[Blain]

I would think it to be difficult for anyone to find justification in the government's actions on this one.

http://bureaucrash.com/blogs/dispatches/000787.shtml

http://www.bureaucrash.com/blogs/dispatches/images/031114.jpg

"LAUDERHILL, FL - The government ordered a man to repaint his house an acceptable "muted" color after he had it painted purple and gold in a show of pride for his college fraternity. He refused. They then passed a new law that controls the colors homeowners can paint their homes. Violators will be forced to repaint within three years (five generously for homeowners who can prove financial hardship). A consultant will create a commissioner-approved color palette that homeowners can choose from."


Absurd story? Sure. I must say I thoroughly enjoyed and agree with the following response to the story.


Hah, if I were him... I'd paint my house matte black. And then I'd use blacklight paint to paint the words "The City Council Can unacceptable language removed". I'd then buy a bunch of floodlight blacklights, and then shine them proudly on my house at night.

http://www.missouri.edu/~sasb1e/Misc/10197578%5b1%5d%20copy.jpg
Too bad it's daytime.. at night the green will REALLY show well in blacklight. ;)

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

There are untold legions of people that want to tell you how to live. The government does it every day. The homeowners association does it all the time. WE let it happen by doing nothing. So any protest is welcome.

[Geech]

:mad: I can only think of two words for this situation: Total Bull????.

[Wildalaska]

I question the truth of the whole story

WildscepticAlaska

[Geech]

I question the truth of the whole story

But you didn't bother to check it out? By clicking the link provided in the first post, I found another link to a news source that perhaps you'll find more reputable.
Here's the story (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cpurple12nov12,0,6352783.story).

[Sergeant Bob]

What's next? The government telling you how much water you can use to flush your toilet? Already did that....:cuss:

[JPM70535]

Without knowing the totality of that particular situation I can't really take sides, however from personal experience I can tell you that Homeowners Associations are not all bad even though at times they seem a bit off the deep end.

I bought my last house in a neighborhood where the H.A. had disbanded. Not to worry, per the Realtor. Long story short, Neighborhood now full of junk cars in driveways, lawn service trailers parked in yards, (no restrictions on business run out of homes) unpainted houses, unkempt yards. I sold and moved to a new location with an active H.A. World of difference. Sometimes a little restriction on an individual right can ensure the right of another to pursue life, liberty, and all that other stuff.

In as few words as possible, if you want your property values to go up or at least stay the same, you better have a good H.A., or live where there are no neighbors.

[Mark Tyson]

"The city council can suck me"

I'd have written it in Christmas lights!

[hammer4nc]

One big difference here...the actions were taken by the government, not a private homeowners' association. Also, it appears the rule in question was NOT pre-existing, but created specifically to force this homeowner to repaint the house, after the fact. So, the usual statist mantras "he knew the rules before he acted"..."no sympathy"..."he signed the contract, and broke it", etc. -- all don't apply here.

I question the truth of the whole story

Its not uncommon for folks to simply dismiss a whole story, as though it never existed, when their comfy-cozy vision of paternalistic government is challenged. Has something to do with the psychology theory of cognitive dissonance.:p

[mattd]

You can't own a house in USA so they have say so what you can paint it.

[Lone_Gunman]

City ordinances have been around a long time, this is just another example, and there is nothing wrong with the city council doing what they did.

There are also ordinances that require you to keep your grass mowed, keep trash out of your yard, etc.

The suggested home owners response is crude and vulgar. A lot of people are trying to raise families, and I am not sure they want to explain what that statement means to their 6 year old daughter when they drive by the house.

If that message went up, I would support having the home owner arrested for lewd behavior in public, disturbing the peace, etc.

[KMKeller]

Don't believe it can happen Ken? Remind me sometime to tell you about the Cary, NC "Gyspy's Shiny Diner" escapade.

[FPrice]

A lot of people would like to applaud this man and support his right to paint his house any color he chooses OR place any "slogans" on his house to protest the arbitrary actions of a local government.

They certainly have a point of sorts.

However...how many of them would like to be this man's next door neighbor and be trying to sell their house while this man is doing all of this?

Despite cries of "MY FREEDOM TO DO WHAT I WANT!", there are times when we are inter-dependent on one another.

Just some food for thought.

[Lone_Gunman]

FPrice, I agree with you. The home owner's right to self expression ends when it starts screwing up my property value.

[braindead0]

However...how many of them would like to be this man's next door neighbor and be trying to sell their house while this man is doing all of this?
Just like with free speech, the only solution is more free speech. If everybody were truly free and allowed to use their property as they see fit, then buyers wouldn't irrationally perceive a problem with buying property simply because an adjoining peice doesn't fit with their narrow view of what's acceptable.

The argument that houses painted like this, or yards filled with artwork, weird landscaping, giant pentragrams..etc.. lower the property values of nearby property, is only true due to perceptions of the sheeple. If nobody cared (and why should they) then property values wouldn't be affected at all.

This same type of irrationality got us gun-control (gun owners cause crime, we'd better make a law = weird paint on houses lowers property values, we'd better make a law)
:neener:

[WvaBill]

City ordinances have been around a long time, this is just another example, and there is nothing wrong with the city council doing what they did.

