Nobody needs to grow vegetables...............

They can just go down to the store and buy them............


Late last month, I had the opportunity to discuss my recent book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, before a Seattle-based group of family and consumer scientists, many of them retired. During my talk, I focused in part on a series of city ordinances around the country that ban people from gardening in their own front yards. As almost always happens, these particular laws, among the countless dozens I discuss in the book, raised the most ire among the audience:

"Why would any city do this? How can a city do this? I hope these people are fighting back!"

One of the most egregious examples I highlighted comes from an ongoing case in Miami Shores, Fla. There, Hermine Ricketts and her husband, Laurence Carroll, had kept a nicely manicured vegetable garden in their front yard for nearly two decades. Then, in 2013, Miami Shores adopted an ordinance that banned vegetable gardens, and vowed to fine violators each day they failed to comply with the law.

The couple sued, arguing, as a local CBS affiliate put it, "that the ordinance ran afoul of the Florida Constitution, including that it violated their privacy rights and their right to acquire, possess and protect property."

Last year, a Florida state court upheld the vegetable-garden ban, on grounds that aesthetic reasons—the city thinks vegetables are ugly—are sufficient justification for a city to ban vegetable gardens.


http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/11/florida-appeals-court-upholds-citys-vegg

It’s simple again. If you don’t like the rules, don’t buy a house in a HOA.

It’s not rocket science.

Cass wrote:It’s simple again. If you don’t like the rules, don’t buy a house in a HOA.

It’s not rocket science.

Me lady

You do realized he has triggered you?????

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:It’s simple again. If you don’t like the rules, don’t buy a house in a HOA.

It’s not rocket science.

Me lady

You do realized he has triggered you?????

Hahahahaha. No you did. See the other thread

Cass wrote:It’s simple again. If you don’t like the rules, don’t buy a house in a HOA.

It’s not rocket science.

It's not in a HOA.

It was Miami Shores, FL, a city.  MD, you do raise the poignant point.

City or HOA?  If we didn't have government, private interests would impose rules just the same.  Isn't that a repetition of what we've known all along: pure, unmitigated freedom is inherently unstable.

Are you saying it's bad if government makes the rules(?); but it's OK if a private entity makes the rules?

It's a proven fact that free market capitalism (in economics) always breaks down into monopoly.  (The competition created does not cause producers to lower costs, but eliminate each other, until only one exists.)

For me, I would rather allow rule-making to go to a democratic government that, at least, I have a say in producing, than give it over to the rich and powerful private interests where I have no say.

Original Quill wrote:It was Miami Shores, FL, a city.  MD, you do raise the poignant point.

City or HOA?  If we didn't have government, private interests would impose rules just the same.  Isn't that a repetition of what we've known all along: pure, unmitigated freedom is inherently unstable.

Are you saying it's bad if government makes the rules(?); but it's OK if a private entity makes the rules?

It's a proven fact that free market capitalism (in economics) always breaks down into monopoly.  (The competition created does not cause producers to lower costs, but eliminate each other, until only one exists.)

For me, I would rather allow rule-making to go to a democratic government that, at least, I have a say in producing, than give it over to the rich and powerful private interests where I have no say.

An HOA is a private club. Don't like that club, don't join. One cannot unjoin from government. They send out men with guns to make you rejoin.

And, since you commented Quiĺl, do you have anything to say about this vegetable ban, or would you prefer to continue to dodge the topic and ramble?

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:It’s simple again. If you don’t like the rules, don’t buy a house in a HOA.

It’s not rocket science.

It's not in a HOA.  

Ok true. City ordinance. They could sell up and move. Or comply and then run for city council or get an initiative on the ballot. If other people agree they will be supported.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not in a HOA.  

Ok true. City ordinance. They could sell up and move. Or comply and then run for city council or get an initiative on the ballot. If other people agree they will be supported.

Yes, they could always fight city hall, which they did. They lost, so I imagine they might be moving because of the serious crime of growing a fucking turnip in the front yard.

