Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson Supports Exclusionary Zoning

your right it doesnt...I would like to see video of this. unless of course...if the property is owned by private individuals...then it is their right to do with the property that they want.

government ...no way.

private...yes way.

are you talking private zoning restrictions...or government forced zoning laws??

James

the same can be said for environmental zoning laws.....zoning which is supposed to protect the envirnoment.....basically making sure that the lot size is big enough so that only the rich can afford it. or they prevent building making the land around it more expensive.

if you look at the areas that have the strictest zoning laws environment wise...they are the most expensive places to live in this country.

yes zoning laws by government are illegal and unconstitutional...in my book.....

but then there is the ENVIROMENT to think about....lol.

I agree that the government has no right to discriminate against anyone.

that said.....private owners can.......to prevent them from so doing is a violation of their right of choice.

My only quibble, James, is that you have no constitutional rights because We The People have thrown away the constitutions, both state and federal.

I'd of course like constitutional rule of law. That's what I'm all about; it's my campaign platform.

But don't kid yourself; We The People have exactly and only what we have freely chosen, and we've chosen to throw away law in favor of unregulated politics...our most ancient and virulent foe.

andy

of course while I overall agree with you....to regulate morality by government so there are not racists doing such things is a violation of our rights.

Damn...I had about 3 hours of sleep last night and forgot the point I was going to make.....lol

uggghhhhhhh

I feel for you brother. I caught a cold that would've killed ten ordinary men; I'm operating on less sleep/night than I've endured since Spring Break, 1978.

But in a very real sense, the only role government has is to regulate morality...and our lack thereof. ...Right?

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

And, sadly, angels don't go into politics.

but a thought process they have no business regulating.

now taking thought...and putting it into physical action is another story altogether.

And there's the thing. If you own a property and don't want to sell it to somebody because you're screwed in the head, that's OK. But if you don't own something, and make a law preventing somebody from buying it...that's not OK. You've drawn the "sword of state" in the scenario when that just shouldn't ever happen.

So here's the question:

A guy buys land and builds an ideal neighborhood; beautiful, well-built, well-sited, and sells it. A bunch of schmuks end up forming a neighborhood association, and by 51-49% vote, they write and exclusionary covenant...no Libertarians allowed. It turns out that among the 49% were a couple of Libertarians...the smartest, most decent, and of course, most attractive and wholesome people in the whole county.

What now?

Is it OK that they be kicked out?

of course its ok.

the libertarians would probably be better off......better than having neighbors who hate you and make the living environment around your home less than hospitable....you cannot force morality upon people with the threat of imprisonment or death if need be....it doesnt work in our foreign policy and it wont work in our domestic policy.

i wouldnt want to live there.....I would go somewhere else and build a better society...as their neighborhood would eventually collapse under its own hatred.

peace.

But you just lost property! Somebody took it from you!

without reimbursement...well that would be theft of course and wrong.

and of course is the greatest argument against Lincoln. He could of avoided war if he just paid the owners for their "property" like other nations did....and they ended slavery peacefully.

so no....taking of property by force is a violation of your individual rights......our whole foundation is reliant on the respect of property rights.

government can not take property away from you based on discrimination....or shouldnt be able to...so there is no case for them here.

I'm picking at this only because iron sharpens iron...

But what is just compensation for taking your property?

What if you really enjoyed all of your close neighbors, and loved your home? What if there isn't another place you'd rather be, but they're forcing you to sell out?

I'm likely as libertarian as anybody on the planet. But I am not an anarchocapitalist at all. I do not believe that self-interest, when combined with minority v majority issues, could ever work. Not only is politics a regrettable inevitability, there are times, with us flawed and rotten creatures, when the sword of state must come down on somebody's neck.

I bet you'd agree that our history (and of course current events) are full of reasons why we should write down a few simple roles for politics and stick to them. I bet you'd agree that there will be some roles for politics that you and I won't like one bit...but will gladly accept for the whole Rule Of Law to work.

