Federal & Local Law Enforcement Agencies Try to Take Family

[Amskeptic]

Steve for the third time it really comes down to this. If you want to criticize something don't prop up a less than sympathetic example to support your case. Do you honestly think the public cares about a guy who's property is a nuisance?
See how it works?

There is a tinge of Upstanding Citizen arrogance in the above post, LET ME EXPLAIN, HOLD ON, HOLD ON...

That is a personal judgment call. The example provided might actually be more stimulating and thought-provoking than a "sympathetic example" that the "public cares about" might be. To criticize a person's example as not being suitable to the discussion because "the public" may not "care", and to pose it with a "do you honestly think?" seems witheringly scornful.

Russell, I have met many hotel proprietors all across this country who are desperately trying to keep their boat afloat. They often do not have the resources to vet their clientele, their dignity is frequently assaulted. I saw a motel owner watch the police beat down a door with a battering ram and just splinter the doorway to kindling, oops, "suspect not found".

While there may be complicit agreements between some motel owners and some unsavory characters, I guarantee you the majority of owners are out of the loop and desperately hope that crazies and drug addicts and prostitutes do not frequent their establishments. The night clerks do not necessarily practice discriminating room rentals.

So let's say that a drug dealer or pimp decides that a particular motel is perfect for them. They infect the property and get arrested and drive away the middle-class customers. What is a motel owner to do? Rock? Meet Hard Place. Mortgage is DUE.
Colin

[RussellK]

You bet there is a tinge of upstanding citizen arrogance. Just down the street from my home is a liquor store. The owner doesn't give one damn that his property is a dump. The owner doesn't give one damn that his employees are selling dope out the back door and taking in stolen property through the front. Do you think I'd lose any sleep if poor mister put upon liquor store owner loses his business because he chooses to look the other way? Not one wink.

Witheringly scornful? That's your take. I think my criticism is valid. If you want to effect change don't prop up examples likely to lose half your support from the beginning. Its a bad strategy. You see Colin if you had read the entire thread you'd know I care about this. Most folks think forfeiture laws only apply to the bad and the ugly. Articles like that in "The Moral Liberal" reinforce that idea. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The OP and now you unwittingly made my criticism about something else. So I think I'll just continue to criticize thank you very much and you can just keep your lectures to a minimum.

[steve74baywin]

I first heard of this via Facebook, I think an article came through via "Campaign for Liberty" or some other Liberty type page I get stuff from on FB, and it was mainly focusing on the efforts of the Institute for Justice. I did a quick search on some keywords on the article to see what else was out there. The one by the Moral Liberal read okay and was similar to the first one I read, I'm not familiar with the Moral Liberal. I figured there would be a better chance people would read it and not bash it if it didn't come from a Libertarian type site.
What's that saying, Can't please everybody all the time or something like that.

[Ryno]

I figured there would be a better chance people would read it and not bash it if it didn't come from a Libertarian type site.

That's right, you give people here too much credit. Thanks for dumbing it down for us.

[Amskeptic]

You bet there is a tinge of upstanding citizen arrogance. Just down the street from my home is a liquor store. The owner doesn't give one damn that his property is a dump. The owner doesn't give one damn that his employees are selling dope out the back door and taking in stolen property through the front. Do you think I'd lose any sleep if poor mister put upon liquor store owner loses his business because he chooses to look the other way? Not one wink.

So I think I'll just continue to criticize thank you very much and you can just keep your lectures to a minimum.

Anecdotal examples are often colorful.
Principles regarding property rights and laws have to be more dispassionate.
In your specific example, if the liquor store owner disobeys laws, then yes, I agree that he can answer to those laws.

But when I see generalizations to others with broad scorn against people you have never met, well, I might share observations, thank you very much. A perjorative judgment of my observation as a "lecture" is inflammatory and distracting.

