voting

[Happy Monkey]

Also, do you have to wait until you get sick before you can demand the poisoning stop?

[Happy Monkey]

How is "harm" defined? Especially to property? Lower perceived value? Death of plants? If you keep bees, and he coats his property in insecticide, does that harm you?

[henry quirk]

"How is "harm" defined? Especially to property? Lower perceived value? Death of plants? If you keep bees, and he coats his property in insecticide, does that harm you?"

if my bees die and the investigation shows it was cuz of his poison then, yeah, that harms 'me' cuz he's deprived me of my property.

So a claim of 'harm' has to be demonstrable, be physical...obviously.

I'm almost done here (cuz you're wastin' my time) Make your next post worth my while or I'm out.

[henry quirk]

Libertarian Theory (pretty damn close to my view)

This approach assumes that individuals take precedence over government. They inherently possess certain rights which the government should preserve and promote. This view assumes that human beings are capable of choice and development on their own without the help of government. Government should merely provide the institutions and mechanisms which will enable individuals to exercise their rights and pursue their private interests. Individuals are more important than the political community, and their rights and interests supersede those of the community. Libertarians see government as necessary because the clash of individual interests creates conflict. This requires institutions which can mediate these differences. The ideal government as envisioned by libertarians would be one in which general, impersonal laws and disinterested judges provide the peace and security under which each person can pursue private interests. Thus, the libertarian has a notion of justice that is purely procedural in nature. A procedural view of justice sees the political system as legitimate as long as it applies fair rules and procedures equally to all persons. Persons using these procedures to obtain vastly different results is not seen as being unjust. For example, a college admissions system may be based on merit. High school seniors will be admitted to college if they achieve a certain grade point average and adequate scores on college admissions tests. Those who do not meet the standards are not admitted. Though this system differentiates between people, it is procedurally just because it applies what are believed to be appropriate standards equally to all persons.

Communitarian Theory (here's where most of you pinkos live)

This perspective emphasizes the positive role that government plays in the lives of its people. This view asserts that individuals are not completely independent, but rather, have an inherent need for association with their fellows in the political community. Whereas the individualist-libertarian approach assumes that people can choose and develop on their own, the communitarian approach contends that people need the community and its values to nurture their development and enable them to make proper choices. Under this view, democratic government exists not only to recognize and protect individual rights and to satisfy personal interests, but also to bring individuals together into a political community to solve public problems. Politics is not a necessary evil to be limited in scope and function. Thus, communitarians recognize that the “public interest” creates responsibilities that may override the individual’s rights. Whenever a conflict occurs between individual rights and the public interest, the communitarian resolves the conflict on the side of the public interest. Thus, the political majority may sometimes need to impose certain values on individuals who find themselves in the minority. Communitarians take a substantive view of justice. Whereas the libertarian is satisfied with fair procedures as a measure of justice, the communitarian is more likely to look at the fairness of the results obtained. This view contends that vast inequalities among individuals are potentially damaging to society as a whole and supports the use of government power to achieve greater justice. In college admission systems for example, communitarian theory supports affirmative action on behalf of minorities to redress institutional inequalities. Thus a college may give admissions preference to minority group members in order to increase their numbers in higher education and obtain a just result for all elements in society, even though such action may discriminate against individuals who are not minorities.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

if my bees die and the investigation shows it was cuz of his poison then, yeah, that harms 'me' cuz he's deprived me of my property.

So a claim of 'harm' has to be demonstrable, be physical...obviously.

Aren't your bees trespassing?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Aren't your bees trespassing?

His bees can trespass. Because he has the right to do anything he wants. His neighbor's bees cannot because he now uses laws to protect himself from any neighbor who exercised those same freedoms.

A double standard found in extremist rhetoric. He need not be responsible. His neighbor must.

[henry quirk]

They might be. In the same way I don't want my neighbor's dog shittin' on my lawn, my neighbor might not want my bees flittin' through his airspace.

If he complains, and has merit in his complaint, I'm obliged to curb my bees.

#

tw,

Quoting Glinda: "fuck you".

[Undertoad]

If he complains, and has merit in his complaint, I'm obliged to curb my bees.

If you look at it another way, most regulation is just agreeing on the complaint/merit beforehand.

[Happy Monkey]

Indeed. That was what I was trying to get at originally. And while it may be "beforehand" for future potential disputes, it was usually in direct response to past disputes.

[henry quirk]

"If you look at it another way, most regulation is just agreeing on the complaint/merit beforehand."

Based on *one-size-fits-all precedent.

Nah, that doesn't suck at all, Toad.

#

"Indeed. That was what I was trying to get at originally."

No it wasn't, HM. You were just applyin' a dull razor to my notions: that's it, that's all, g'night Gracie.

#

Me, not seein' how "get off my back and let me be" connects or leads to or is related to 'private regulation'. Conflatin' & besmirchin': that's tw's game, Toad.

#

"private regulation"

Nuthin' wrong with private regulations (like how 'you' run your household, for example) as long as private doesn't trump public (which, in the minimal 'night watchman' affair I propose, is **minimal but encompassing).

#

"gated communities"

If dumbasses wanna live in 'em, that's on them. Leave folks to their self-selected hells, I say

#

"I'm not sure there is a simply applied concept for teasing out individual cases..."

Of course there is, Griff.

#

"When it comes to interstate (commerce) federal is the only solution"

Of course not, Bruce.







*largely arrived at through the machinations of shysters (well-paid parasites)


**for latecomers, the memory-challenged, and the plain-ass retarded:

'Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else).

...out from which extends:

'Self and property are sacred.'

'Self-defense and common defense are a justification for violence.'

'A contract is a contract.'

[Undertoad]

Plus, I can't stop thinking about this:

In terms of "get off my back and let me be", private regulation is usually MORE onerous than government regulation. It can be, because it doesn't have to stop and worry about rights. It just boldly goes ahead.

Like the MPAA movie ratings system (PG, R, etc) - not a product of government - private regulation just says outright whether a 12-year-old or 16-year-old can watch a movie, without considering rights at all.

At times it can be wonderfully beneficial and work better than government - see UL - but damn, a private auditor can fuck you way harder than a government regulator, and charges you for it!

[Griff]

Yeah, there are definitely times when private regulation works beautifully but if I'm going to choose between getting poisoned and seeking redress and government banning use of the toxin preemptively, I probably look to government. I'm not sure there is a simply applied concept for teasing out individual cases where private is more useful. We have to case by case this which we do when Presidents stop enforcement of regulations and people do or do not get pissed. Humans are involved so it's complicated.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

In terms of "get off my back and let me be", private regulation is usually MORE onerous than government regulation. It can be, because it doesn't have to stop and worry about rights. It just boldly goes ahead.

Reflecting on this, I think about gated communities and parking, paint, and flag rules which can get pretty petty and personal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

When it comes to interstate, federal is the only solution, although the feds have made some questionable claims whether a situation is interstate commerce or not.

Gated and HOAs are the Devils doing.

[Undertoad]

Me, not seein' how "get off my back and let me be" connects or leads to or is related to 'private regulation'.

Never tried to go into an R-rated movie when you were 16?