Jerry Mitchell wrote:
>>I agree about the zoning laws, their clearly anti-freedom based. Home
>>ownership assoc. on the other hand are a perfectly acceptable mechanism to
>>"block off" a large section of area
>Home ownership associations and deed restrictions, voluntarily accepted,
>fine. I doubt you've ever built or substantially remodeled or restored a
>building, or you'd be aware of the numerous hoops one has to jump through
>satisfy state and local building codes. These codes often require that a
>person hire licensed roofers, plumbers, electricians, etc. to do the work,
>rather than allowing the building owner to do the work herself. The codes
>require such things as central heat and air conditioning, electrical
>every x number of linear feet, specific approved wall coverings and siding,
>etc. etc. They often prohibit the use of inexpensive construction methods
>such as straw bale (which, incidentally, is more resistant to fire than
>standard balloon framing construction).
If your complaining about the regulations on building, hey I can sympathize.
My family has a framing business and I've had to hear about this my entire
life. If you arguing to keep the laws, what about my right to have a house
built as I see fit? What if I don't want 2 outlets per room but instead want
1? What if I decide I want to use pressed seaweed for wall paneling. By what
right did those people have control of my property? I would be obligated to
release all information required upon selling the house or it would be fraud
and therefore illegal. Also, I know TONS of licensed people that couldn't do
their jobs if their life depended on it, whereas I know people that aren't
licensed that are master craftsmen.
>>I would be willing to bet a VERY large percentage of people sleeping under
>>bridges in the US are their from the choices they made. (99% maybe?,
>>certainly over 95%). They were not put there by "Tha manT".
>Hey Jerry, I'd advise you to check it out a little more thoroughly before
>you put money on your bet. You ever tried sleeping under a bridge? Not a
>very secure place to sleep. Easy place to get beat up, raped, have all your
>stuff stolen. Cold in winter. Wet when it rains.
It sure would be great if we could blame everything else in the world for
our position wouldn't it? I mean making the choice of having a child at 16
years old, or choosing to take a highly addictive drug certainly has to be
nature or societies fault right? Wait, that means that if its natures fault
that someone failed, then that also means those that have succeeded, got
their by accident as well! Wow, that explains why people make more then me,
its a fluke of nature. I feel so much better now knowing that it has nothing
to do with their work ethic and their desire to grow and expand themselves.
This also is the basis for a whole worldview where we have to try and
equalize these disparate discrepancies nature dishes out. We can play Robin
Hood, steal from the rich (why? they didn't earn it.. it was nature) and
give to the poor (why? they didn't have anything to do with the fact their
poor right?). Welcome to the universe where cause and effect doesn't exist,
you cant make yourself succeed or fail, you have to float on the ether and
accept what ya get. Poor bridge people, I feel so sorry for them now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT