Miami activist thinks they are above reality / the law

[KrauserKrauser]

Actually it's a mating strategy. Seriously.

Uhm, anyway, I'm not advocating communism as such, but a sort of technocratic syndicalism and planned economy based around the dirigisme.

Ummm mating strategy, right...

Is that in anyway related to a narco-syndiclous commune? Are you being repressed?

I am proposing changing the law to make it lawful on the grounds that it is unethical for businesses and people to allow property to be sit fallow. Note that if they were to, for instance, find a renter, they could preserve the property.

So if I can't sell a house for 5 years because my price is insanely high does that justify the government coming in and siezing my property? Does the government get to make every decision on how I chooce to use my own property? Will they choose which laundry detergent I use as well? I hear detergent with bleach is much more effective than without. Seize the unproductive non-bleach detergent for it is not performing at peak efficiency!

You'd just lose title to it. Notice that I'm not proposing collectivization, just that the government have the right to confiscate things which are, 1., not being used productively, and 2. not gaining in value. So investments could not be confiscated, but a car sitting in the yard going from being worth 5k to 1k with nobody ever driving it would be. The judgement would probably be on whether or not the car is registered and insured; if it is, it's in use. If you don't want it confiscated and you don't want to pay for registration and insurance, then sell it, or take it apart for parts to use or whatever. For instance you'd happily own the home you live in.

What if that car gives me peace of mind, what if it was my father's car and the peace of mind it provides me allows me to be more effective at my job which is a job with much more benefit to the national economy than some random day laborer? .

What about a car that is not an investment? If I have a rusted out hulk in my garage that I have dreams of one day putting to use, do I suddenly lose title to it? Why? Because you say so? Just because you aren't materialistic in some way does not give you the right to demand that I mirror your preferences.

The difference is you are invading my decisions on how to use the property that I possess. What if I was planning on using it but never got around to it? Are you going to have random repo squads constantly badgering people about property that they deem to be not being used in the most efficient and effective manner?

And a wealthy person could even still have multiple homes, and just hire someone to take care of the homes they're not using. Since the homes are employing their caretakers by being in the possession of this rich person, they'd remain in use and productive. The key is that if something is not contributing to the economy then it should be seized and re-appropriated so that it will contribute to the national economy.

So by that logic all the banks have to do is hire a maid or "caretaker" to take care of the property. What determines taking care of the property? Does the electricty have to be on? The water? Do they haev to haev a certain color of paint in a certain level of repair? Hey why don't you just take ownership of all the property and then you can tell everyone what to do with it, because obviously you know best how to use all the property and individuals should have no say in the way THEIR PROPERTY is used.

How many people per house? How many hours? Do they have to be a certified "caretaker"? What if they have 1 person for 50 houses and he just drives by every day and cuts the lawns once a month, is that an acceptable level of care? Why not less?

You are telling individuals how to utilize their property even though you know nothing of the reasons or benefits of the property because you personally have a lower material requirement than others. heaven forbid we allow others to have more stuff without you being able to tell them what they can and can't do with it.

So? I don't care about the law, I care about ethics. And that has been a consistent statement of Mike's for a long time, in fact, he's kicked my ass with it several times. Well now I'm on the same page. The law does not exist for the sake of the law, but for people. If the law hurts people in a quantifiable ethical way, change it.

Right and these laws that are currently in place are based on teh ethics agreed upon by the United States populace. How does a law making it illegal for someone to break and enter into someone elses property hurting the offending party more than the person being stolen. Please explain how the laws against squatting are harmful. Is it ethical for someone to be able to steal from someone else?

Then they're killing people in Bangladesh by contributing to global warming when they crank up the heat in winter and the A/C in summer, so that they can have rooms twice as large as they need.

And you are contriubting to global warming though any number of ways. Are you saying that McMansions are major contributors to global warming? It definitely can't be all those cars or coal plants or the deforestation of the rainforest or all the actual contributors to global warming, nope it's definitely McMansions, hell we should just burn those things to the ground and all live in teepees, but teepees are made of hide which would require mass farming of hide animals which would induce massive increase in methane emissions from the flatulence. DAMMIT, the world is complicated and simple idealistc solutions that have no though put into them don't work!

Overconsumption--the right of companies to maintain property that does nothing, the fact they built these houses in the first place--is a component of our modern society of over-consumption. I am actually in favour of certain property rights.

And which property rights would that be? Can I own stock? Can I use space for collecting pocket lint? It has no value but the value I gain from it, should I not be able to use property as I see fit?

Hell no. The government just needs to put as many checks as possible on the ability of people harm others. In this case it's just as simple as making zoning laws which limit the size of single-family dwellings, an extremely minor change to the existing law code. What's the big deal with that?

How does that in any way relate to the fact that squatters are stealing homes and people supporting them as if it was right and just to steal because the banks fucked up?

If the cars are appreciating in value rather than depreciating, and are therefore an investment, you can register them under a special collectible car license which will exempt them from regular registration and insurance requirements, for instance. There, a solution that would be no more complex than what we already have, since for instance in Washington we already have special Collectible and Classic Car registrations for such vehicles.

What about a collection of new cars? What if I have a bunch of new cars just sitting in a garage some where? They are definitely depreciating in value, hell they lost thousands just by driving them off the lot, so should the government be able to steal them because I like to have alot of property that is losing money?

This is a ludicrous overexagerration of what's being proposed, you're really not thinking about how the whole regulatory apparatus would work, you're just taking the worst possible interpretation of what I'm saying and running with it.

Because I think you are detached from reality, which I know was already true from your posting history, and incredibly idealistic in your opinions. I don't think you are applying your personal opinions to any but your own personal viewpoint and are incapable of looking at the problem in any other way but your own.

Well, I don't think we should be helping out the banks with bailouts, I think we should be nationalizing them for their failures, so I'm not sure if the rest of this is really relevant in context.

Well, I believe that to be a seperate issue. As stated in my reply to Stas Bush I believe that the nationalization of the banks may in fact be a necessary step for the correct attitude to be re-applied in the banking industry. I do hope that if the banks are nationalized, they will someday be again privatized as the government is inefficient when running a business.

There would obviously be regulatory limits to this, and the government would be the one doing the confiscation. I just supported this effort because it will force a change in the law (like the Recovered Factories did in Argentina, where enabling acts were passed to recognize the seizures), not because I think it's part of the ideal long-term functioning of a society.

I'm honestly just trying to see how much of a kook you really are with respect to property rights. The government is not some nameless faceless entity, it is still just a bunch of people that are doing stuff. They are just as prone to corruption and greed as a corporation, after all it's still human beings at the helm.

And yet many of these houses are not being auctioned off. There are simply too many houses on the market--some should be seized by the government to, if nothing else, increase housing prices again for everyone else. And we've certainly simply handed the banks enough money to make this viable. Also, we should consider that, for instance, if an act produces jobs and livelihoods, it has a higher right to exist. So, for instance, if a company wanted to sell an old factory for a million dollars to someone who would knock it down and put up condos, I would seize the factory from the company and give it to the group of former workers who had an idea for restoring the factory to regular industrial use. But in the case of homes, it would be harder to seize them.

No, the correct statement is that alot of these houses have not been auctioned off YET. You either have no grasp that moving property and foreclsures take time to reslove or simply have no patience whatsoever and want things done NOW NOW NOW OMG PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS STEAL STEAL STEAL!

As per your hypothetical what if there are a glut of closed factories and the business plan for the condos is sound? Is anyone building housing assumed to be the devil and are the jobs created in the construction suddenly worthless? Do we want to emulate Russia and Eastern Europe where people were definitely working, but were making FUCKING USELESS PILES OF SHIT compared to the stuff being made for profit in teh west. The factories went out of business for a reason after all, [eople making a profit don't normally just quit on a whim.

You may hope. I fear to the contrary. And Argentina is a reasonably developed country, anyway, not some African shitcan.

Argentina is not what would classify as a first world nation, economy or government. Just because you want to hold on to the idea that if it works in one place it will work on the massive scale that is the US economy, doesn't make it true.

I am proposing government seizure of assets, with the current theft modality being just a form of protest and activism toward that aim.

No, wrong, lie. You believe that if a resource or property is not being used to an extent that you personally believe to be efficient it should be stolen and put to a use that you deem to be better because you said so.

Do you not believe that these people to be in violation of the law and should in fact be immune from prosecution? Does protesting a law that you deem to be unethical allow you to be immune to it?

The belief in individual property is the bad thing, not harming the belief in it... It is better to work for accolades and fame than for wealth.

[/quote][/quote]

Says you. You already stated that you believe in individual property, logically inconsistent much?

