It seems you can not be reached on this one. Our loss. For a civilization to function and for a community of people who value common quality of life traits to enjoy the security of such then it requires agreement of how we will conduct ourselves, including how we will develop land and to what extent we will impact our environment. From parks to landfills and everything in between this community cooperation is essential. Your rigid unwillingness to recognize the value in this comes off as is illogical and short sighted. I doubt this is how you really intent it to seem.

Frankly zoning laws are to protect the rest of us from the minority of folks with the me first mentality. I regret I was unable to reach you but I am secure in the knowledge that reasonable and forward looking people will see the value in Amendment 4. Plainly I hold its truths to be self evident. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss them.

You mentioned “unearned property rights”.

First – from a Libertarian perspective, my property is MINE. I do not need to earn anything from anyone for it once I own it.

Second – you are basing your arguments on current laws – if you really wanted growth and control over your property, instead of creating more laws to control property you would get rid of the ones that already exist.

Third – ALL laws are in place to control people in one form or another. The only laws I deem valid are the ones that deal the initiating of the use of force or fraud. Anything beyond that is an infringement upon ones liberty – that includes zoning laws.

Beyond the force/fraud laws, the only good law you could introduce now would be one that repeals an exiting law.

With that outlook – does Amendment 4 repeal any exiting law or does it give control to someone else?

How is giving control of my property to someone else of any benefit to me?
Why should I vote to have someone else control my property over me?

I guess I am going to have to retract the statement – going through your list the most I found was 3 percent. Indeed, most polls do not even have him listed. Whether this is a direct manipulation because he is a third party, or not, has yet to be determined. Such skewing wouldn’t surprise me.

While it is not 10% it is still more then 1 percent. Various straw polls have him at 30% but those are not considered and are not any scientifically algorithmic polls. So long as he stays under the 4% on any of the major polls he will be within the margin of error and likely to never get mentioned….then again…if they don’t put him in the polls we will never know where he stands either.

He did have a 15% favor ability rating in the Rasmussen poll, but that isn’t the same thing as a poll against other candidates.

I like the quote about what I wrote – at least you got that right – LOL.

First – if the candidate is running on the 90% issue instead of the 50/50 issue – they are NOT saying the same thing. You are building an argument on false premises and there is no way to win against a false argument since it is meaningless on its face.

Second – if a candidate was talking about the 90% issue instead of the 50/50 percent you are not faced with any dilemma on what to do.

Third – you will only turn to the social issues if those are the only issues that are being talked about – if ANY candidate is talking the 90% issues those will be the ones you go for. If you look at the one who refuses to talk about social issues instead of listening to his words then you are an idiot. If he is not talking about the social issues – those 50/50 issue – and is in fact talking about the 90% issues – while the others are talking about the 50/50 issues, you should already know who to vote for.

There is no hiding, he is talking about what counts while the others ARE hiding because they are not willing to talk about what really matters. Look, I didn’t make the conditions – you are the one who said “but wait”. You should have read what you wrote and understood what you were creating as you wrote it. You proved my point and answered your own question then buffaloed over it trying to prove something else. That was easy.

Yes, people are stupid and don’t know our government – that’s probably why we are in such a mess – they all care about their social issues from TV, the MTV, Simpson’s, beer, cigarettes etc.

No, one is not hiding their platform when not talking about social issues. One is creating a platform that hasn’t been heard before. There is no need to hide the platform just simply run on the right issues. I am not running because I want to legalize drugs I am running because I want stop government corruption. I am not running because I want to say prayers in school I am running because I want to cut taxes and let you keep the money you earn. I am not running because I want to let gay people get married, I am running because the budget is a mess and out current system isn’t fixing the problem. No, there is no need to hide the platform, just run on the correct issues.

In politics – PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING – if people perceive you to be a problem solver for fixing the 90% issues – THEY WILL VOTE FOR YOU REGARDLESS OF YOUR PARTY. If they perceive you as just another 50/50 guy – they will simply go with what they know – the lesser of two evils.