All together now: "ex post facto" or "bill of attainder"

This seems like one or both apply.

[rangerbill]

to paint his house any color he wishes. it may be annoying but thats life.
it goes along with that old thing about they came for this mans right a right i didn't use or care for so i didn't fight it then they came for the right that i cared for and nobody fought to help me.(paraphraseing it there, can't remember it word for word.)
anyway today it's his house paint tomorrow it could be you beloved geraniums, because it's not the "in" thing.

with my neighbors, my rule is if it doesn't protrude onto my property then its none of my business. that includes smells, sound, fluid, animals etc.

for the fellow that enjoys his homeowners association, i hope you never have to endure the misery of a homeowners association run amuk. i have and it ain't pretty. it got so bad that the property values hit rock bottom. lots could be had for less than a thousand dollars. while lots in other neighborhoods with cars turned upside down in the yard next door were going for 4500.00 dollars.
we were the laughing stock of the county. the board had their power sewn up, no way to change it. we were able to get the board to disband after we got media attention and there was serious threat of lawsuit.
no flame intended i do hope it goes well.

[braindead0]

for the fellow that enjoys his homeowners association, i hope you never have to endure the misery of a homeowners association run amuk
I remember a while back the AMA (American Motorcycle Association) with some other Veterans group was fighting a HOA. This motorcyclist who had two prosthetic legs and a harley with hand controls. He had no problems.. until the HOA decided that you couldn't ride motorcycles on the property. They told him he had to push his 700# harley several blocks home.

The guy had lived there with no problems for years.

I will never buy property where there is anything of this sort. It looks good when you first get there, but soon enough they may decide to ban guns in the HOA... for the children.

[SaintofKillers]

Wife works for property management firm that manages these HOA. I ought to get her on here and let her tell you guys the nitemares that she has to deal with on a daily basis. IN her opinion and mine these are little socialist countries in there purist forms. Most people that move into these HOA dont know what they are getting into. There is usually a fring group of HO that get on the HOA board in their quest for communism that didnt come about in the 50s as they had wished. They try and control everyones lives its sickening. I live on a farm so I dont have to deal with this kind of BS, but if I wanted to paint my house as this gentleman did and the city council passed a law that said i couldnt I would be making a phone call to the ACLU they may not be totally useless.

[Bill Hook]

Fences make good neighbors, and having some acreage is even better. No way would I want to live in a subdivision, HOA or not.

[Sergeant Bob]

mattd You can't own a house in USA so they have say so what you can paint it.
What do you mean you can't own a house in the USA?

What's this........Tax bill?

Well, you see, I have fallen on some hard times ya know? Hurt my back and can't work, just barely getting by as it is. I can't really afford to pay the taxes right now, I'm sure you'll be understanding, Mr. Tax Collector.

You're going to evict me and sell my property?

But I own this property, it's paid for!

[WvaBill]

if I wanted to paint my house as this gentleman did and the city council passed a law that said i couldnt I would be making a phone call to the ACLU they may not be totally useless.

Don't tell the ACLU you own a gun...tell them it is to celebrate your religious beliefs, even better, lack thereof. It's a 1A deal then.:rolleyes:

[Nightfall]

But we're still the land of the free... right? :rolleyes:

Heck, a few weeks ago I was painting a beach house in North Carolina. I wonder if even the pastel colors used would have been 'acceptable' to these socialist SOBs. :mad:

[w4rma]

The U.S. is becoming more and more fascist as the GOP has made more and more political gains. The Ashcroftisation of America.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

HOAs have been around longer than Ashcroft. HOAs are not under US control. These are local fascists. Actually, they are authoritarians. Authoritarians are best described as "knowing what is best for us." You could make an argument that the Fienstein/Shumer crowd knows what is best for us and RKBA:neener:

[Blain]

Yes, but remember, this is not the HOA, this is the government.

[atek3]

If that message went up, I would support having the home owner arrested for lewd behavior in public, disturbing the peace, etc.

Glad we have some hardcore statists here to provide balance from all the crazy libertarians.

Note: You do not have a "RIGHT" to constantly increasing property value. What I do on MY side of the property line is my business. If you want residential facism, live in a private community.

atek3

[Lone_Gunman]

atek3,

Fortunately, a majority of people disagree with you, hence every municipality in the country has ordinances.

I am curious, do you have children? If so, do you want to have to explain to your 6 yo what "suck me" means when they read it painted on the side of the house?

I'm surprised the image of the house with the "suck me" sign is still on this forum considering that people of various ages frequent this site. Its offensive, and thats just the way it is. Too bad the originator of the idea can only figure out a way to protest throught the use of vulgar language.

[Nightfall]

You say it's acceptable for a majority gov't to tell a private homeowner what color, or slogan, etc. is alright on their home? This seems to be an extremely slippery slope of selective 1st Amendment acknowledgment that can range as far as the majority religion of the area being able to tell a private citizen what religious signs are acceptable, lest they be forced to explain ‘outside' views to their children. How can you justify allowing gov't to remove ‘distasteful' slogans or signs from private property, but still be supportive of the Constitution? The cry of ‘for the children' sounds sickeningly familiar...

