

I'm a Marine SSgt. I deal only in absolutes. Someone is either a friendly or an enemy, a liberal or a conservative. There's black and there's white. Shades of gray like Libertarian are a misnomer to me.

All due respect Colonial -- I don't consider myself a "shade of grey" on the political chart.

The REPUBs want to raid my bedroom and the DEMS want to occupy the rest of my house (and my wallet).

My stance is -- you need both ECONOMIC freedom and SOCIAL freedom. There is no diff since Time == Money. There's no shade of grey when you are consistently pro-choice on everything.

And no -- that doesn't mean libertarians are PRO-Abortion or PRO-Drug. We just want the govt to not micro-manage those areas. Personally I abhor both abortion and drug use. But I don't want to see grandpas and grannies raided and terrorized in the name of a drug war that busts in doors, shoots your dog and then looks at the house number on the warrant again..

And remember Colonel -- William Buckley -- THE great conservative, wasn't exactly a warrior on the drug issue was he?

We're NOT in the middle of a straight line between the Dems and the Reps.. We've got a CONSISTENT philosophy about the role of govt (that happens to jive with your Tea Party on economic issues). But we have the same exact standards for govt involvement in any other aspect of the "pursuit of life and happiness".

 

[FA_Q2]

We draw the line at the will of the people. If you don't want a bar or liquor store in town, the people should be able to specify that we don't want a bar or liquor store in town. Etc. Those who really want to run a bar or liquor store will need to find a town that does want or allow those types of businesses. If a community is stupid enough to want a community of nothing but ice cream parlors and flower shops, the people should have the freedom to have that kind of community. There is no slippery slope if the people themselves choose what sort of society they wish to have and treat everybody the same within that society.

That is the freedom the Founders wanted people to have regardless of whether it was smart or not or created an adequate tax base or not. If people don't have the right to be prejudiced or narrow minded or foolish or set themselves up for failure, they have no rights at all.

The only problem would be if a Christian or friend of the mayor was allowed an exception but a Jew or a stranger to town was not; if a local good old boy was allowed to do it but somebody the folks didn't like much was not. Then we could be getting into a violation of rights and that would warrant a closer look.

But see, now you're ruling by mob mentality.

Like I said. Slippery slope.

Not at all. Short of infringing on the rights of others, people are either free to live their lives as they choose or they are not. Short of infringing on the rights of others, they are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have or they are not. The Federal government should not be telling any community that it must have a bar or that it cannot have a bar. But each community should be able to decide that for itself.

Such is not mob rule. Such is social contract mutually decided by the community. And it is a component of liberty.

Really, it depends on the manner in which said business is ousted from the community. If it is by government intervention through, say, a business license (a concept that I disagree with entirely anyway though that is another debate) or other such manner then yes, it is a slippery slope. At what point does 51 percent of the population get to decide what the other 49 are allowed to buy. That is a terrible place to be. On the other hand, if such a measure is achieved through petitioning the company or not patronizing the establishment then that is another story altogether. This is the point of a boycott. That is the proper method of baring business in a community. Never does the government, local or otherwise, need to get involved in such an instance. We, as a people, are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

In other words you have no idea and since they are neither Republican nor Democrat you assume we are "moderate."

Your tiny world can conceive of only Republicans and Democrats. And they are in the end the same. It's actually pretty funny.

I'm a Marine SSgt. I deal only in absolutes. Someone is either a friendly or an enemy, a liberal or a conservative. There's black and there's white. Shades of gray like Libertarian are a misnomer to me.

All due respect Colonial -- I don't consider myself a "shade of grey" on the political chart.

The REPUBs want to raid my bedroom and the DEMS want to occupy the rest of my house (and my wallet).

My stance is -- you need both ECONOMIC freedom and SOCIAL freedom. There is no diff since Time == Money. There's no shade of grey when you are consistently pro-choice on everything.

And no -- that doesn't mean libertarians are PRO-Abortion or PRO-Drug. We just want the govt to not micro-manage those areas. Personally I abhor both abortion and drug use. But I don't want to see grandpas and grannies raided and terrorized in the name of a drug war that busts in doors, shoots your dog and then looks at the house number on the warrant again..
And remember Colonel -- William Buckley -- THE great conservative, wasn't exactly a warrior on the drug issue was he?