[Rogue 9]

Anyone reminded of Voluntaryist and his Hall of Shameful claims regarding Libertarianist societies?

Not in the least, because he would side with the property owners rather than the squatters due to them owning the property.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ummm mating strategy, right...

Is that in anyway related to a narco-syndiclous commune? Are you being repressed?

No, and no. I am not an anarcho-syndicalist and I am not in a commune. My political views however are not fixed but have tended to skid and skew based on those of the people I've involved with at the time. Certainly it's true that my standpoints tend to be more radical than their's, though... So it was a humorous reference to that. I am capable of laughing at myself, after all. Right now I don't really have fixed political views, and I'm just following the course of seeing what could provide the maximum gross national happiness for an industrialized state, and thinking about where that will end up leading. Harshness and authoritarianism, as it turns out, are much overrated, at least with an educated society, anyway.

So if I can't sell a house for 5 years because my price is insanely high does that justify the government coming in and siezing my property? Does the government get to make every decision on how I chooce to use my own property? Will they choose which laundry detergent I use as well? I hear detergent with bleach is much more effective than without. Seize the unproductive non-bleach detergent for it is not performing at peak efficiency!

Well, the governments of some states are already banning incandescent lightbulbs, so you're basically accusing me of trying to engage in vast government regulation that... already exists. The government, after all, already controls what you build on your property, and can ban you from building at all on wetlands. It can force you to undertake expensive mitigation, and indeed anything except changing the interior partitions in a home requires the approval of the county, or the city you live in (at least in Washington State). You can't even put in a swimming pool or a tool shed without the government signing off on it, so why is regulating use and occupancy any different from these regulations which already exist?

What if that car gives me peace of mind, what if it was my father's car and the peace of mind it provides me allows me to be more effective at my job which is a job with much more benefit to the national economy than some random day laborer? .

That would be a pretty specious argument, I'd say. The government would be operating based off of quantifiable statistics... I mean, lord god, there was a car that was my father's that I drove once upon a time, and it got wrecked, and I'd moved on over that in a week, even though I'd always wanted it growing up. If you are that attached to your father's car that owning it is necessary for you to function at work, you're utterly psychotic.

What about a car that is not an investment? If I have a rusted out hulk in my garage that I have dreams of one day putting to use, do I suddenly lose title to it? Why? Because you say so? Just because you aren't materialistic in some way does not give you the right to demand that I mirror your preferences.

The government would say so.

Incidentally, this already happens. If you have more than three cars in your yard in Washington State which are not licensed and registered, the additional cars will be confiscated by the government and you will be fined.

The difference is you are invading my decisions on how to use the property that I possess. What if I was planning on using it but never got around to it? Are you going to have random repo squads constantly badgering people about property that they deem to be not being used in the most efficient and effective manner?

The government already does this. Do you actually own a house? You have to, legally, get permission to add on a room, or a sauna, and you cannot keep a bunch of abandoned cars in your yard or the government will go after you. What rock are you living under?

So by that logic all the banks have to do is hire a maid or "caretaker" to take care of the property. What determines taking care of the property? Does the electricty have to be on? The water? Do they haev to haev a certain color of paint in a certain level of repair? Hey why don't you just take ownership of all the property and then you can tell everyone what to do with it, because obviously you know best how to use all the property and individuals should have no say in the way THEIR PROPERTY is used.

And yet in many areas of the country there are Homeowner's Associations which can in fact fine you for keeping your grass above a certain height or keeping your house in disrepair. I'm beginning to see that your arguments are those of someone who is rather naive to the nature of property "rights" which already exist in America today, without any of my proposals.

How many people per house? How many hours? Do they have to be a certified "caretaker"? What if they have 1 person for 50 houses and he just drives by every day and cuts the lawns once a month, is that an acceptable level of care? Why not less?

Keeping the houses safe from theft and in functional condition would be a sufficient criteria, I think. Though it would be easier to just mandate that they be rented out.

You are telling individuals how to utilize their property even though you know nothing of the reasons or benefits of the property because you personally have a lower material requirement than others. heaven forbid we allow others to have more stuff without you being able to tell them what they can and can't do with it.

The government already has total regulatory control over how you use your property. Pouring motor oil out on your lawn can be a prosecutable crime in some areas of the country, for instance.

Right and these laws that are currently in place are based on teh ethics agreed upon by the United States populace. How does a law making it illegal for someone to break and enter into someone elses property hurting the offending party more than the person being stolen. Please explain how the laws against squatting are harmful. Is it ethical for someone to be able to steal from someone else?

