Libertarian Solutions: Property rights in America: Your 'castle' is under siege

The cultural divide between both conservatives and the Libertarian Party is about as wide as they are between conservatives and the radical Left. The LP is in league with the anarchist Left on so many issues ranging from immigration, social depravations, abortion, and even trading with terrorists and coercive economies (Castro). The ONLY way we can achieve the goals of a "conservative news forum" and those spelled out again by you is to DEBATE "principles" and illuminate friend from foe. And yes, when so-called "news" articles from the LP (it's a party, not a news organization, and the news stories are propaganda in anyone's book designed to promote traffic on their site!!) are posted to this, a "conservative" news, site, I will take the liberty to make a joke or take them on. I won't censor, as you seek to do, in a very un-libertarian moment. If the Democratic Socialists of America had predators posting pseudo-"news" stories systematically on this site and linking back to their party HQ site, I doubt anyone would have a problem with someone taking them on. But I would never censor them – it would be too much fun poking holes! If FR wants to stop calling itself "conservative" and just libertarian party central, since it seems that there are so many pretending to be conservatives participating on this site, then I'm out of here. Until then...

I agree with you on the article and on this post. ED has went from being a beneficial tool that as I understand the times it was included, to take lands needed in case of an emergency such as forts, arsenals, etc. Now it is being used for everything! I can say that! My home is under threat because the National Park Service says we "pollute a view-shed"! These lands have been owned for over 200 years by the original settlers to the area and the land patent I have reads, "to William Cody Richmond, his heirs and ASSIGNS forever!

If lands were taken for such reasons above, ( and latter ed was extended to use for railroads, then highways, etc.)once the "need" for the lands was over they were to go back to the original owner or his heirs.And if railroads were abandoned, these lands as well was to go back to the original landowner or heirs---not! Somebody came up with the "Rails to Trails" idea. I have gathered this history lesson form the Virginia State Archives and from Snowcrest Farms, that has a site devoted to land and it's distirbution!

I think you said in an earlier post, that ed got to rocking and rolling around 1954 with the law case you cited and I feel you are correct. Then came gross abuses and this resulted in part to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, though this slowed ED some, now it is worse than it has ever been because of the spread of Sustainable Communites, Urban sprawl, etc. I have a friend in NJ that is under threat of loosing her home and farm because it is the last one in her township! Why? To protect "open-spaces"!

the concept of private property is meaningless.

Getting warmer. You can buy real estate and sell it. To that extend, you can own real estate. But it comes down to who has the ultimate power to use and dispose of land, and that is the public. You, of course, are not the public, nor do you represent the public. The public is those worthies you elect now and then as custodians of the public sector. Mayor, Councilmen, etc. And when their term is up, they return to the private sector and become just another private citizen. It's amazing we don't pay more attention to who we elect.

Aric2000 wrote: I believe in the adage "Do what you want as long as it does not infringe on my rights" My rights as a property owner are infringed by this mans junkyard in his yard. It brings the value of MY property down. If he wants to move out to the country, get the proper permits and open a junkyard, hey hurray for his side, but to bring down my property value in order to do what he wants, and it is a matter of private property rights is a crock. If it effects me directly, he has NO right to do it. 19
Zon wrote: How about when your neighbors house is worth 50% more than your house but your house is bringing the value of his house. Get rid of your house and move out to the country or buy the most expensive house on another block. OR, are you exempt? 40

If I own a house and it is worth 50% less then my neighbors house, well, hey, good for him, but the fact is the house is there, it was built, it had the permits, it had the property, etc. 57

Do you now deny that your original issue was with disparity of property values? Stick to the issue -- YOUR issue that you started. Or, did it lose some of the credibility that you bestowed upon it? Your choice to learn and advance the dialog or fight swimming upstream.

Have you NO common sense? You have yet to look at this with even a little bit of that. It's all or nothing with you.

If I buy a house, and it is worth 50% MORE then your house, but your house is in a condition that it WAS in when I bought my house, then I have NOTHING to complain about. BUT, if you do something to your property after I move in that lowers my property value, THEN, I have EVERY right to sue your ass into next week.

My original post was NEVER about the DISPARITY of property values, my original post was about the fact that IF you DRIVE down my property values by doing something on your property that effects mine, THEN and only THEN do I have the right to sue you in order to stop you.

I think this righteous indignation you 2 are putting off is a crock of crap too. EVERYTHING that I stated in my post is CONSTITUTIONAL!! If what you do effects my rights, then I have every right to stop you in whatever legal way necessary.

I thought that libertarians had a modicom of common sense, but I guess not...

I say again, where did common sense go? If I as a neighbor to you, say in a california type neighborhood, in other words I could spit on your house from my kitchen. If I as your neighbor decide that I don't want to mow my lawn anymore, I'll just let it grow and grow and grow, until it is a field. I also will not paint my house, nor replace my windows when they are broken, I have also run into my garage door, so it's hanging there off the hinges, oh and I start collecting cars, so I have junk cars all over my yard as well.

Now, according to you, I can do that without any problems at all, after all, I am the one that has to live in it.

Well, you see, I am not just driving my property value down and making JUST my house look trashy, I am also driving your property value down, and making the entire neighborhood look trashy. So, you decide that my house looks really bad so you decide, since it is my property, that you are going to move. So you sell your house and someone else buys it, well, since that person bought thier house, when my house already looked like it did, then they have NO right to sue, BUT YOU DID, before you moved.

You bought your house BEFORE I did what I did, and drove YOUR property value down along with mine, but now that you have sold your house to someone else, and they moved in after my yard looked like it did, then they have NO right to sue me.

ARE YOU GETTING IT YET? or is it still too complicated for you?

If I live on a 5 acres out in the middle of no where, and you live up the hill from me on another 5 acres, I probably wouldn't care what you did to your property, but if you dump oil in the stream and it pollutes my stream as well, then again, I have EVERY right to sue your ass into next week. Your actions on YOUR property has effected me directly. Therefore I can and will sue you into next week if you wouldn't do anything about it.

Is that STILL too complicated for you to wrap your brain around?

``When I buy a piece of land, I don't want it to be taken away by anyone without my consent, eminent domain or not. And I don't think this makes me a Libertarian.''

You're absolutely right. You don't have to lean libertarian to believe that this is a violation of your constitutional right to own property. In my opinion, this reflects the sad state of affairs in public discourse when what should be a mainstream Republican issue is considered on the fringe.

What if I rent out the home to a large family of half Mexicans and blacks, who drive an old beat up looking rusted brown Chevy pick up and a large rusted bright yellow Cady, that they like to park right out front in the driveway, while they quietly sit out on lawn chairs, smoking hand rolled ciggerettes and watch the traffic go by. Are you suggesting that you have a right to sue me, or them? And if you are having trouble selling your home, which was suppose to be a quick easy sale - restraining order?

How about if I put in a small auto shop, which results in 8 to 12 cars being parked on my property, where their use to be just 2. My little business just increased the windshield repairmen's property next door to me. But you on the otherside took a similar loss. Do I have to sacrifice increasing of my property values to insure yours against decrease?

And what if your property also increased (but only for business purposes) and decreased as purely residential. Should progress be stopped to protect your preferred investment?

You take risk with stock, you should not be risked with property because of your neighbors.

Again, where the hell is the common sense in your statement?

If I move into a nice home in a nice neighborhood, and then you as my next door neighbor decide to rent out to some undesirables that tear up the house, park old piece of crap cars out front and do not maintain the property, which therefore causes MY property value to decrease, then I have EVERY right in the world to sue you into next week. BUT, if I move in after they are already there, then I made that choice. If I make the choice, that is one thing, but if you made that choice and it effects me DIRECTLY, loss of value on my property, danger to my property etc, then I have EVERY right to sue you.

If you already have a small auto shop when I move in, then what is it to me?

BUT, if you decide to start an auto shop after I already live there, and it will effect my property value in a negative way, then I can and will sue you, but, if it effects my property value in a positive way, whether it be business or residential, I will do my best to make sure that you are able to continue.

If you in your actions effect my property value in a negative way, you are infringing upon MY property rights, and that is not right. BUT, if you effect them in a POSITIVE way, that is a whole other story.

Again, I ask, WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE? I shouldn't have to explain this, it should be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.