[Lone_Gunman]

Nightfall,

Yep, I agree its a slippery slope, and judgements of acceptable behaviour have to be made on the basis of the community.

So you think it should be ok to do anything you want on your property? Is that what you are saying?

If I put up a display in my front yard depicting a man having sex with a barnyard animal, you would have no problem with that?

[jimpeel]

"I almost jumped out of bed when I read we'd have to wait five years for someone to repaint a purple house," Commissioner Wally Elfers said during Monday's meeting. "My God, that's a lifetime."
For what? A Gerbil?

[jimpeel]

When I lived in MA there were two things that happened in Rhode Island that the idiots driving them got their just deserts.

The first was a guy who was a RI legislator who owned the land that was under a pond. There were people who owned property around the pond who had built docks and enjoyed being able to boat on it.

We had a pond's dam break in MA and it took out several ponds below it when it burst. They just cascaded.

This guy was concerned that his pond, which was quite old, might burst so, out of this concern, he opened the floodgate to lower the water level. The people who lived on the shore of the pond started b----ing and moaning about the lowering of the water level and how their property values were being affected. So they went to court.

The judge ordered the guy to raise the water level to the previous level and lock the floodgate. This he did, but under protest.

Then the rains came.

The level of the water came up and the people who went to court to get the floodgate closed demanded that he open it. He said he couldn't do that as he was under court order to keep the floodgate locked. Their homes got flooded and they suffered enormous damage to their property. So they went to court.

The court said that they had demanded the floodgate be closed and the water level raised and, since he was under a court order issued at their behest, that he was not liable for the damage to their property.

The second incident was when this guy, who owned property in West Warwick, RI, I believe, decided he wanted to build a house on land he owned. The neighbors got together and sued to enjoin him from building there. They said that they wanted to preserve the natural beauty of the area and his house would spoil their view. The city agreed and enjoined him from building.

So the guy hired a crew and went to the property and cut down every tree on his land. They then painted the stumps bright colors and painted happy faces on them.

The neighbors went to court to sue him for spoiling their view and affecting their property value. The court told them that he had done nothing wrong and the trees on the property belonged to him. He could do as he wished with them.

As for the chartreuse, hot pink, etc. stumps? The court ruled that they had brought this upon themselves by being bad neighbors.

TIME WOUNDS ALL HEELS

[rock jock]

Its not uncommon for folks to simply dismiss a whole story, as though it never existed, when their comfy-cozy vision of paternalistic government is challenged. Has something to do with the psychology theory of cognitive dissonance.
I won't speak for Mr. Alaska, but suffice it to say that you assume a great deal. I didn't believe this story at first either, not because it was unbelievable, but simply because it linked from a site that was anything but a reputable news source.

Note: You do not have a "RIGHT" to constantly increasing property value.
Neither, sir, do you have a right to take action which will cause my property value to fall. A home for most people is their greatest investment. I know there are a few of you whose gun collection value is an order of magnitude greater than their domicile, but this is the exception, not the rule. When you start messing with something they have spent their whole lives working for, expect a fight.

[Nightfall]

So you think it should be ok to do anything you want on your property? Is that what you are saying?
As long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, yes.
If I put up a display in my front yard depicting a man having sex with a barnyard animal, you would have no problem with that?
Would I have a problem with that? On a personal moral level, yes, most certainly. Would I demand that the gov't step in and force you to act in a manner I find acceptable, when you're simply exercising your right to free speech (as disgusting as I would find it :))? No. I'd appeal to your sense of decency on a person to person level. I'd explain the issues I had with it and ask you to be understanding. But I would not demand your rights be undeservedly infringed simply to satisfy my own personal sense of morality, or aesthetics (and even if a group of people such as the community agrees, they are still just a collection of personal morals, no matter how similar). Some people would find a sign proclaiming the non-existence of a God extremely offensive, possibly the same size majority as would find your sign sickening. Where is the line? The common sense not to post that pornographic sign seems apparent to you and I, but so does the existence (or lack) of God to others. I think that a large part of the 1st has to do with the extreme wiggle room that defines acceptable speech, and to insure others aren't unduly forcing their concept of it on everybody else. So in the end it remains on the shoulders of the parent to raise that six year old, and whatever explanations that may entail... not on the private home owner on his/her private property.

Basically, it isn't the job of gov't to be forcing the will of the majority on the minority. We're a republic, not a simple democracy. Right? :)

[Geech]

The U.S. is becoming more and more fascist as the GOP has made more and more political gains. The Ashcroftisation of America.

That's some pretty creative Democratic cheerleading, even for w4rma. I won't bother asking how the current Presidential administration can have such a dramatic effect on local ordinances, but I would like to know what colors you picked for your skirt and pom-poms.

[w4rma]

Ashcroft is no anomaly in the Republican Party. Bush wouldn't have appointed him if the Republican base didn't want him there. Remember that Republicans most often oppose and badmouth the American Civil Liberties Union (www.aclu.org/) who's members fight to defend the Bill of Rights.