In keeping with the spirit of this place, I am not going to tell you to just "keep your (continue to criticize)s to a minimum". Have I ever suggested that you not share whatever opinions you may carry? Why does it have to get so personal around here?
Sheesh ...
Colin

[steve74baywin]

I figured there would be a better chance people would read it and not bash it if it didn't come from a Libertarian type site.

That's right, you give people here too much credit. Thanks for dumbing it down for us.

Wow, someone is picking apart everything I post to find what he can perceive as an insult.
I really can't be all that smart, I did not think someone would take what was an honest explanation to why I posted the article/example that someone thought wasn't a good example and take it as an insult.

I don't recall you sharing much in the topics here in free speech.
Does attacking someone interest you more than the topics we usually discuss?
Or did those comments made to some in general ring true to you?
I'm trying to understand how my comment, made to no one in particular, and certainly not to you, could cause you to say what you did yesterday and to take offense to a comment today. You may think we have fought often or something.
Please enlighten me. How long can I expect this from you?

[Ryno]

I figured there would be a better chance people would read it and not bash it if it didn't come from a Libertarian type site.

That's right, you give people here too much credit. Thanks for dumbing it down for us.

Wow, someone is picking apart everything I post to find what he can perceive as an insult.
I really can't be all that smart, I did not think someone would take what was an honest explanation to why I posted the article/example that someone thought wasn't a good example and take it as an insult.

I don't recall you sharing much in the topics here in free speech.
Does attacking someone interest you more than the topics we usually discuss?
Or did those comments made to some in general ring true to you?
I'm trying to understand how my comment, made to know one in particular, and certainly not to you, could cause you to say what you did yesterday and to take offense to a comment today. You may think we have fought often or something.
Please enlighten me. How long can I expect this from you?

I usually read more than post here in free speech, because believe or not, I usually fall smack dab in the middle on these issues. Listen man, it's not really personal. But the same old argument gets old. There has to be consideration for other individuals, you know, the greater good?

If you remember the sloppy neighbor thread, I had a situation very similar to this Dirtbag Motel going on RIGHT NEXT DOOR. No sympathy for known crackhouse motels that allow drug dealing, prositution, etc.

I will remain quiet now.

[ruckman101]

So the owner runs a dive that's the cheapest in town. Nothing illegal there, nope. But guests frequently are petty criminals that cause disruptions, especially when the police come into the picture to make arrests. Again, nothing illegal on the owner's part again, at least on the surface. However, the establishment is impacting it's neighbors in ways the neighbors consider detrimental negatives to their quality of life.

Steve, how does this libertarian ideal you are fond of reconcile these tensions?


neal

[steve74baywin]

So the owner runs a dive that's the cheapest in town. Nothing illegal there, nope. But guests frequently are petty criminals that cause disruptions, especially when the police come into the picture to make arrests. Again, nothing illegal on the owner's part again, at least on the surface. However, the establishment is impacting it's neighbors in ways the neighbors consider detrimental negatives to their quality of life.

Steve, how does this libertarian ideal you are fond of reconcile these tensions?