Ethics are not a set of rigid rules, they're basic guiding principles, and they're not agreed upon by a people, they're either wrong or right.. They reflect fundamental constraints of human biology. And ethically it is appropriate for us to take care of our own. Squatting is legal in certain circumstances and should be legal in more because it can be acknowledged that for sake of social utility, property rights are not absolute, just as they are not absolute when it comes to spilling motor oil, expanding your house, building a tool shed, digging near electrical utilities, or having a bunch of old junked cars in your yard.

And you are contriubting to global warming though any number of ways. Are you saying that McMansions are major contributors to global warming? It definitely can't be all those cars or coal plants or the deforestation of the rainforest or all the actual contributors to global warming, nope it's definitely McMansions, hell we should just burn those things to the ground and all live in teepees, but teepees are made of hide which would require mass farming of hide animals which would induce massive increase in methane emissions from the flatulence. DAMMIT, the world is complicated and simple idealistc solutions that have no though put into them don't work!

It has been found in studies that the number of people per each household is a direct relation to greenhouse gas emissions. In short, large single family homes are very inefficient, whereas small individual dwellings concentrated into large multifamily groupings are highly efficient, and this ratio holds true for energy use across all of society, so, actually, yes, the McMansion culture does in fact contribute to expanded energy use and thus global warming.

And which property rights would that be? Can I own stock? Can I use space for collecting pocket lint? It has no value but the value I gain from it, should I not be able to use property as I see fit?

You can own property within the regulatory limits established by the government, of course.

How does that in any way relate to the fact that squatters are stealing homes and people supporting them as if it was right and just to steal because the banks fucked up?

The banks are taking hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people, and then letting those same people live in the streets. The banks certainly should be punished for that, as it is objectively harmful.

What about a collection of new cars? What if I have a bunch of new cars just sitting in a garage some where? They are definitely depreciating in value, hell they lost thousands just by driving them off the lot, so should the government be able to steal them because I like to have alot of property that is losing money?

The government can already size the vehicles if they're not registered and licensed.

Because I think you are detached from reality, which I know was already true from your posting history, and incredibly idealistic in your opinions. I don't think you are applying your personal opinions to any but your own personal viewpoint and are incapable of looking at the problem in any other way but your own.

And yet you're the one who evidences absolutely no knowledge of land use regulations and vehicle ownership regulations. I've looked into these laws before when looking at helping someone add onto a house before, and I'd need four permits to put in a new room with a sauna off to the side. The regulatory process for opening a new business that I participated in reviewing a few years ago involved more permits than you could imagine. Hell, we couldn't even start work if we weren't able to secure a required number of minimum parking spaces reserved for the business. Do you begin to understand now? You may own the land, you may own the building, but you cannot open a business in it if you don't have a certain number of parking spaces based on the square footage of the business' floorspace. This regulatory environment already exists, and you seem perfectly unaware of it. I am just proposing adding two or three extra regulations to the existing hundreds of pages of regulatory documents and building code which cover even a bookstore and restaurant in a small town with a population of 10,000.

Well, I believe that to be a seperate issue. As stated in my reply to Stas Bush I believe that the nationalization of the banks may in fact be a necessary step for the correct attitude to be re-applied in the banking industry. I do hope that if the banks are nationalized, they will someday be again privatized as the government is inefficient when running a business.

Why is it inefficient in running a business? You state that as though it were absolute fact--and yet the Russian railroads, the Indian railroads, etc, are some of the most successful freight moving businesses in the world, and are nationalized. Many French state industries are also world leaders.

I'm honestly just trying to see how much of a kook you really are with respect to property rights. The government is not some nameless faceless entity, it is still just a bunch of people that are doing stuff. They are just as prone to corruption and greed as a corporation, after all it's still human beings at the helm.

And yet you're "Just trying to see how much of a kook" I am--and you're completely ignorant of the current regulatory environment in America! Please, think about this--you appear to know utterly nothing about the legal responsibilities and limitations of owning real property, and you seem to imagine that people can actually do whatever they please with their property in America, when in reality the permit process and regulatory apparatus is already enormous, and my modifications would actually be minor additions to it which would have considerable social benefit by forcing property to be continuously occupied or used, when you already have to go through hundreds of permits to do anything substantial with that property.