[4570Rick]

This thread is about a City Council in Florida (who know better what color a homeowners house should be than the homeowner...a liberal Democrat tactic), not the bush administration.

I live in Mexico City North, also known as Santa Ana, CA. My neighbors through out Orange County being mostly Mexican/Mexican American/Latino/Latino American/Latin American like to paint their homes with bright colors and yet, the property values are higher then ever.

The bottom line is; Those who believe they have power feel the need to flex their muscles from time to time. When someone challenges their power (I will not repaint), right or wrong, the all powerful believe the challenger must be squashed.

The tendency of power is to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

Lord Acton

[Sergeant Bob]

Ashcroft is no anomaly in the Republican Party. Bush wouldn't have appointed him if the Republican base didn't want him there.
Yep, and he put him there just so he could tell people what color they could paint their houses. The Dept. of House Painting.

American Civil Liberties Union who's members fight to defend the Bill of Rights.
Oh, aren't they the ones who are fighting against all those unconstitutional gun laws?:rolleyes:

[Alan Fud]

... I question the truth of the whole story ... Having lived in the Fort Lauderdale area where this is reported from, I didn't doubt the truth of it for a single second and it's actually the norm for some of the stuff that goes on down there with regards to home restrictions.

[Lone_Gunman]

Nightfall,

How far are you willing to take your opinion?

If a man chooses to walk naked down the street, is that ok?

What if the same man then politely begins to ask people he passes by if they would like to have sex with him?

What if the same man finds someone who says yes, and they just start goin' for it right there on the sidewalk?

Are all zoning ordinances bad? Would you have a problem, for example, if a convenience store opened up directly next to your house in an area previously zoned residential?


None of these things directly hurt another person physically. Would you just appeal to someone's sense of decency and ask them politely to just stop?

[braindead0]

If a man chooses to walk naked down the street, is that ok?Yes.What if the same man then politely begins to ask people he passes by if they would like to have sex with him?No problem.What if the same man finds someone who says yes, and they just start goin' for it right there on the sidewalk?So what? Gang bangers shoot it out on the streets, even thought it's illegal.. Which would you rather see?

You make the incorrect assumption that because something is illegal, people don't do it. If murder were legal, would you go out and start killing people? If having sex in public were legal, would you go out and do it? I doubt it.

Laws have only one purpose, to punish behaviour. Any law that punishes for a 'crime' without victims is wrong.

And trying to claim that it's 'for the children' is just as bad as the gun banners.

[Lone_Gunman]

Actually, if murder were legal, yes I think there would be more people killed.

And I really don't know how to respond to someone who thinks its ok to have sex in public.

You also make an incorrect assumption, and that is that laws only serve to punish behavior; fear of punishment also prevents undesirable behavior in the first place.

[greyhound]

This thread is about a City Council in Florida (who know better what color a homeowners house should be than the homeowner...a liberal Democrat tactic), not the bush administration.

I just have to laugh at how every single thing that happens in this country at every level is to the leftists somehow the work of the "Bush administration".

Store sold out of Sugar Pops?

Blame the Bush administration.

Car got a flat on the way home?

Blame the Bush administration.

Cable guy showed up 5 hours late?

Blame the Bush administration.

(Course, 4 years ago the name of the game was "Blame the Clinton administration. Kinda had the same rules. Ah, politics!):evil:

[rock jock]

You make the incorrect assumption that because something is illegal, people don't do it. If murder were legal, would you go out and start killing people? If having sex in public were legal, would you go out and do it? I doubt it.
Nobody is saying that laws prevent all illegal behavior, but to say that they don't deter any behavior is to deny that most people live their lives rationally. Most people don't break laws that have serious consequences for the same reason they don't walk into traffic - they understand the consequences and wish to avoid them. Don't believe me? Here's a simple test: how many illegal select-fire weapons do you have in your possession? None? Well, why not? Wouldn't you like to have a MG? I know I would, but then there is that nasty little thing called the NFA/GCA and its concomitant fines and prison time.

[jimpeel]

If a man chooses to walk naked down the street, is that ok?
That's been done already. Remember the guy who attended a Northern California University a few years ago and attended classes and walked around the campus nude? There was no law prohibiting this activity so he walked around barefoot up to his eyebrows. He got away with it for months before a law was passed prohibiting him from doing this.

The greater question in the instance above is should laws be passed for, or against, a single person to stop an activity in which they are participating? Is there an enumerated right in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that precludes anyone from being offended? Many of our laws are predicated on exactly that -- the offense of certain groups or persons.

What if the same man then politely begins to ask people he passes by if they would like to have sex with him?Pursuant to the "Consenting Adult" and Sexual Harrassment laws this is actually an acceptable activity. A person may ask every adult person they meet ("adult" meaning "over the age of consent which ranges from 15 to 18 years old) if they would like to have sex with them. As long as they only ask once, it is not "harrassment".

What if the same man finds someone who says yes, and they just start goin' for it right there on the sidewalk?There are already laws on the books which preclude this activity. That "right to privacy" and "right not to be offended" thing, ya know.

Are all zoning ordinances bad? Would you have a problem, for example, if a convenience store opened up directly next to your house in an area previously zoned residential?I understand the meaning of "private property" and as long as there is no harm being done to me or mine or my property by any activity on the ajoining property, there should be no complaint on my part.

"Abatement" laws are a big part of this phantom "right not to be offended" or "right to beautification" or "Right to higher property values" myth. All of these laws are unconstitutonal and simply made up by the powers that be under color of authority.

Remember this: When your rights are measured in the dollar cost (seatbelts and helmet laws being a goiod example with firearms laws soon to follow) to society you have no right left as sooner or later you will exceed the politician-of-the-moment's top line and that activity will be curtailed.

Remember this: If there is someone, somewhere, who is enjoying themselves, you can bet your sweet a$$ that there is someone, somewhere, diligently working to curtail that activity.

[Lone_Gunman]

jimpeel,

Lets say you were walking down the street with your wife. A nude man walks up to her, and asks her to have sex.

What do you do next?

[jimpeel]

Lets say you were walking down the street with your wife. A nude man walks up to her, and asks her to have sex.

What do you do next?After the laughter dies down, and the jokes about the size of his too-small penis have subsided, we would simply walk away. Remember, under the "consenting adults" laws, he may also ask me the same question.

I'm too light to fight; and too thin to win, so I don't do any fighting with anyone, even a man equipped with a friendly weapon. :neener:

[Lone_Gunman]

So it would not bother you that he had dishonored your wife, or you for that matter (if he preferred you instead)?

[jimpeel]

Where is the "dishonor"? It would be far more dishonorable to get my a$$ kicked by a naked man in front of my wife.

Walking away laughing and pointing to his groin area derisively is a far better solution.

[Lone_Gunman]

I guess dishonour is subjective.

[jimpeel]

I guess dishonour is subjective.Precisely. In many countries, and now here in the United States, fathers and brothers kill their daughters and sisters for "dishonoring" their family.

There is a case in California right now about a father who killed his daughter for "honor". Through research, the authorities have now pinpointed seventeen other "honor killings" there. As the influx of imigrants from countries which believe in this action rises in this country, so will the incidences of these crimes.

[Lone_Gunman]

Actually, honor used to be quite popular in the USA also, at least until the media convinced everyone that it was not important.

I do not believe that if a married couple was walking down the road 200 yrs ago, and a man asked the woman (or husband) for sex, that the response he would have gotten from the husband would have been laughter.

Defending the honor of yourself and your family is no less important than the liberty of strangers engaging in deplorable behavior.

[mercedesrules]

(Lone_Gunman) How far are you willing to take your opinion?

If a man chooses to walk naked down the street, is that ok?

LG, this is apples and oranges. The street is public; the house, private.

What, exactly, is your higher law? Your "majority rules" would allow slavery, cannibalism or any other atrocity if it got 51% of the vote.

MR

[mercedesrules]

(rock jock)Neither, sir, do you have a right to take action which will cause my property value to fall.

What if I'm black and move into a white neighborhood causing the real estate values to decrease?

MR

[jimpeel]

Although I am a very, and I do mean VERY, good shot, I don't think I would want to participate in a duel. In the old days, (and by "old days" I mean all the way through the fifties and into the sixties) they thought nothing of killing a Black man for looking at, whistling at, flirting with, or even speaking to a White woman. This was done, of course, to preserve the "honor" of the woman.

In reality, it was to satisfy the cravings of evil persons who wanted to know what it is like to kill a man; and Blacks were fair game for this experience because Black men weren't "human" so it was almost the same thing.

[Lone_Gunman]

In reality, it was to satisfy the cravings of evil persons who wanted to know what it is like to kill a man

I respectfully disagree, that is your opinion, and I don't have a problem with you thinking that, but you can't back that up. My opinion is that no one knows what was in the mind of the murderers you describe, though I do think it was a twisted form of honor, and a general desire to lash out at the forces that were literally disassembling the Old South. I do not think it was a necessarily sociopathic desire to kill someone as much as a desire to try to save a doomed culture.

Jim, I am not trying to get into an argument here, so please don't take my disagreement as something intended to... dishonor you as that was not my intent.

I really didn't mean to bring dueling and vigilante murder into the debate here. I certainly would not advocate killing someone for making a lewd suggestion, but I also dont think it would be inappropriate to knock a few of their teeth out for their effort.

[Moparmike]

In my book, knocking their teeth out is a good move if they press the issue while we are walking away.

[Lone_Gunman]

Moparmike,

Chivalry is not dead I suppose after all!

[Nightfall]

If a man chooses to walk naked down the street, is that ok?
I don't really have a problem with the concept of nudity, personally. In fact, I find it ridiculous that we have no problem with shootings being shown on TV, with incredible amounts of gore being splattered in a movie murder... but should a lady remove her top, or a man not wear any clothes, we have spastic fits of discomfort. Does it not strike anybody else as odd that we throw fits over something anybody looking down in the shower can see, that every single human on earth possesses (a nude body), but murder depictions are unoffending? *sigh* However, as has been said, you're talking about behavior on public property. I was discussing private property.
What if the same man then politely begins to ask people he passes by if they would like to have sex with him?
I see no reason for gov't interference here, either. As long as he is not forcing himself on anybody, he can ask whatever he likes. Is saying ‘no thanks' really so hard as to require the passing of a law so you don't have to? :) But AGAIN, you're talking about public property, not private.
What if the same man finds someone who says yes, and they just start goin' for it right there on the sidewalk?
Public property, not private. See a pattern? ;)
Are all zoning ordinances bad? Would you have a problem, for example, if a convenience store opened up directly next to your house in an area previously zoned residential?
This story isn't about a man being forced to comply with rules he agreed to when he bought the property, as I suppose would often be the case with zoning. This is about laws being put in place to tell a single man that he has to paint his private home a certain color after the fact, simply because some others didn't find it aesthetically pleasing. We're not talking pollution from a new plant making area air sickening, or public roads being far too congested from a new business. We're talking about a single guy who wanted his private house, on his private property, to be purple and gold.

[feedthehogs]

I guess someones right to free speech and expression is good as long as others approve of it.

To those closet communists and self righteous here, nowhere does is say you have the right not to be offended.

Some of you guys sure do scream when the gungrabbers talk about the way a gun looks evil.

If the guy next to me painted his house safety orange, I may not like it but my support for rights are not held in my pocket like some of you to be pulled out when I see fit. I would support his right to paint the house any color he wants.
My rights beliefs are not for sale as some of you have done.

[ExpatGator]

w4rma,

Let me first acknowledge that I am an idiot for responding to red meat from an obvious disruptor/troll, but sometimes ya just gotta step up to the firing line.

Sir, or ma'am: You have got to be kidding or GROSSLY misinformed to make the comment that the ACLU defends the Bill of Rights. Do you know their position on the Second Amendment (part of the bill of rights)? I do, and it is not a position of support. They claim, in obvious denial of FACT and history, that it (RKBA) is a collective right.

Before you start whining and saying that I am in the thrall of the Pubbie party you should first know that I am not a Republican or what I would call a conservative. I am, I guess, a free market oriented independent voter who votes for freedom as our founding fathers envisioned it. One of the most important of those freedoms is the right of INDIVIDUALS to defend themselves and their property. The ACLU does not support the Individual right to keep and bear arms, and they are therefore the enemies of my and every other Americans freedoms.

Check the facts before you persist in your campaign of blatant misinformation.

[jimpeel]

I also dont think it would be inappropriate to knock a few of their teeth out for their effort.Shouldn't be too hard to do if all they're wearing is a smile. :D

[atek3]

Neither, sir, do you have a right to take action which will cause my property value to fall. A home for most people is their greatest investment. I know there are a few of you whose gun collection value is an order of magnitude greater than their domicile, but this is the exception, not the rule. When you start messing with something they have spent their whole lives working for, expect a fight.

Well you're right... on planet rock jock, which has plenty of new "rights" such as, the "right" Not to be offended and the "right" to increasing property values. I thought only democrats were into positive rights, guess not.

atek3

[MagKnightX]

If they tried this in a beach area, they'd be run out of town, methinks.

If they passed it, they'd have riots.

I definitely think he has the right to paint his house purple and gold. His house. And besides, there was no law against it when he painted it, so he is covered by ex post facto.

"The city council can suck me" is a grey area, but I think he can. Just keep it at or below that level of vulgarity, otherwise some already established laws can come into effect.

Heck, when our neighbors were mad at us for keeping bees, planting lots of plants, putting up arbors, terracing our lawn, we were seriously considering getting a large statue of a middle finger and facing it to their house.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

MagKnightX

Is it really a coincidence that the Kalifornia flag has a red star and a bear?

Well done.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Being somewhat of a communitarian, I think a community ought to have the power to regulate activities on private property that genuinely and adversely affect others or the community in general. Painting one's house a color that others don't approve of does not rise to the condition, IMO. Nor would any cosmetic alterations anyone wants to make on their property.

[mantispid]

Lets say you were walking down the street with your wife. A nude man walks up to her, and asks her to have sex.

What do you do next?




Hmm.. well, if he seemed clearly insane, we'd avoid him.

If he was carrying a wallet, we'd ask him how much he'd be willing to pay. If it was a sufficient amount, we might even let him bring a video recorder.

If he didn't have any funds, then we'd tell him that there ain't no free lunches.

If he then proceeded to harass us, we'd likely cut him in half with a cane sword and claim that he was attacking us. (The story would likely stick, as who wouldn't believed a clean-cut couple vs. a naked guy who won't take no for an answer?).



Seriously, the entire scenario is silly. Naked people don't walk down the street unless they are crazy, or there is some government-funded art display going on. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean people will do it. It's like hacking your arms off. I don't know of any law that makes it illegal to hack your own arms off. Even if there were, and the law were repealed, there wouldn't be a sudden rise in autoparaplegia.

Social pressure has far greater effect on human behavior than does legal pressure.