We're NOT in the middle of a straight line between the Dems and the Reps.. We've got a CONSISTENT philosophy about the role of govt (that happens to jive with your Tea Party on economic issues). But we have the same exact standards for govt involvement in any other aspect of the "pursuit of life and happiness".

Explains exactly how I feel. Social liberal, fiscal conservative.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm a Marine SSgt. I deal only in absolutes. Someone is either a friendly or an enemy, a liberal or a conservative. There's black and there's white. Shades of gray like Libertarian are a misnomer to me.

All due respect Colonial -- I don't consider myself a "shade of grey" on the political chart.

The REPUBs want to raid my bedroom and the DEMS want to occupy the rest of my house (and my wallet).

My stance is -- you need both ECONOMIC freedom and SOCIAL freedom. There is no diff since Time == Money. There's no shade of grey when you are consistently pro-choice on everything.

And no -- that doesn't mean libertarians are PRO-Abortion or PRO-Drug. We just want the govt to not micro-manage those areas. Personally I abhor both abortion and drug use. But I don't want to see grandpas and grannies raided and terrorized in the name of a drug war that busts in doors, shoots your dog and then looks at the house number on the warrant again..
And remember Colonel -- William Buckley -- THE great conservative, wasn't exactly a warrior on the drug issue was he?

We're NOT in the middle of a straight line between the Dems and the Reps.. We've got a CONSISTENT philosophy about the role of govt (that happens to jive with your Tea Party on economic issues). But we have the same exact standards for govt involvement in any other aspect of the "pursuit of life and happiness".

Explains exactly how I feel. Social liberal, fiscal conservative.

IOW a hedonist.
Thanks, we get the idea.

 

[dblack]

Explains exactly how I feel. Social liberal, fiscal conservative.

IOW a hedonist.
Thanks, we get the idea.

Wrong idea. Strawman fail. -1

 

[FA_Q2]

IOW a hedonist.
Thanks, we get the idea.

In other words that concept went completely over your head. You have no concept of freedom if you think that the government is there to establish morality or run our lives in a social aspect. You consistently harp on the fact that you want smaller government but then when it comes to YOUR ideals suddenly your answer is MORE government. Sorry buddy, that is not the way things go. The current situation the republicans are in shows what happens when you want such a thing. You end up with big government all around.

Who's morality or social conservatism do you want instituted? Put that mechanism in place and you will quickly find that Muslim or atheist morality will replace the Christian morality that you want to oppress others with. Face it, if you want true freedom you need to go for the whole cake. There is no picking and choosing because, at some point, the definitions will shift and you will find that your idea if right and wrong are no longer the standard.



It has nothing to do with hedonism. It is straight freedom that I am interested in.

 

[flacaltenn]

Explains exactly how I feel. Social liberal, fiscal conservative.

IOW a hedonist.
Thanks, we get the idea.

Wrong idea. Strawman fail. -1

Now -- I think the Rabbi is just jealous of how much fun and piece of mind a CONSISTENT political philosophy can give you..

 

[Wicked Jester]

A "Libertarian" is an idiot who thinks we can go back to an imaginary 19th century that never actually existed... Read "The Good Old Days- They Were Terrible!". Actually - also the definition of most Pub Dupes too...

Are you ever NOT drunk, stoned, and abjectly stupid all at the same time, hippie?

But hey, at least you're consistent in your portrayel of modern day liberals in general.

 

[Foxfyre]

But see, now you're ruling by mob mentality.

Like I said. Slippery slope.

Not at all. Short of infringing on the rights of others, people are either free to live their lives as they choose or they are not. Short of infringing on the rights of others, they are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have or they are not. The Federal government should not be telling any community that it must have a bar or that it cannot have a bar. But each community should be able to decide that for itself.

Such is not mob rule. Such is social contract mutually decided by the community. And it is a component of liberty.