I chose to live on a farm where there are no zoning laws. My state has zoning laws in violation of its constitution, but that's the least of my worries. I'd happily move to a place with strict zoning laws if I could live under real Rule Of Law that allows even a majority of the liberties we're supposed to enjoy.

But getting back to the main topic...

Gary Johnson?...

Hmmmm...

If Dr. No loses the GOP game, I hope he does jump ship for the LP.

agree with most of your post.

Well if Dr. No loses the gop game...I do not think he will run third party.

on a side note.

I am going to see him tonight....I am a bit excited.....taking my two sons...10, 11....not to early to instill some liberty into them.

a Johnson/Paul or Paul/Johnson ticket would be interesting.

peace.

James

like it or not they were considered property...and just like with anything you own....if the government wants to take it from you against your will.....they must reimburse you.

england compensated its citizens for their slaves......

the government has no right to take your property from you without compensation.

just like you are arguing on this seed.

and if you want to end the wars...all we need to do is end the federal reserve and repeal the federal income tax...they are there to fuel endless war...without it...we could not do it.

in conclusion....government has no right to tell you what to do with your property..and cannot seize your property without compensation....of course they ruled a few years back that they can take your property to give to another private organization...hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Lincoln wanted war and power...he was a follower of Clay and Hamilton...and wanted to kill people in his quest to have a large central government nation.

the war cost us approx 6 billion dollars and the lives of 600,000 americans...and it could of cost us 6 billion dollars...and no lives.

james

I really do not want to get into a civil war debate.... He was losing moral support for the war...so made it about slavery to make it a "moral" issue.

What you had was basically a difference in philosophies of where this country would go...the hamiltonians and jeffersonians had been at war for a century....a few central banks....the fight against them.....then of course you had the northern states threaten secession in 1813...in which there was no constitutional objection to.

this was purely a power grab by Lincoln...plain and simple.....nearly every country was able to solve their slavery problem peacefully.....because they offered the owners restitution for one.

if the government decided to confiscate your car.....after you had spent good money on it...you would be pissed. same goes here.

the americans who wanted another europe won out...and here we are.....big government...less rights FOR ALL....

regardless...much like you dont want your property taken without restitution.....those who viewed slaves as property...right or wrong..thought the same.

the war could of been avoided....but that was not Lincolns goal.

I've made my living in healthcare for over thirty years in research, clinical, policy and industry roles. If "Universal Healthcare" isn't a much more basic form of slavery to you, then I have to wonder what you're thinking freedom means!

You want to give politicians, and the cronies that control them, the power to say who's human, who's worth keeping alive, who's paying for what, and ultimately, what healthcare actually is?

We've already had socialized healthcare (unionized, regulated and politicized) for the past 150 years. That it's been done badly doesn't mean we need to do more of the same.

http://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/a-short-history-of-health-care-let-doctors-be-doctors/

Allopaths unionized 150 years ago to throw aside competition from other branches of study that, in many cases, proved to be better medicine, and perhaps put us behind a good 50 years. Then in WWII, our politicians forced a third party payor system upon us during the foolish Wage and Price Control era...and that caused what economists called a "moral hazard," forever changing the way we use medical arts, and lead to, in 1965, a full collusion between politics and greed called Medicare.

You have no idea what free market medicine could be like. (oh, and don't confuse "capitalism" with free market!) You ought to read up on it. There's been a lot written by people associated with Cato, the von Mises Institute, etc.

Veterinary medicine offers a tiny glimpse of how much cheaper and more available healthcare could be without politics. But a better example would be in how much range in price and quality there is in other industries, like coffee and computers, where politics plays a much, much smaller part.

Markpup, you're making a good case for what I was trying to say about the libertarian case for deed restrictions and such.

Another case is when somebody deeds a land "in perpetuity" to the public. Most park land was just so deeded. The moral/social dilemma is, as I'd mentioned above, what happens next.