[XLMiguel]

If you want to exercise your perogatives to exercise your sense of asthetics without criticism, you would be wise to control the venue.

As long as you do it in 'public', you will be subject to criticism. The more 'public' it is, i.e. higher population density, the more criticism you may be subject too.

One of he compormises we make when we live in close proximity is some degree of consideration for those around us, and this has been codified over time. Civility is the lubricant of society.

If you want to be a dingbat and paint your house chartruesse, leave junk in your yard, walk around wrapped in pig entrails, whatever. . . ., etc, understand what goes around comes around, and sooner or later, you WILL meet some one more proctologically-challenged than yourself, and you may have to live with their abberations, or better yet, they may be inclined to violently display their distaste with your taste.

Word up. Civility is the lubricant of society.

[mantispid]

Here is an alternate version, by request of those with sheltered children:

http://www.missouri.edu/~sasb1e/Misc/bhouse-mild.jpg


Actually, I like this one better.

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes, I would say that message is ok, at least it is not vulgar.

[Joe Demko]

Re: Honor/Dishonor

Nobody can dishonor you or your wife. A person can only dishonor himself. In other words, the naked man propositioning your wife can only dishonor himself.
You bear no onus for the bad behavior of others.

[Balog]

Malone: What the hell is a "communitarian?" Sounds like a polite way of saying communist. How can an abstract concept (a community) have any rights? If you say that it's not the community that has rights but the people in the community, I would have to ask how their rights would be enhanced by a group telling them what to do?

LG: Politely asking a woman to make love with you is justification for assault? So where can I find a list of non-threatening behaviours that in your mind justify violence? I'd hate to meet you, I'd never know what I might do that you would be so offended at that you'd need to attack me. If you truly act as you are advocating in this thread, you're going to end up shot by someone you tried to injure for no good reason. And I hope he sues you for the cost of his dental work.

WildAlaska: now that you've been shown to be in error, do you have any thoughts about the case?

KMKeller: what's the shiny diner incident you are referring to?

FPrice: I'd rather live next to a weirdly painted house than to a statist control freak who has the secret, original copy of the BoR that contains the right to not be offended, the right of the majority to control the minority, the right to deny other's rights if it'll increase property value, and the special cases where ex post facto law is acceptable.

Golgo: very true sir. Well said.

[jimpeel]

Sounds like a polite way of saying communist.It is.


From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communitarian

com·mu·ni·tar·i·an
n.

A member or supporter of a small cooperative or a collectivist community.

[rock jock]

What if I'm black and move into a white neighborhood causing the real estate values to decrease?
Skin color is not an action, it is a characteristic.

[mantispid]

There isn't anything wrong with 'communitarianism' or communism as long as every single person involved in the collective is there voluntarily. That's essentially what gated communities are. You voluntarily move into the community and voluntarily accept the 'community rules'.

Now, that certainly isn't for me. I'm way too strong an individualist to handle any sort of communism on more than a family level. (Interestingly enough, from each according to ability to each according to need is exactly how a family works. Outside the family level, that little marxism rapidly breaks down due to the competition factor that comes into play with those who do not share your genes or extreme familiarity).

If the commies want to exist, so be it... just don't force anyone to be a member and I won't take issue.

[Lone_Gunman]

Balog,

I hope we never meet either.

[Balog]

LG: I notice you didn't respond to the fact that you are advocating violence as a response to a stranger making a polite and legal request of a woman. Call me crazy, but that seems a trifle irresponsible to me. And I'd still like to know what polite and legal behaviour you consider grounds for use of force.

[Lone_Gunman]

You are correct, Balog.

There is nothing wrong with just asking women for sex. I over reacted I guess.

I am sure if you have daughters you would not mind strangers on the street coming up and just asking to do it right there on the sidewalk.... All those pesky sexual harassment laws need to be repealed today!

[Balog]

So do you apply this standard to men as well? If an attractive woman walks up to you and asks if you'd like to slip off to a motel, you'd attack her? And while I have no children yet, if it was truly a polite request which wasn't repeated, I wouldn't mind, no. And even if I didn't like it, I wouldn't advocate violence. Now if the person touched them or wouldn't stop asking...

And last I checked politely asking a stranger who you do not have any influence over to have sex is not covered under any laws. Sexual harassment would only apply if they were co-workers or something of the sort.

[Sergeant Bob]

And while I have no children yet, if it was truly a polite request which wasn't repeated, I wouldn't mind, no.

You have no problem with someone "politely" asking your five year old child to **** his ****?
And even if I didn't like it, I wouldn't advocate violence. Now if the person touched them or wouldn't stop asking...
How many times would someone have to "politely" ask your child to have sex, for you to advocate violence, or call the police to do your violence for you.
Is there some magic number at which it is no longer OK for someone to "politely" ask your child for sex? If it's not OK at two times, what makes it OK at one?
There is something seriously wrong with this world!

[Lone_Gunman]

Well, Sergeant, I think what's wrong is not so much with the world but Balog's perspective.

When he has a daughter, and I dont care if she is 5 or 50, he really isn't going to be as enthusiastic about her living in a world where she is sexually harassed on the street.