Really, it depends on the manner in which said business is ousted from the community. If it is by government intervention through, say, a business license (a concept that I disagree with entirely anyway though that is another debate) or other such manner then yes, it is a slippery slope. At what point does 51 percent of the population get to decide what the other 49 are allowed to buy. That is a terrible place to be. On the other hand, if such a measure is achieved through petitioning the company or not patronizing the establishment then that is another story altogether. This is the point of a boycott. That is the proper method of baring business in a community. Never does the government, local or otherwise, need to get involved in such an instance. We, as a people, are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves.

But I'm not proposing ousting any business from the community. If an 'objectionable' business exists when the social contract is formed, that business should be grandfathered in. The people who legally built it up on good faith that their license was legal should not be deprived of their livelihood and their own pursuit of happiness or, if the community really wants it out of there, a deal with the owners should be negotiated to be sure the owner was adequately compensated for closing and moving the business and everybody is happy. Most business owners do not wish to operate in a hostile business environment and there is usually a way to work such things out.

There will probably be some sticky wickets in very close votes every once in awhile, but it is my experience that those very close votes are very rare in this kind of scenario. Usually there is no initiative to establish a particular ordinance until there is already widespread support for it. And there is no better way to accomplish social contract other than every citizen having a vote.

Do you think it wrong to have the people vote on whether to issue bonds for this or that project in the community? These initiatives sometimes DO result in very close votes. But is there a better way than a democratic election to decide such things?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not at all. Short of infringing on the rights of others, people are either free to live their lives as they choose or they are not. Short of infringing on the rights of others, they are either free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have or they are not. The Federal government should not be telling any community that it must have a bar or that it cannot have a bar. But each community should be able to decide that for itself.

Such is not mob rule. Such is social contract mutually decided by the community. And it is a component of liberty.

Really, it depends on the manner in which said business is ousted from the community. If it is by government intervention through, say, a business license (a concept that I disagree with entirely anyway though that is another debate) or other such manner then yes, it is a slippery slope. At what point does 51 percent of the population get to decide what the other 49 are allowed to buy. That is a terrible place to be. On the other hand, if such a measure is achieved through petitioning the company or not patronizing the establishment then that is another story altogether. This is the point of a boycott. That is the proper method of baring business in a community. Never does the government, local or otherwise, need to get involved in such an instance. We, as a people, are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves.

But I'm not proposing ousting any business from the community. If an 'objectionable' business exists when the social contract is formed, that business should be grandfathered in. The people who legally built it up on good faith that their license was legal should not be deprived of their livelihood and their own pursuit of happiness or, if the community really wants it out of there, a deal with the owners should be negotiated to be sure the owner was adequately compensated for closing and moving the business and everybody is happy. Most business owners do not wish to operate in a hostile business environment and there is usually a way to work such things out.

There will probably be some sticky wickets in very close votes every once in awhile, but it is my experience that those very close votes are very rare in this kind of scenario. Usually there is no initiative to establish a particular ordinance until there is already widespread support for it. And there is no better way to accomplish social contract other than every citizen having a vote.

Do you think it wrong to have the people vote on whether to issue bonds for this or that project in the community? These initiatives sometimes DO result in very close votes. But is there a better way than a democratic election to decide such things?

If a person uses his money to buy or rent a property, and uses his money, time and work to develop a business, whose business is it if it is "objectionable" to them? If it is objectionable to enough people then he will go out of business for lack of customers.
It is a unfair takings to restrict zoning because something is "objectionable."

 

[FA_Q2]

But I'm not proposing ousting any business from the community. If an 'objectionable' business exists when the social contract is formed, that business should be grandfathered in. The people who legally built it up on good faith that their license was legal should not be deprived of their livelihood and their own pursuit of happiness or, if the community really wants it out of there, a deal with the owners should be negotiated to be sure the owner was adequately compensated for closing and moving the business and everybody is happy. Most business owners do not wish to operate in a hostile business environment and there is usually a way to work such things out.

