Land Use Regulations on your own property.

Cephus said:

More absurd libertarian nonsense. There is probably nowhere on the planet that is completely free of land use restrictions, nor should there be. You cannot turn your property into a toxic waste dump or operate an unshielded nuclear reactor, I don't care where you go.

Where do libertarians come up with this stupid crap?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What's not in the handbook they make up as they go along. :roll:

joko104 said:

Ah, so the government has already seized that farm and now are leasing their own land back to the farmers.

OK, we've heard your sales pitch for corporate takeovers.

Click to expand...

No, its privately owned. Not all National Park is fully public land. Many of the National Rivers are public / private (The Adirondack Park model). Hot Springs National Park is a town.

joko104 said:

The longer I'm in popular American culture, see the media and such as read this forum, the more I find myself going to the right on all but some key social issues.

What I have learned is just how much contempt and borderline hatred those who see themselves as the enlightened left have for ordinary people. They don't care if someone works his whole life for their home for their old age and then loses it to new regulations. They spew incessant accusations at them calling the bigots and ignorant, when all they are doing it living their lives and trying to pay their bills at the end of the month.

The left doesn't help people. It tries to profit off the votes of minorities and poor people, tries to buy votes and tries to gain power. Little else. But I have also seen there isn't a niclek's difference between the elitists on the left and the elitists on the right. They both want exactly the same, but use opposite reasons for the same goals. Power. Control. Self declared superiority. Arrogance. Ego mania.

Click to expand...

It's not the "left" that is big on property taxes rather than income taxes, its the right. The left thinks its better to have low or no property taxes and higher income taxes to make up the difference so that you are paying taxes when you are working, and your tax burden is quite low when you are retired. Its the right that hates income taxes and instead institutes sales and property taxes so that your relative tax burden as a percentage of your income is higher the less you make.

Take Kansas City, MO for example. I live in the area so I know how it works here. We have one of the lowest housing costs of any major metro in the United States. We also have a 1% city income tax. So if you work in the city limits, you pay a 1% tax on your income regardless of where you live. The right wingers around here have fought it for years. The reason why there is a local earnings tax though is that if the city tried to raise the revenue it needed from property taxes alone, they would have some of the highest property tax rates in the country because homes here are more affordable than most cities, thus having a 1% earning tax keeps property tax rates relatively low for seniors and those at lower income levels.

CRUE CAB said:

Oh, extremism. Nice. How about I just want to change my oil without someone calling the HOA or put whatever drapes up I want?

Click to expand...

You see the problem with the poll now, I take it.

jamesrage said:

I lie some regulations.I do not think you should be able to freely build a toxic waste dump, prison, bum shelter, garbage dump and other things most normal people would have a problem with.

Click to expand...

These are extremes that have a likelihood of about a billion to one, unless it is a government entity building them. Of course governments would consider themselves exempt from their regulations.

Phys251 said:

I'm pretty sure that Galt's Gulch was such a place. Maybe you should try to move there?

Click to expand...

It's too bad there's not a real Galt's Gulch. I'd certainly go there if one existed.

Cephus said:

More absurd libertarian nonsense. There is probably nowhere on the planet that is completely free of land use restrictions, nor should there be. You cannot turn your property into a toxic waste dump or operate an unshielded nuclear reactor, I don't care where you go.

Where do libertarians come up with this stupid crap?

Click to expand...

What a ridiculous extreme--about a billion to one chance. And if the dump or reactor discharged anything that spread onto a neighbor's property, their owner(s) could be sued for trespass, and for big bucks. That is unless a local, state or federal project was involved; in that case they would go ahead anyway and say "screw you," regulations or not.

Cardinal said:

And there you have your conundrum. No HOA = your neighbor potentially building a race track in his back yard (yes, that happened, and his neighbors could do nothing about it).

Click to expand...

I would not like the race track, but it would be a million times less obnoxious than a land use and regulation Gestapo.

ronpaulvoter said:

I would not like the race track, but it would be a million times less obnoxious than a land use and regulation Gestapo.

Click to expand...

Nobody wants a bunch of mini-Napoleans telling them what color mailbox they're allowed to put up, but I think the race track would do it in for me.

ronpaulvoter said:

It's too bad there's not a real Galt's Gulch. I'd certainly go there if one existed.

Click to expand...

Oh yes it is a real place.

ronpaulvoter said:

These are extremes that have a likelihood of about a billion to one, unless it is a government entity building them. Of course governments would consider themselves exempt from their regulations.

Click to expand...

I do not care about the likelihood of them happening. I do not want them being built near where I live period or even the chance for them to built near where I live. There are private prisons.Most bum shelters are ran by private charities.In my city the garbage dump is privately owned.