Maddog wrote:And, since you commented Quiĺl, do you have anything to say about this vegetable ban, or would you prefer to continue to dodge the topic and ramble?

I've said it, and it's right on point. Don't tell others what to post. It's abusive.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:And, since you commented Quiĺl, do you have anything to say about this vegetable ban, or would you prefer to continue to dodge the topic and ramble?

I've said it, and it's right on point.  Don't tell others what to post.  It's abusive.

Do the answer is you will continue to dodge.

OK.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It was Miami Shores, FL, a city.  MD, you do raise the poignant point.

City or HOA?  If we didn't have government, private interests would impose rules just the same.  Isn't that a repetition of what we've known all along: pure, unmitigated freedom is inherently unstable.

Are you saying it's bad if government makes the rules(?); but it's OK if a private entity makes the rules?

It's a proven fact that free market capitalism (in economics) always breaks down into monopoly.  (The competition created does not cause producers to lower costs, but eliminate each other, until only one exists.)

For me, I would rather allow rule-making to go to a democratic government that, at least, I have a say in producing, than give it over to the rich and powerful private interests where I have no say.

An HOA is a private club.  Don't like that club, don't join.  One cannot unjoin from government. They send out men with guns to make you rejoin.  

Governments are absolute because monopolies are absolute. I'd rather be subject to a government in which I had some say, than some kind of failed freedom, resulting in an autocracy or despotism.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

An HOA is a private club.  Don't like that club, don't join.  One cannot unjoin from government. They send out men with guns to make you rejoin.  

Governments are absolute because monopolies are absolute.  I'd rather be subject to a government in which I had some say, than some kind of failed freedom, resulting in an autocracy or despotism.

I think you would be happy on a plantation with a benevolent master.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Ok true. City ordinance. They could sell up and move. Or comply and then run for city council or get an initiative on the ballot. If other people agree they will be supported.

Yes, they could always fight city hall, which they did. They lost, so I imagine they might be moving because of the serious crime of growing a fucking turnip in the front yard.

It’s life. We can’t always do or get what we want.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I've said it, and it's right on point.  Don't tell others what to post.  It's abusive.

Do the answer is you will continue to dodge.

OK.

Repetition is a crutch, for use when lacking original thought. Try submitting your ideas to challenge, instead of running down useless rabbit holes.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Governments are absolute because monopolies are absolute.  I'd rather be subject to a government in which I had some say, than some kind of failed freedom, resulting in an autocracy or despotism.

I think you would be happy on a plantation with a benevolent master.  

Nonsense.  You are contradicting yourself.

You fail to understand the equation of freedom --> autocracy.  Absolute freedom, as you conceive of it, is an unstable element.  It constantly devolves into an inflexible order, or despotism, if it is not constantly monitored and adjusted for errors.

It's kinda like the flying wing, which was always unstable until engineers developed computer fly-by-wire, which (surprise) constantly monitors and adjusts for errors.

Writ large, that's the problem with freedom, whether the subject be free market economics, or anarchy/libertarian politics; free suspension is inevitably unstable, and always devolves into some sort of fixed solidity, usually monopoly or despotism, the very thing you are trying to avoid.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It was Miami Shores, FL, a city.  MD, you do raise the poignant point.

City or HOA?  If we didn't have government, private interests would impose rules just the same.  Isn't that a repetition of what we've known all along: pure, unmitigated freedom is inherently unstable.

Are you saying it's bad if government makes the rules(?); but it's OK if a private entity makes the rules?

It's a proven fact that free market capitalism (in economics) always breaks down into monopoly.  (The competition created does not cause producers to lower costs, but eliminate each other, until only one exists.)

For me, I would rather allow rule-making to go to a democratic government that, at least, I have a say in producing, than give it over to the rich and powerful private interests where I have no say.

An HOA is a private club.  Don't like that club, don't join.  One cannot unjoin from government. They send out men with guns to make you rejoin.  

You can too unjoin a government -- you can renounce your citizenship and move off of the land that is the sovereign domain of the American people.

Why do libertarians think they can have civilization for free?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

An HOA is a private club.  Don't like that club, don't join.  One cannot unjoin from government. They send out men with guns to make you rejoin.  

You can too unjoin a government -- you can renounce your citizenship and move off of the land that is the sovereign domain of the American people.

Why do libertarians think they can have civilization for free?

Yeah, I can leave the country.

That's a bit different than moving two blocks down the road to get out of a HOA.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think you would be happy on a plantation with a benevolent master.  

Nonsense.  You are contradicting yourself.

You fail to understand the equation of freedom --> autocracy.  Absolute freedom, as you conceive of it, is an unstable element.  It constantly devolves into an inflexible order, or despotism, if it is not constantly monitored and adjusted for errors.

It's kinda like the flying wing, which was always unstable until engineers developed computer fly-by-wire, which (surprise) constantly monitors and adjusts for errors.

Writ large, that's the problem with freedom, whether the subject be free market economics, or anarchy/libertarian politics; free suspension is inevitably unstable, and always devolves into some sort of fixed solidity, usually monopoly or despotism, the very thing you are trying to avoid.

OK.

Damn you like to type.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

An HOA is a private club.  Don't like that club, don't join.  One cannot unjoin from government. They send out men with guns to make you rejoin.  

You can too unjoin a government -- you can renounce your citizenship and move off of the land that is the sovereign domain of the American people.

Why do libertarians think they can have civilization for free?

Yeah, I can leave the country.

That's a bit different than moving two blocks down the road to get out of a HOA.

Well, yeah. I guess it depends on how much you love the "freedom" you'd have if you didn't have to pay taxes.

Libertarians might want to vote with their dollars, you know? Or, I'm sorry, with your gold nuggets or bitcoin or whatever.

No doubt people do vote with their feet. Still doesn't mean that folks can't point out the stupidity.of many of the laws in the land of the free.

I mean if you wake up one morning in a.country with an orange buffoon in charge, you probably should just shut up or move to Cuba.

So the sum it all up Aggie, you want rules but only the ones you like or agree with?

Cass wrote:So the sum it all up Aggie, you want rules but only the ones you like or agree with?

I want as few as possible. I have explained how I generally come about deciding if they are necessary. I am fairly consistent.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:So the sum it all up Aggie, you want rules but only the ones you like or agree with?

I want as few as possible.  I have explained how I generally come about deciding if they are necessary.  I am fairly consistent.

I know, just putting it into fewer words

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  You are contradicting yourself.

You fail to understand the equation of freedom --> autocracy.  Absolute freedom, as you conceive of it, is an unstable element.  It constantly devolves into an inflexible order, or despotism, if it is not constantly monitored and adjusted for errors.

It's kinda like the flying wing, which was always unstable until engineers developed computer fly-by-wire, which (surprise) constantly monitors and adjusts for errors.

Writ large, that's the problem with freedom, whether the subject be free market economics, or anarchy/libertarian politics; free suspension is inevitably unstable, and always devolves into some sort of fixed solidity, usually monopoly or despotism, the very thing you are trying to avoid.

OK.

Damn you like to type.

Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't always come in 140 characters.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

OK.

Damn you like to type.

Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't always come in 140 characters.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Try being a little more witty.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't always come in 140 characters.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Try being a little more witty.

Unfortunately, there's no wisdom behind your wit.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Brevity is the soul of wit. Try being a little more witty.

Unfortunately, there's no wisdom behind your wit.

Then I guess it's fortunate that there is brevity.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately, there's no wisdom behind your wit.

Then I guess it's fortunate that there is brevity.  

I think this brevity kick, started by twitter, is just a fad. Notice it tends to favor those with short attention spans. Um...that would be conservatives...maybe, Trump?

I says, you say what is necessary, and get on with it.