There will probably be some sticky wickets in very close votes every once in awhile, but it is my experience that those very close votes are very rare in this kind of scenario. Usually there is no initiative to establish a particular ordinance until there is already widespread support for it. And there is no better way to accomplish social contract other than every citizen having a vote.

Do you think it wrong to have the people vote on whether to issue bonds for this or that project in the community? These initiatives sometimes DO result in very close votes. But is there a better way than a democratic election to decide such things?

Yes, it is wrong. Again, it is extremely rare to get a clear cut vote. Your far more likely to end in a 60-40 or something of that nature and having government decide which business can exist and which cannot is not a good idea. If the people truly want that business out then what is so wrong with having them vote with their wallet? What is the purpose of getting government involved where there is a clear cut way to remove a business like not patronizing said business?

I find it disingenuous when people want to give the government control over something they have full capability to accomplish themselves. It is usually done in that manner because people are to lazy to get it done or they want to impose their views on everyone else. I have always stood by the belief that government exists to protect people from things that they are incapable of protecting themselves from (like a foreign power or certain unfair business practices). In this case, the people are capable of taking care of this problem on their own so government does not belong as part of the equation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All due respect Colonial -- I don't consider myself a "shade of grey" on the political chart.

The REPUBs want to raid my bedroom and the DEMS want to occupy the rest of my house (and my wallet).

My stance is -- you need both ECONOMIC freedom and SOCIAL freedom. There is no diff since Time == Money. There's no shade of grey when you are consistently pro-choice on everything.

And no -- that doesn't mean libertarians are PRO-Abortion or PRO-Drug. We just want the govt to not micro-manage those areas. Personally I abhor both abortion and drug use. But I don't want to see grandpas and grannies raided and terrorized in the name of a drug war that busts in doors, shoots your dog and then looks at the house number on the warrant again..
And remember Colonel -- William Buckley -- THE great conservative, wasn't exactly a warrior on the drug issue was he?

We're NOT in the middle of a straight line between the Dems and the Reps.. We've got a CONSISTENT philosophy about the role of govt (that happens to jive with your Tea Party on economic issues). But we have the same exact standards for govt involvement in any other aspect of the "pursuit of life and happiness".

Explains exactly how I feel. Social liberal, fiscal conservative.

IOW a hedonist.
Thanks, we get the idea.

Failure #2. The Rabbi is a a right wing progressive statist who wishes to use big government to enforce moral and religious standards.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really, it depends on the manner in which said business is ousted from the community. If it is by government intervention through, say, a business license (a concept that I disagree with entirely anyway though that is another debate) or other such manner then yes, it is a slippery slope. At what point does 51 percent of the population get to decide what the other 49 are allowed to buy. That is a terrible place to be. On the other hand, if such a measure is achieved through petitioning the company or not patronizing the establishment then that is another story altogether. This is the point of a boycott. That is the proper method of baring business in a community. Never does the government, local or otherwise, need to get involved in such an instance. We, as a people, are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves.

But I'm not proposing ousting any business from the community. If an 'objectionable' business exists when the social contract is formed, that business should be grandfathered in. The people who legally built it up on good faith that their license was legal should not be deprived of their livelihood and their own pursuit of happiness or, if the community really wants it out of there, a deal with the owners should be negotiated to be sure the owner was adequately compensated for closing and moving the business and everybody is happy. Most business owners do not wish to operate in a hostile business environment and there is usually a way to work such things out.

There will probably be some sticky wickets in very close votes every once in awhile, but it is my experience that those very close votes are very rare in this kind of scenario. Usually there is no initiative to establish a particular ordinance until there is already widespread support for it. And there is no better way to accomplish social contract other than every citizen having a vote.

Do you think it wrong to have the people vote on whether to issue bonds for this or that project in the community? These initiatives sometimes DO result in very close votes. But is there a better way than a democratic election to decide such things?

If a person uses his money to buy or rent a property, and uses his money, time and work to develop a business, whose business is it if it is "objectionable" to them? If it is objectionable to enough people then he will go out of business for lack of customers.
It is a unfair takings to restrict zoning because something is "objectionable."

