*sigh*. It is not the "private property" which I am most concerned about, but illegal activities on "shared" ("public", if you will) grounds. I do think that local governments (such as Montgomery County, here in the DC metro area, which wrote legislation essentially banning at-home smoking) are free to try and legislate issues related to private property. The local citizens can and will smack down errant legislation, as is what happened in Maryland.
I do still assert quite loudly that States and localities should have the freedom to write legislation which fits their citizens best, and I continue to assert that this provides for the greatest amount of freedom by preventing tyranny of the minority, while still giving those not in the majority the opportunity to affect change in their community. IF unable to change local legislation which they disagree with, they still have the option to move along.
(Oh, btw, until I've paid off the full mortgage on my home, the bank owns my house, not me. Seeing that this is the case, it would not be prudent for me to exercise my "freedom" to burn my house down, as the bank, being the current owner of the deed, would not agree that my behavior is "sufficient display of my liberties." Does this illustrate the problem with "unlimited individual liberties" for you well enough? In clear and concise terms, if we permit no legislation on anything deemed "personal liberties," then we can draft absolutely no legislation, as everyone has different definitions of what "liberties" consist of.)
;) ttt
Sure, for public property, and as long it does not violate inalienable rights, which includes any activity that is not the initiation of force or fraud, of the threat thereof, its legal.
and I continue to assert that this provides for the greatest amount of freedom by preventing tyranny of the minority, while still giving those not in the majority the opportunity to affect change in their community.
Ok, here is where I disagree. There can be no "tyranny" if the "law" is not forcing an individual to do something, or forcing one to refrain from doing something under penalty of law. For instance, outlawing prostitution is tyranny. Why? Its legal status forces you to do nothing, or to refrain from doing anything. When this activity is outlawed, then you are forced to refrain. You have no right to force others to do, or not do an activity that is not a violation of other's rights(the initiation of force or fraud, or the threat thereof). Thats tyranny. Same goes with any gun law, any drug law, freeon laws, etc. This does not cover nuclear weapons. You have a right to use defensive force; these weapons are not defensive. This does not cover child pornography, because children can not consent to such activities.
Oh, btw, until I've paid off the full mortgage on my home, the bank owns my house, not me. Seeing that this is the case, it would not be prudent for me to exercise my "freedom" to burn my house down, as the bank, being the current owner of the deed, would not agree that my behavior is "sufficient display of my liberties." Does this illustrate the problem with "unlimited individual liberties" for you well enough?
I think if you re-read my post, you will see I said "the person paying tye mortgage or holding the deed". The bank owns the property as collateral for the loan. You own it as long as you pay. This gives you the same rights of ownership(as far as rights go) as if you owned it outright.