I can see some virtue in what MD is saying

a govt should be just big enough to provide the necessities and tax accordingly, but by the same token it should be small enough not to be impositional on what are to be truthful trivial matters.

take housing ordanances....they should concern themselves soley with physical safety of the building and its services, NOT whether you can grow veggies...or put up a ham radio antenna .
over here MUCH of law from local (and to a lesser but significant amount central) govt is implemented not so much to deal with any "problem" (since you will usually find there is existing law to deal with it ) as to give the impression that they are actually doing something.

I do think we are better at smaller govt when you look at our national expenditure, since welfare health and pensions make up the greater part of our national buget.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then I guess it's fortunate that there is brevity.  

I think this brevity kick, started by twitter, is just a fad.  Notice it tends to favor those with short attention spans.  Um...that would be conservatives...maybe, Trump?

I says, you say what is necessary, and get on with it.

I thought the brevity kick was started by some dead English dude. Billy Shake something or other?

Victor wrote:take housing ordanances....they should concern themselves soley with physical safety of the building and its services, NOT whether you can grow veggies...or put up a ham radio antenna

Aesthetic planning is where the fight is. People almost care more about pink petunias, than fire escapes and sprinklers.

Over here, it's coupled with the idea of the American dream...a pretty home, in a perfect neighborhood, and two cars. Giving up anything of the American dream is like giving up one's gun:

Oh no, get the fook outta here!!

Maddog wrote:I thought the brevity kick was started by some dead English dude.

That's style, not brevity for its own sake.  Probably most promoted by Hemmingway.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I thought the brevity kick was started by some dead English dude.

That's style, not brevity for its own sake.  Probably most promoted by Hemmingway.

So Hemmingway wrote Hamlet?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's style, not brevity for its own sake.  Probably most promoted by Hemmingway.

So Hemmingway wrote Hamlet?  

No but Bacon did

Maddog wrote:So Hemmingway wrote Hamlet?

Lol...the operative word you missed is, NOT.

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:take housing ordanances....they should concern themselves soley with physical safety of the building and its services, NOT whether you can grow veggies...or put up a ham radio antenna

Aesthetic planning is where the fight is.  People almost care more about pink petunias, than fire escapes and sprinklers.  

Over here, it's coupled with the idea of the American dream...a pretty home, in a perfect neighborhood, and two cars.  Giving up anything of the American dream is like giving up one's gun:

Oh no, get the fook outta here!!

I agree with the beautification vs safety aspect. When we moved back here from the UK, I was astounded at how lacking both Home and workplace culture was in health and safety issues compared to the UK. The UK and Europe seems to be proactive whereas the US is retroactive and entities will only do something once something bad has happened or they get sued.

We have lots of people out here who are in county land vs city. They want the County to abolish lots of building codes and lower the costs of permit because it’s against their personal freedoms. But guess who shouts the loudest and threatens to sue at the drop of a hat when something goes wrong or a tragedy occurs?

Lots of rural fire departments were given grants to help give away and install free fire alarms. They had hardly any takers because house holders didn’t want no damn government agencies in their homes.

Do counties in AZ have building codes? In Texas you can live in what you want as long as you are out in the county.

Maddog wrote:Do counties in AZ have building codes? In Texas you can live in what you want as long as you are out in the county.  

Yup a lot do.

Even in the city there’s no real enforcement. Till somebody dies.

Maddog wrote:No doubt people do vote with their feet. Still doesn't mean that folks can't point out the stupidity.of many of the laws in the land of the free.  

But this is where libertarianism often is called political autism -- it has trouble with the human aspect of politics.

The sort of person who would use force to shut down front-yard vegetable gardens is the exact same type of person who would vote for fewer taxes and regulations -- I.E., a rich person, who wants more "freedom" to endanger employees at the workplace, consumers of their goods and services, and the environment ... and wants "freedom" from having to share a burden of the cost of a common defense, a court system, police and fire -- let alone helping out those people who decided to be poor.