Zoning is a way to establish order, pleasing aesthetics, and a safe and moral environment. There is a good reason that most communities don't want an adult bookstore or tavern or strip club near the public schools. Such businesses sometimes attract questionable clientele and there is an objectionable moral element to it for many, and they don't want the kids exposed to all that day after day.

If I have a little neighborhood ice cream shop surrounded by other quaint little shops, that establishes a particular environment and aesthetics that would be destroyed by a Wal-mart or big supermarket or other big box store going in, it is reasonable to object to the big stores and/or different kinds of businesses moving in. It is reasonable to restrict busineses to a particular type and square footage in that neighborhood. That is not a violation of anybody's rights and discriminates against nobody as anybody has the right to conform to the zoning requirements . That is people exercising their freedom to establish the sort of society in which they wish to live.

So long as nobody is discriminated against, I see it as an unalienable right for property owners to establish the sort of environment and society they wish to have. That would fall right into the 'pursuit of happiness' category. A little french cafe with a full bar might fit into that, while a honky tonk would not.

The sort of wide open zoning you seem to be suggesting brings visions of the old wild west Deadwood hellfire days in which anything goes and a quiet, safe, peaceful environment is not to be found.

 

[The Rabbi]

But I'm not proposing ousting any business from the community. If an 'objectionable' business exists when the social contract is formed, that business should be grandfathered in. The people who legally built it up on good faith that their license was legal should not be deprived of their livelihood and their own pursuit of happiness or, if the community really wants it out of there, a deal with the owners should be negotiated to be sure the owner was adequately compensated for closing and moving the business and everybody is happy. Most business owners do not wish to operate in a hostile business environment and there is usually a way to work such things out.

There will probably be some sticky wickets in very close votes every once in awhile, but it is my experience that those very close votes are very rare in this kind of scenario. Usually there is no initiative to establish a particular ordinance until there is already widespread support for it. And there is no better way to accomplish social contract other than every citizen having a vote.

Do you think it wrong to have the people vote on whether to issue bonds for this or that project in the community? These initiatives sometimes DO result in very close votes. But is there a better way than a democratic election to decide such things?

If a person uses his money to buy or rent a property, and uses his money, time and work to develop a business, whose business is it if it is "objectionable" to them? If it is objectionable to enough people then he will go out of business for lack of customers.
It is a unfair takings to restrict zoning because something is "objectionable."

Zoning is a way to establish order, pleasing aesthetics, and a safe and moral environment. There is a good reason that most communities don't want an adult bookstore or tavern or strip club near the public schools. Such businesses sometimes attract questionable clientele and there is an objectionable moral element to it for many, and they don't want the kids exposed to all that day after day.

If I have a little neighborhood ice cream shop surrounded by other quaint little shops, that establishes a particular environment and aesthetics that would be destroyed by a Wal-mart or big supermarket or other big box store going in, it is reasonable to object to the big stores and/or different kinds of businesses moving in. It is reasonable to restrict busineses to a particular type and square footage in that neighborhood. That is not a violation of anybody's rights and discriminates against nobody as anybody has the right to conform to the zoning requirements . That is people exercising their freedom to establish the sort of society in which they wish to live.

So long as nobody is discriminated against, I see it as an unalienable right for property owners to establish the sort of environment and society they wish to have. That would fall right into the 'pursuit of happiness' category. A little french cafe with a full bar might fit into that, while a honky tonk would not.

The sort of wide open zoning you seem to be suggesting brings visions of the old wild west Deadwood hellfire days in which anything goes and a quiet, safe, peaceful environment is not to be found.

That is not the purpose of zoning, although it is frequently abused that way.
Zoning is to protect public health and safety. Period. If it doesnt impinge on those things, male in se, then it needs to be legal. If people object to a porn store in their neighborhood, tough shit. Let them buy the building and use it for something else. A waste dump is different because of public health concerns.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I'm not proposing ousting any business from the community. If an 'objectionable' business exists when the social contract is formed, that business should be grandfathered in. The people who legally built it up on good faith that their license was legal should not be deprived of their livelihood and their own pursuit of happiness or, if the community really wants it out of there, a deal with the owners should be negotiated to be sure the owner was adequately compensated for closing and moving the business and everybody is happy. Most business owners do not wish to operate in a hostile business environment and there is usually a way to work such things out.

There will probably be some sticky wickets in very close votes every once in awhile, but it is my experience that those very close votes are very rare in this kind of scenario. Usually there is no initiative to establish a particular ordinance until there is already widespread support for it. And there is no better way to accomplish social contract other than every citizen having a vote.

Do you think it wrong to have the people vote on whether to issue bonds for this or that project in the community? These initiatives sometimes DO result in very close votes. But is there a better way than a democratic election to decide such things?

Yes, it is wrong. Again, it is extremely rare to get a clear cut vote. Your far more likely to end in a 60-40 or something of that nature and having government decide which business can exist and which cannot is not a good idea. If the people truly want that business out then what is so wrong with having them vote with their wallet? What is the purpose of getting government involved where there is a clear cut way to remove a business like not patronizing said business?

I find it disingenuous when people want to give the government control over something they have full capability to accomplish themselves. It is usually done in that manner because people are to lazy to get it done or they want to impose their views on everyone else. I have always stood by the belief that government exists to protect people from things that they are incapable of protecting themselves from (like a foreign power or certain unfair business practices). In this case, the people are capable of taking care of this problem on their own so government does not belong as part of the equation.

Again you guys are missing the point. I see the intent of the Founders as the government securing our rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have. Enforced anarchy or the prohibition of the will of the majority does not allow people to form the sort of society the people wish to have.

The government doesn't commit the people to the obligations to those bonds. It allows the people to choose whether they wish to assume that obligation by allowing them to vote. How is that possibly a bad idea?

And it is not the government deciding what businesses can exist or not, but the people themselves agreeing to what sort of society, community, aesthetic environment they wish to live. Without social contract you again have a form of anarchy and produce a community that is satisfying to nobody.

You can't have our unalienable rights secured if the people are not free to choose what sort of society they will have.

 

[Foxfyre]

If a person uses his money to buy or rent a property, and uses his money, time and work to develop a business, whose business is it if it is "objectionable" to them? If it is objectionable to enough people then he will go out of business for lack of customers.
It is a unfair takings to restrict zoning because something is "objectionable."

Zoning is a way to establish order, pleasing aesthetics, and a safe and moral environment. There is a good reason that most communities don't want an adult bookstore or tavern or strip club near the public schools. Such businesses sometimes attract questionable clientele and there is an objectionable moral element to it for many, and they don't want the kids exposed to all that day after day.

If I have a little neighborhood ice cream shop surrounded by other quaint little shops, that establishes a particular environment and aesthetics that would be destroyed by a Wal-mart or big supermarket or other big box store going in, it is reasonable to object to the big stores and/or different kinds of businesses moving in. It is reasonable to restrict busineses to a particular type and square footage in that neighborhood. That is not a violation of anybody's rights and discriminates against nobody as anybody has the right to conform to the zoning requirements . That is people exercising their freedom to establish the sort of society in which they wish to live.

So long as nobody is discriminated against, I see it as an unalienable right for property owners to establish the sort of environment and society they wish to have. That would fall right into the 'pursuit of happiness' category. A little french cafe with a full bar might fit into that, while a honky tonk would not.

The sort of wide open zoning you seem to be suggesting brings visions of the old wild west Deadwood hellfire days in which anything goes and a quiet, safe, peaceful environment is not to be found.

That is not the purpose of zoning, although it is frequently abused that way.
Zoning is to protect public health and safety. Period. If it doesnt impinge on those things, male in se, then it needs to be legal. If people object to a porn store in their neighborhood, tough shit. Let them buy the building and use it for something else. A waste dump is different because of public health concerns.

Sometimes zoning is for the purposes you say. More often it is to produce an aesthetic environment. You don't put Class C zoning in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood for instance. You don't allow small inexpensive housing to be built amidst high value homes as that would pull down the property values of the high value investments. Also to create a certain environment there can be restrictions on certain kinds of landscaping or ordinances against no inoperable vehicles parked on streets or put up on blocks in front yards. Some neighborhoods don't want big RVs parked out front to obstruct views, etc.