neal

Not a short answer.
The key here may lie is this "neighbors consider detrimental negatives to their quality of life".
Life isn't perfect, no rose gardens or sparkle pony's promised here.
Several things I could see in a Lib system.
For one, the biggest one to consider is their actions wouldn't be considered criminal. Selling or using drugs or selling sex, so maybe the ruckuss wouldn't be. Now if they got very loud still and disturbed others, you'd think the owners of that place would then ask them to stop or leave, IE, it would hurt their business, if they didn't then he could call the police. If the owner chose to let this be, people would post negative reviews on the Internet, like some have already noted, and you probably wouldn't choose to stay at that place that has noisy sex and people partying all night. But, once in a while you might accidentally still end up staying at a place like that, well, such is life. Shit happens.
So one point is, once again the problem happens to exist possible mostly because of a non Libertarian system in the first place. Even in the liquor store example, people all worried about some using drugs half their day for fun has got laws put on the books that now make the action illegal. If wasn't for those that worry so much and want all these laws maybe their wouldn't be people selling and buying drugs at that store. Secondly, I've seen and been to stores like that. Usually those selling and buying don't want any extra attention from people put upon themselves. I normally have no problem going into a store like that. If I thought I would have a problem, I would probably just go to another store. But I usually don't worry about stuff like that. Some peoples biggest fear might be if one of their affluent friends drive by that store on the way to their house, oh no, what will they think of us Martha!!! So they are all for putting people in jail and taking their business and property from them, because, you know, the worst of the worst could happen, and, well, my life first, seems a bit selfish, non-libertarian.
Summary of my points.
1) Probably might not even exist in a Libertarian one.
2) Problem over magnified, People worry about a boogie man or Bin Laden
3) People thinking laws will solve everything, when life isn't perfect, we have to deal with stuff all the time. I have CV joint to finish replacing today, but it is raining out, so I am stuck inside. It ain't the end of the world.

That was the best I could do to explain it this morning, apologies in advance if anyone is offended.

[steve74baywin]

I usually read more than post here in free speech, because believe or not, I usually fall smack dab in the middle on these issues. Listen man, it's not really personal. But the same old argument gets old. There has to be consideration for other individuals, you know, the greater good?

Actually, we on the limited gov side feel we have the best system for the individual, and a group is nothing more than a number of individuals. In other words, if we protect individual rights, the group is also protected. There really is no such thing as a group in a sense. The word group is an abstract or concept to describe many people. If you protect each persons rights, then any group is already protected, cause the group is no more than individuals and if your protect each individual's rights, the whole group is protected. When you start doing things for the GROUP via violating some individuals rights you eventually start chomping away at some of the people in the group.
So our thoughts are that if you protect individual rights the group is covered, when you start to violate individual rights for a supposed group, then you all end up loosing rights in the first place. What would be a great achievement for a large number of people would also be an achievement for each persons and vs versa, as long as no one persons rights were violated.
They call this Individualism vs Collectivism

Another note, Ryno, you mentioned how the same old arguments get old. If you only could put yourself in my shoes, maybe you can, try it, but remember, I'm in the minority with my political belief's. It seems ALL I ever hear is the same old left and right arguments, arguments that have been going on for ages.
You probably accidentally hit the nail on the head as to why I sometimes seem short or do partly rude replies, I keep hearing the same old arguments.

[ruckman101]

While I agree all drugs should be legal and treated as a health issue, I can't get on board the legalized prostitution platform. Prostitution is not a victim-less crime. It isn't even about sex. It's about power. Like rape.

Nice dance around the issue otherwise.

I do agree, however, that this particular issue is a symptom of a much larger dysfunctional model.


neal

[steve74baywin]

While I agree all drugs should be legal and treated as a health issue, I can't get on board the legalized prostitution platform. Prostitution is not a victim-less crime. It isn't even about sex. It's about power. Like rape.

Nice dance around the issue otherwise.

I do agree, however, that this particular issue is a symptom of a much larger dysfunctional model.


neal

Prostitution, it sometimes can be a power thing, but that isn't cause to make it illegal, or to arrest people for it. Many relationships and marriages have power things and other less than perfect reasons for couples to be together and we don't make that illegal. (women using men for money, men using women as trophies)
Here is an out of the box thing, perhaps the power thing is held by the women and not the men. Think about it. If I a man had women willing to pay me to give it to them, could it not be said that I hold the power?
I'm not sure why you say it is like rape.

As far as the other issue, it may seem like a dance, but basically what I was trying to say, besides the fact that the problem might not exist because certain things aren't illegal, but also people will have to at times deal with things, like too much noise from someone nearby.
Like I eluded to before in other threads, we are not promising a utopia, rose garden or even a sparkle pony. Sometimes some people may be hungry, in pain, or have to deal with nature. At least we wouldn't have to deal with hardships put upon us by the government.