These people have big, beautiful expensive homes and very particular ideas about what looks nice and what lowers property values. It's not about loving freedom! It's just about loving money, and it always has been and always will be.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:No doubt people do vote with their feet. Still doesn't mean that folks can't point out the stupidity.of many of the laws in the land of the free.  

But this is where libertarianism often is called political autism -- it has trouble with the human aspect of politics.

The sort of person who would use force to shut down front-yard vegetable gardens is the exact same type of person who would vote for fewer taxes and regulations -- I.E., a rich person, who wants more "freedom" to endanger employees at the workplace, consumers of their goods and services, and the environment ... and wants "freedom" from having to share a burden of the cost of a common defense, a court system, police and fire -- let alone helping out those people who decided to be poor.

These people have big, beautiful expensive homes and very particular ideas about what looks nice and what lowers property values. It's not about loving freedom! It's just about loving money, and it always has been and always will be.

Texan to Texan, that's a load of horseshit.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:Do counties in AZ have building codes? In Texas you can live in what you want as long as you are out in the county.  

Yup a lot do.

Even in the city there’s no real enforcement. Till somebody dies.

Or they plant some vegetables.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:Do counties in AZ have building codes? In Texas you can live in what you want as long as you are out in the county.  

Yup a lot do.

Even in the city there’s no real enforcement. Till somebody dies.

Pima County and Maricopa County they have pretty good enforcement, I can't say for other areas. It's really rural in some places. I know Cochise County has some wildcat developments between Sierra Vista and Rita Road, south of I-10.

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:
take housing ordanances....they should concern themselves soley with physical safety of the building and its services, NOT whether you can grow veggies...or put up a ham radio antenna

Aesthetic planning is where the fight is.  People almost care more about pink petunias, than fire escapes and sprinklers.  

Over here, it's coupled with the idea of the American dream...a pretty home, in a perfect neighborhood, and two cars.  Giving up anything of the American dream is like giving up one's gun:

Oh no, get the fook outta here!!

And,  "the proof of the pudding is in the eating..".

Just look to all those $$million$$ pine-framed, cedar-clad shingle-roofed fire traps going up in flames in southern California, where their dickhead owners have planted out their neighbourhoods with non-indigenous eucalyptus trees..

Or those  $10 million  beachside mansions being washed away in winter storm surges, simply because the braindead inbred owners thought their wealth could outbid Mother Nature's forces..

I'v allways wondered why people who live in Fire risk areas build in wood, what's wrong with Brick with stone tiled roofs? Cheaper I suppose.

nicko wrote:I'v allways wondered why people who live in Fire risk areas build in wood,    what's wrong with Brick  with stone tiled roofs?      Cheaper I suppose.

with the big bushfires we get own here (which California get close too) the bricks crack and shatter from the heat, anything bar solid concrete is damaged to the extent that it needs to be cleared and rebuilt. If your really in the path of the fire nothing is safe.

Although the US houses don't seem to take any preventive design measures
Corrugated steel roofing is popular in bushfire prone areas because it wont catch from the floating embers

Can't understand why they use Wooden roof tiles, that's asking for trouble !

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:No doubt people do vote with their feet. Still doesn't mean that folks can't point out the stupidity.of many of the laws in the land of the free.  

But this is where libertarianism often is called political autism -- it has trouble with the human aspect of politics.

The sort of person who would use force to shut down front-yard vegetable gardens is the exact same type of person who would vote for fewer taxes and regulations -- I.E., a rich person, who wants more "freedom" to endanger employees at the workplace, consumers of their goods and services, and the environment ... and wants "freedom" from having to share a burden of the cost of a common defense, a court system, police and fire -- let alone helping out those people who decided to be poor.

These people have big, beautiful expensive homes and very particular ideas about what looks nice and what lowers property values. It's not about loving freedom! It's just about loving money, and it always has been and always will be.

Texan to Texan, that's a load of horseshit.  

Oh, okay

At least you're not offering the usual circular logic libertarian-splanation.