Again, if we are not free to create the sort of environment we want to have, we are not free.

 

[The Rabbi]

Zoning is a way to establish order, pleasing aesthetics, and a safe and moral environment. There is a good reason that most communities don't want an adult bookstore or tavern or strip club near the public schools. Such businesses sometimes attract questionable clientele and there is an objectionable moral element to it for many, and they don't want the kids exposed to all that day after day.

If I have a little neighborhood ice cream shop surrounded by other quaint little shops, that establishes a particular environment and aesthetics that would be destroyed by a Wal-mart or big supermarket or other big box store going in, it is reasonable to object to the big stores and/or different kinds of businesses moving in. It is reasonable to restrict busineses to a particular type and square footage in that neighborhood. That is not a violation of anybody's rights and discriminates against nobody as anybody has the right to conform to the zoning requirements . That is people exercising their freedom to establish the sort of society in which they wish to live.

So long as nobody is discriminated against, I see it as an unalienable right for property owners to establish the sort of environment and society they wish to have. That would fall right into the 'pursuit of happiness' category. A little french cafe with a full bar might fit into that, while a honky tonk would not.

The sort of wide open zoning you seem to be suggesting brings visions of the old wild west Deadwood hellfire days in which anything goes and a quiet, safe, peaceful environment is not to be found.

That is not the purpose of zoning, although it is frequently abused that way.
Zoning is to protect public health and safety. Period. If it doesnt impinge on those things, male in se, then it needs to be legal. If people object to a porn store in their neighborhood, tough shit. Let them buy the building and use it for something else. A waste dump is different because of public health concerns.

Sometimes zoning is for the purposes you say. More often it is to produce an aesthetic environment. You don't put Class C zoning in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood for instance. You don't allow small inexpensive housing to be built amidst high value homes as that would pull down the property values of the high value investments. Also to create a certain environment there can be restrictions on certain kinds of landscaping or ordinances against no inoperable vehicles parked on streets or put up on blocks in front yards. Some neighborhoods don't want big RVs parked out front to obstruct views, etc.

Again, if we are not free to create the sort of environment we want to have, we are not free.

If we are not powerless to use our own property as we want then we are not free. Is that really what you mean? Please start with the "it takes a village" meme to make this complete so we can all move on.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is not the purpose of zoning, although it is frequently abused that way.
Zoning is to protect public health and safety. Period. If it doesnt impinge on those things, male in se, then it needs to be legal. If people object to a porn store in their neighborhood, tough shit. Let them buy the building and use it for something else. A waste dump is different because of public health concerns.

Sometimes zoning is for the purposes you say. More often it is to produce an aesthetic environment. You don't put Class C zoning in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood for instance. You don't allow small inexpensive housing to be built amidst high value homes as that would pull down the property values of the high value investments. Also to create a certain environment there can be restrictions on certain kinds of landscaping or ordinances against no inoperable vehicles parked on streets or put up on blocks in front yards. Some neighborhoods don't want big RVs parked out front to obstruct views, etc.

Again, if we are not free to create the sort of environment we want to have, we are not free.

If we are not powerless to use our own property as we want then we are not free. Is that really what you mean? Please start with the "it takes a village" meme to make this complete so we can all move on.

I am all for the power and right to use our own property as we want UNTIL it infringes on the rights of my neighbor to use HIS property as HE wants. To accomplish freedom for both parties, zoning regulations is the best way to accomplish that. The guy who wants a honky tonk buys property that is zoning reg free or zoned for that particular type business. He doesn't open a honky tonk acxross from the Church and next door to the old couple who bought into the neighborhood because it was safe, quiet, and with minimal traffic.

The difference between our views I think is that the Libertarian (capital L) doesn't want any rules or restrictions of any kind other than those that prevent us from doing violence to each other. It is just one step away from Anarchy.

But libertarianism (little L) that I embrace allows people to use whatever regulation is necessary to form the society they wish to have. I see that as being more free than being subject to near anarchy.