[mercedesrules]

(rock jock)Skin color is not an action, it is a characteristic.

Moving into the white neighborhood is an action.

MR

[Balog]

Asking an adult is one thing, a child another. I was assuming we were discussing an adult speaking with an adult. I suppose when you have no way to support your position, crying "think of the children" is your only option.

[Sergeant Bob]

Lone Gunman said I am sure if you have daughters you would not mind strangers on the street coming up and just asking to do it right there on the sidewalk

To which Balog replied And while I have no children yet, if it was truly a polite request which wasn't repeated, I wouldn't mind, no. And even if I didn't like it, I wouldn't advocate violence. Now if the person touched them or wouldn't stop asking...
So, it is reasonable to suppose that is what you were inferring. If it wan't, OK. Maybe you were talking about a stranger asking (in front of your children) your wife for sex. You're alright with that?
Again, where do you draw the line. If it's not OK twice, why is it OK once? It's either right or wrong.
I suppose when you have no way to support your position, crying "think of the children" is your only option.
Sometimes, "think of the children" is appropriate and not just a catch phrase.
I hope it's a little clearer to you now. It's just my opinion, and not you or anybody else is going to change it, whether you think it's right or wrong.
Oh, if you (collectively, not directed at you personally, so please don't take it that way) ever see my wife and I on the street, I would strongly advise not asking her any innapropriate questions. I guess I'm just old fashion that way.
Now let's let this thread die a peaceful death without getting locked for thread veer (of which I am guilty) or other reasons.:D

[iapetus]

I don't know how it is in the USA, but under UK law, an "assault" is "any act, intentionally or recklessly, which causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal injury or violence".

So, if I walked up to you, brandished an iron bar, and said "I'm gonna smash your ****ing head!", and you felt threatened, that would constitute an assault.

On the other hand, if I walked up to you with a feather, and threatened to tickle you with it, and you did not feel in danger, it would not be an assault.


The law on "sexual assault" is very similar - if you feel threatened by the act - and it is something that is "reasonable" to be threatened by - it is a (sexual) assault; if not, it isn't.



So in the case of a naked man/woman/person approaching you in the street and asking for sex, if you felt threatened by the act, that would be a (sexual) assault; if not, it wouldn't. (So the naked man in question would have to hope it was Jimpeel's wife he was propositioning, not Lone Gunman's. Unless he thought being laughed at was worse than having his teeth knocked out :D)

While I don't think there is/should be, a general "right to not be offended", I think sexual relationships are sufficiently a personal and sensetive matter that it is reasonable to have laws like this.

[MicroBalrog]

Seriously, the entire scenario is silly. Naked people don't walk down the street unless they are crazy, or there is some government-funded art display going on. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean people will do it. It's like hacking your arms off. I don't know of any law that makes it illegal to hack your own arms off. Even if there were, and the law were repealed, there wouldn't be a sudden rise in autoparaplegia.

Bravo! 21-gun salute!:)

[ravinraven]

As I sit here having spent a very enjoyable hour reading this thread, I wonder how we got from purple house paint to child sex in one conversation. That's why I loved BSing in the old alert shack. You could start at noon with a B-17 story and wind up at three a.m. [assuming the war didn't start] breeding ducks for racing.

Then I got to wondering why this thread wound around so. It's not Friday with happy hour staring us in the face. It's not Monday with a boring work week staring us in the face. And it's not even NYs eve. Could it be that we're in the full phase of the moon? It's too light to go out and check. I could look it up in my Almanac, but there's some FBI guy leering at me from the sidewalk. And one thread here has pointed out the dangers of TOFA. What to do?

The only thing that I can add is that an elephant inhales eleven cubic feet of air with each breath.

rr---(Dave Barry wannabe)

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'm apparently getting a second chance to respond to a question I missed on Nov 17. Must be a slow day.
Malone: What the hell is a "communitarian?" Sounds like a polite way of saying communist. How can an abstract concept (a community) have any rights? If you say that it's not the community that has rights but the people in the community, I would have to ask how their rights would be enhanced by a group telling them what to do?Mostly it's my way of saying I'm not a extreme individualist. Individuals have responsibility to a collective reality that is bigger than themselves. It's called the community they live in.

The community, through it's legal decision-making processes, has a right to control actions of individuals that might be a threat or nuissance to the rest of the people in the community. In the best of all worlds, that's what government would be about.

When it gets to the point of enforcing aesthetic judgments against individuals, it's gone too far IMO.

[Don Gwinn]

The value of your house is a subjective matter of opinion. It consists only of whatever the buyers are willing to pay; thus it is entirely dependent upon the opinion of the buyers.

It is therefore entirely irrational to hold a third party accountable for taking action with his own property which causes your buyers to change their opinions about the value of your property!

That's as simply as I can explain it.


Put another way, I happen to know that my in-laws wouldn't have offered as much for their current home if it had been in a neighborhood with more blacks or hispanics. Does that mean the former owner should have had the right to form an HOA and bar blacks and hispanics from moving into the neighborhood, just to cater to the opinions of racists like my in-laws? I think not.