Proof – just one – hmmm, Rand Paul sounds good. He ran on the 90% issues and won. I did mention JD Hayworth. I mentioned him for a reason. He was winning big time until he got into the 50/50 issues. He was kicking butt up until that point and had he stayed away from them he could have won.
If our own Alex Snitker will stay away from the 50/50 issues he has a serious chance of winning. The every moment he gets into them he will loose. Alex, if you are reading this I hope you heed the message my friend. Stick to the 90% issues and get rid of the other idiots.

i say make the law neutral. if state x allows 6 months to opt out, that same right should equally apply to men under normal circumstances(not a real rape–force used or credibly believed about to be used).

Really, I’m not sure how much consent any of us consciously gave to it, being born into this system. Of course, it has our tacit consent, because we haven’t moved out yet.

I also omitted a word later on, and meant to say, “it is against these controllers that we all must wage battle” in a later paragraph.

Sorry.

Let me preface this with the fact that you did not disclose how your property is zoned now so allot of this is generalities – but relevant.

Plainly I do not have a say over what you can do with your property now or with A4. Your city or county Growth Management has that say. That say is then further refined based on the zoning. A4 only gives us a say when you want the politicians to grant you unearned additional property rights, often to the detriment of the rest of us. There is no Liberty for the rest of us in that scenario.

The net effect of zoning protections protects our collective quality of life. If your 4 acres of vacant land are zoned commercial then there is nothing preventing you and Walmart from building there. In fact in that scenario you and your neighbors would be competing for WalMarts business and rightfully so since with commercial zoning you not only paid a much higher price for the land but had also been paying commercial level property taxes on the land. If however it is agricultural, conservation, or residential then the price you paid and the amount you are taxed is set accordingly much lower. Furthermore the people who bought around you likely did so because of how it was zoned. Why should their quality of life and the area intended use shared by all other property owners have to be trashed just so you could make a questionable buck and bail on the area while sticking them with the impact and all other tax payers with the bill for the new roads and infrastructure?

Again, this is hypothetical because you have not disclosed your zoning or the property rights you have vested now. It is self evident that Amendment 4 protects property rights of all the rest of us against well paid lobbyist and political insiders. These political parasites trade in such changes routinely and stick the rest of us with the higher taxes and the dilution of our property values.

In November we can put an end to it by voting YES on Amendment 4.

Be well Sir,

Greg

Are you now a gradualist? I remember you saying we should not compromise our principled positions and our efforts should be directed at “education” concerning our positions. You were willing to lose a race rather than compromise our principles. Why the support for this Republican that is Rand not Paul?………….

Why should YOU approve of what I can do with my property? It is bad enough we have too many corrupt politicians doing it now. Approvals in the future would depend on people who for the most part can not name any of their local officials. True? Agree? I prefer a republic over a democracy if I have a choice.

No one estimated JWS to win more than 1% of the vote, or at least those of us who follow this stuff knew what to expect, but the JWS campaign ran for the purpose of putting the “brand” on the ballot and the “brand” has come up looking pretty damn amateurish. And we speculate why we can’t get any traction.

However, it takes a lot of grit to get this far and a hat tip to JWS for giving his best effort. How many of us would subject ourselves to this endeavor? Not many. Apparently, this effort was entirely handled by Smith unaided. The lesson learned….. You have to have people in your camp who give more than lip service to your campaign. If you fail to build a team, you fail period, ………even if you successfully avoid the social issues. Where was the campaign director? (Sorry, I could not resist)….lol……JimW

I’ll have to give this some thought. I am going be focusing on consent of the governed is not illusory.

I’m not sure what you mean by being in a Constitutional vacuum, but there can be no absolute freedom under any system where a majority can enact laws and empower a government to restrict rights.

Consent of the government is therefore illusory. Their consent is simply to subordinate their inalienable right to liberty to a system whereby they can be told what to do (within prescribed limits) by enough of their countrymen who choose to do so themselves, or empower representatives to do it for them.

Our Bill of Rights (NOT the pre-amendment Constitution) was to be the restraint on this power of the majority. How’s that working for us?

We are not free here. We are, however, without some of the restraints inherent in other systems of governance.

We have traded some of our freedom for peaceful succession, security, and the hope that our views will be served at least some of the time by those who govern us.

