County says no camping on your own land !!

[Midniteoyl]

You guys seem to forget that it wont be 'your land' forever. What do people do with YOUR junk when you die? What about all the chemicals you might (might not) be leaching into the ground and the water supply? I find it hypocritical that people scream about 'big oil' and 'big gas' and 'big government' and etc etc etc causing problems and dumping waste when their very own land is the same way... or worse.

 

[teejk]

Around here the restrictions seem to come under the guise of septic disposal. So we have rules about non-permanent structures having to be removed after 6 months I think. I'd be more than happy to ask our county zoning guy about it if anybody wants to know the rationale. He's a tree hugger but also a great resource if you ask him nicely (just kidding there Terry if you are watching).

 

[hawkeye08]

So what are you saying, you have no faith in the democratic process? Living in a democracy requires wearing big-boy pants now and then. Everything will not be to anyone's total satisfaction. We live with what the majority decides is reasonable in many instances and far more often than not, the majority gets it right--even if it takes several tries.

"No thanks" to your anarchy or libertarian stuff. The world is way too complex and crowded for such simplistic ideas.

I like our constitutional republic that protects the rights of the individual and does not bend to situational ethics and mob rule.

 

[dave1949]

I like our constitutional republic that protects the rights of the individual and does not bend to situational ethics and mob rule.

I understand that has a certain popularity to it these days.

Deciding the boundaries between one individual's rights and another's is not at all simple. It is becoming more difficult as technology and population grows. It is something a majority can decide peacefully. There is always a chance, however slim :laughing:, that when most people think we are wrong--we are. That's when we need to pull on our big boy pants rather than have a tantrum.

I'm not sure what "situational ethics" are to be honest. Perhaps you could give an example.

The last example of mob rule I can recall was the Republican National Convention. Okay, just kidding. I suppose interest groups go off on tangents now and then, but results and truth tend to correct poorly chosen courses over time. Is it not majorities that recognize this and correct the course at the ballot box? Without that majority statement, how would errors be righted?

Of course, being truthful and having unskewed information access is a requirement if this is to work. We should scream bloody murder every time a politician or political appointee silences a public employee or civil servant. We paid for their work and we deserve to sort out the results for ourselves.

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

OMG.. seriously?? not a slippery slope?? I'm the government?? No.. No I'm not.. Neither are you unless you actually do work for the government.. And even then, only if you're at a certain level.. The PEOPLE haven't been the government for a LONG time..

We Southerners know a good joke when we hear one. Like the one Lincoln told at Gettysburg, when he talked about ensuring " . . . .that government of the people, by the people, and for the people should not perish from the Earth." What a hoot! That is exactly what he DID cause to happen. Ever since then, the People have NOT been in charge of their real destiny, unless the central federal government has approved of it. It has been deteriorating ever since.

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

So what are you saying, you have no faith in the democratic process? Living in a democracy requires wearing big-boy pants now and then. Everything will not be to anyone's total satisfaction. We live with what the majority decides is reasonable in many instances and far more often than not, the majority gets it right--even if it takes several tries.

I bet most of you have heard the words " . . . . and to the Republic, for which it stands . . . . " more than once, and yet, we STILL have people who robotically insist on repeating this inane cliche that the USA is a Democracy. And if they ever read the Constitution itself, they would read that each State in the Union is guarranteed a Republican form of Government. Do our founding documents really mean anything to them or not? If we were to ignore the part about freedom of speech, or right to trial by jury, I suspect they would be all upset about us ignoring the Constitution. Why is it they insist on ignoring parts of it? Do they just not know? Or do they think we won't notice? I do. And I think it is sad to keep misleading one generation after another, while pretending to be a Patriot. I know both GW Bush and BH Obama have said it, too, but that does not make it true. It just makes them look ignorant. Or worse.

 

[Woody65]

I understand that has a certain popularity to it these days.

Deciding the boundaries between one individual's rights and another's is not at all simple. It is becoming more difficult as technology and population grows. It is something a majority can decide peacefully. There is always a chance, however slim :laughing:, that when most people think we are wrong--we are. That's when we need to pull on our big boy pants rather than have a tantrum.

I'm not sure what "situational ethics" are to be honest. Perhaps you could give an example.

The last example of mob rule I can recall was the Republican National Convention. Okay, just kidding. I suppose interest groups go off on tangents now and then, but results and truth tend to correct poorly chosen courses over time. Is it not majorities that recognize this and correct the course at the ballot box? Without that majority statement, how would errors be righted?

Of course, being truthful and having unskewed information access is a requirement if this is to work. We should scream bloody murder every time a politician or political appointee silences a public employee or civil servant. We paid for their work and we deserve to sort out the results for ourselves.

I try to stay out of politics on this forum but had to respond. If I understand you correctly you believe that the majority's will should be upheld and if you are in the minority you should accept the outcome. I agree with that philosophy. But I distinctly remember a law being passed in 2010, Obamacare, that was not supported by the majority of Americans but was passed by zealot politicians. In addition, the latest polls show that 41% somewhat support it and 54% oppose it as of July 2013 and it still is the law of the land.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Add gay, communist, muslims, tranny, crossdressing, atheist, union member, acorn volunteer to it and heck you might even get a good check for housing them.

I'm a union carpenter. I pay for my own housing, NO ONE supports me. I suppose when your mommy/aunt and your daddy/uncle had sex, you were left at a great disadvantage on the thinking scale. Try not to be so hateful...

 

[dave1949]

OldVAJoe,

Maybe you have the personal and unique ability to divine and define what others have struggled with?

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics. Also, there is evidence that contemporaries of Madison considered the meaning of the word to reflect the definition found elsewhere, as is the case with a quotation of Benjamin Franklin taken from the notes of James McHenry. Where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?"

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic.

However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

I apologize for helping to sidetrack your original topic regarding camping on your property. Republics and democracies aside, I think you should be able to do that. I also think someone would abuse the right and that is where government and majorities come in.

I don't know how your local control politics works, but here in small Maine towns, we have annual town meetings. Any town resident can propose a "warrant item" to be voted upon by all residents present at the meeting--a very pure form of democracy that has existed here for a couple hundred years.

We can force issues onto a state ballot with a citizens initiative petition signed by some minimum number of registered voters. The minimum number is some fraction of the total votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election.

I think your best course of action to engage the political rule making system in the way it is intended to be engaged. Good luck.

 

[NorTracNY]

What if your clean, well kept property looses half its value because the neighbors is turning into a salvage yard? Yes, there are people out there that NEVER throw anything away, but, COLLECT EVERYTHING! Those people cost the neighbors land value and the townships tax revenue.

You will actually find VERY few trials of this. People are concerned about it, but it rarely is the case. It's just the scare tactic used to allow us to lose our freedoms and for our little puppet town governments to get us to bend to their surpreme rule.