Does "public" land belong to politicians? Certainly not, according to libertarians. But who protects/maintains it? What are the limits of maintenance? What is protection?

When people are generally immoral, then things like vandalism, theft, etc., make liberties much more problematic. A generally more moral people wouldn't tolerate nearly as much politics/restriction/debt as we now suffer.

My case probably comes down to the embarrassing but I think undeniable fact that our politics represents who we are very well.

You can't be a Land of the Free unless you're also the Home of the Brave. And you can't have liberties if you're such a jerk that you won't allow others theirs.

Sigh...

Hi Andy - I really liked your response!

Honestly I'm the last person in the world who would ever embrace Libertarian ideology. The best short definition of libertarian I've heard is that in the pantheon of moral relativism, things that enhance personal freedom rate very high.

But I'd ask people what you're rating lower to get that. Duty, patriotism, honor, manners, respect for others for starters I could write a novel easily if I went on. When the question gets posed like that, libertarian shortcomings become suddenly very obvious.

I'd argue that those aren't libertarian shortcomings!

The Libertarian Party has earned a pretty bad reputation for itself, and unfairly marred the ideology more appropriately applied to the founding fathers than to Ayn Rand objectivists and anarchocapitalists.

What was once called liberalism (Ludwig von Mises wrote "Liberalism" in 1929, defining liberal as the opposite of what it now is so-called) became libertarianism when people like Murray Rothbard objected to what had become of their "liberalism." The Libertarian Party nees a similar slap in the face, in my opinion; because much of what is called libertarian is most definitely not.

Ron Paul is a pretty good example of the Christian Libertarian (as opposed to the happily shrinking Randian wing of the Libertarian Party) that I'd call truly libertarian, so I'd like to know if you find him out of line...

Liberalism

reading that right now....good book.

Cool. Read it, pass it on. Others need to know what has happened to our language in this NewSpeak world of ours.

It was written in 1929, wasn't it? It's been a while and when you said you're reading it, I had a moment of doubt...

Anyway, I'm calling myself a Progressive Liberal. And, while I'm at it (and since I use a chain saw on my farm pretty regularly), I'm a Tree Hugging Progressive Liberal.

...Why not?

Andy - I know even on Newsvine the definition of Libertarian becomes somewhat muddied and interpretive. I'm going by Hayek and to some extent Von Mises. And I think my short definition is about as close as you can get to libertarian without long and winding prose of some sort.

I like Ron Paul because he's honest and like most people who are honest, I strongly agree with some of what he says but strongly disagree with others. There isn't enough bandwidth here to go there and it's off topic I guess.

As for religion, if you read Hayek, obviously he would never consider suppressing religious expression but in general Libertarians are not comfortable with the subject and you'd probably advance farther in their political world if you're atheist or at least not openly religious. Hayek was often derisive of both religion and tradition. We agree Rand was wack but she was a strong atheist.

This is partly my theory - but the idea someone would actually sacrifice for friends, family, and country is something that religion supports, but Libertarians look at such people as suckers. You provide a service for others for which you are paid and provide no apologies.

And on that subject, I'd have to get my head around Christian Libertarians - one is strong on personal sacrifice and not being attached to material wealth and the other is the opposite. I'm not sure I see the long term compatibility there.

I'm not sure how many people on the Vine are Star Trek fans, but when I think of Libertarians I see the Ferengi and their Rules of Acquisition. This is not any society I'd choose to live in.

Well, markpup, it seems to me that you and I are pretty doggoned close. I'm a Reformed Presbyterian (Calvinism, the whole shebang), and I'm running for US Senate as a Libertarian. More and more of us are less and less like our popular reputation.

But mostly, when you're talking ideology and critical thinking, that should exclude the demorepublicrats, who've been, for the past one hundred years, no more than two marketing groups for just one crony network.

That's the real enemy. More of us should unite against it.

Nope; I was doubting my memory, and you've vindicated my doubt. Maybe it was published in English in 1929...I'll pull out that book again tonight.