Those that we have not traded (or had taken) away we relinquish to an economic system that keeps us in states that some (like Jim) see as tantamount to indentured servitude under which many receive in return barely enough to survive in a reasonable lifestyle, along with the ever-present risk of incurring massive debt to make up the difference (and keep us in line).

But, we have the OPPORTUNITY to change at least part of our lot through luck, hard work, aptitude, and hopefully the help of well-connected family or friends.

Once upon a time I drank the cool aid that our American system was this great shining star that the rest of the world should emulate. Now I’m not so sure.

It is but a system, and like the humans who designed it and those of us who live within it, it is not perfect. It is our search for a more perfect union, subject to being undermined by the same egoic weaknesses we all suffer from to one degree or another.

This does not mean that we are wedded to it if we can envision other ways that might bring about a better result. And having the freedom to choose, it is our duty to always be cognizant that we can make another choice when that system no longer serves us.

Then again, there are others who want to use it for their own advantage, or institute a new one where they can have more control over us all. It is this against the controllers that we all must wage, no matter what form their efforts take.

All in all, I trust that ultimately the people will separate the wheat from the chaff and we will find our way out of this mess. Libertarians are contributing to that process.

I commend all who speak their truth and stand for what they believe.

You say:

“Absolute freedom demands absolute anarchy — and an enlightened populace that has the maturity to exercise their free choice in a responsible way and avoid doing harm to others. Without it, it ain’t gonna happen.”

No. Absolute freedom is that of the consent of the governed – in a constitutional vacuum, I maintain there can be absolute freedom in the United States.

This analysis you offer is the presupposition one would have to agree with for the rest of your arguments to hold water. Answer if you wanna keep the discussion going lol.

The Status Quo never lies and if A4/A21 passes we shall see.

(And respond to my emails too. Thanks!)

Guys, take a step back. There’s no point being missed. We’re just seeing and talking about it from different perspectives.

The challenge facing us all is how can we balance the many disparate interests in our nation, not to mention our world, without selling out the things we hold dearest?

Absolute freedom demands absolute anarchy — and an enlightened populace that has the maturity to exercise their free choice in a responsible way and avoid doing harm to others. Without it, it ain’t gonna happen.

So what we’re left with is how to best govern a nation of 310 million with so many different interests, needs and desires.

We have seen that effort result in varying activities to reign in our basest instincts and most egregious behavior while insuring the welfare and safety of our people (or various constituencies of them) — whether through a wide variety of programs, a well-armed and aggressive military, or policies that extend our influence around the globe. Of course, their combined weight is about to bring down the house.

Granted, our system has been usurped by a political class that was able to set its own rules and standards of behavior. And they conspired with those with money, power or influence to stack the deck through the manipulation of monetary and fiscal policy, industry subsidies, protective tariffs, favored tax status, and lest we forget, the Federal Reserve Board. It has created an incestuous relationship that is far removed from control by the people, much less Constitutionally-prescribed restraints. And with it came a healthy dose of regulation to impact most every aspect of our business and personal affairs.

Rather than rail against all their perceived wrongs, it might be more fruitful to consider how to undo that system and the corruption endemic within it by more than rhetoric about following the Constitution. It is not only a corrupt or at least easily-influenced legislature that must be addressed. For the interpretation of that Constitution and the laws enacted under it, as well as the delegation of greater and greater authority to the executive branch, have distorted our system into something far different than that which we were led to believe we have.

Within the de facto system, it may be impossible to reverse course and set things back to dis-empower the political and ruling classes. After all, they hold the reigns of power, both economically and militarily, as well as to a large extent in the dissemination of information — and are highly skilled in manipulating the people to allow them to continue their games.

It would seem that progessive objectives mirror libertarian ones in this regard, differing mostly based on the role of government in that process. Is it to be used as a weapon in that fight to assert greater restraint over those who would do harm to their objectives, or to disembowel a system that isn’t working very well so we can start over?

These are the questions I would hope each of us begin to consider as we move forward in the days to come. And of course, to invite greater participation by those who do not share the views of those who write on this board.

In any event, thanks again for allowing me to share my views on this complex subject. Thanks for all your work helping to shine light into the shadows so that we hopefully may one day make another choice.

Happy Birthday man, its your day so work it for all its worth!!

You still rock, Greg