No, the correct statement is that alot of these houses have not been auctioned off YET. You either have no grasp that moving property and foreclsures take time to reslove or simply have no patience whatsoever and want things done NOW NOW NOW OMG PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS STEAL STEAL STEAL!

I want the houses seized by the government and redistributed, and redistribution of private land is something governments have often done in history to deal with social ills, because the owners of the land, the banks, have caused massive objective hurt to American society. I sanction the occupation of those houses (which is not theft, but trespassing) as a form of social protest.

As per your hypothetical what if there are a glut of closed factories and the business plan for the condos is sound? Is anyone building housing assumed to be the devil and are the jobs created in the construction suddenly worthless? Do we want to emulate Russia and Eastern Europe where people were definitely working, but were making FUCKING USELESS PILES OF SHIT compared to the stuff being made for profit in teh west. The factories went out of business for a reason after all, [eople making a profit don't normally just quit on a whim.

Funny, but the Russians got into space just as fast as we did, for all the proud declarations of the superiourity of American capitalism.

No, wrong, lie. You believe that if a resource or property is not being used to an extent that you personally believe to be efficient it should be stolen and put to a use that you deem to be better because you said so.

I believe that the government should be the one seizing the assets, and from the start my proposals were clearly phrased in terms of a government plan.

Do you not believe that these people to be in violation of the law and should in fact be immune from prosecution? Does protesting a law that you deem to be unethical allow you to be immune to it?

It should make you immune to prosecution, because the law should be removed. They are trespassing (not stealing, they're not moving the houses somewhere), but if they were convicted of it, I would pardon them if I had the power to do so, and rewrite the laws so that the government would seize the houses, and then rent them at a very low nominal rate to the homeless.

Says you. You already stated that you believe in individual property, logically inconsistent much?

I support some limited uses of individual property, in that statement I was not being inconsistent, I was coming out against the American worship of property rights as a religion. Which is ironic, because as I've detailed throughout this reply, Americans' property rights are already substantially limited. Go read the building code for your local municipality before you make grandiose claims of my being a kook.

[Broomstick]

Well, the governments of some states are already banning incandescent lightbulbs, so you're basically accusing me of trying to engage in vast government regulation that... already exists. The government, after all, already controls what you build on your property, and can ban you from building at all on wetlands. It can force you to undertake expensive mitigation, and indeed anything except changing the interior partitions in a home requires the approval of the county, or the city you live in (at least in Washington State). You can't even put in a swimming pool or a tool shed without the government signing off on it, so why is regulating use and occupancy any different from these regulations which already exist?

The government requires permits and rules for construction in order to ensure that such construction meets minimal standards that help ensure that extra room will not collapse on an occupant, that new wiring will be properly installed and grounded, and so on. In other words, it's a safety issue and the issue extends not only from the builder or owner but to anyone who might be in that building for any reason.

Use and occupancy are a different matter. The house does not become magically unsafe by adding another person to a number already there (though some localities do have a maximum number allowed per residence, based usually on floor space though I confess I am not entirely sure of the details). There are some things you can't do in your own home, but leaving your house unoccupied for a prolonged period of time does not, inherently pose increased risk to your neighbors. Thus, since whether or not you live in your house 1 day a year or 365 days a year is not a health or safety issue there is less justification for government intervention.

(Of course, other considerations may come into play, this is an illustration of just one factor that exists for building construction/addition but does not for building occupation)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The government requires permits and rules for construction in order to ensure that such construction meets minimal standards that help ensure that extra room will not collapse on an occupant, that new wiring will be properly installed and grounded, and so on. In other words, it's a safety issue and the issue extends not only from the builder or owner but to anyone who might be in that building for any reason.

Use and occupancy are a different matter. The house does not become magically unsafe by adding another person to a number already there (though some localities do have a maximum number allowed per residence, based usually on floor space though I confess I am not entirely sure of the details). There are some things you can't do in your own home, but leaving your house unoccupied for a prolonged period of time does not, inherently pose increased risk to your neighbors. Thus, since whether or not you live in your house 1 day a year or 365 days a year is not a health or safety issue there is less justification for government intervention.

(Of course, other considerations may come into play, this is an illustration of just one factor that exists for building construction/addition but does not for building occupation)

Actually, neighbourhoods with large numbers of unoccupied homes have much higher levels of crime, Broomstick, so it does pose increased risk to your neighbours.

[Broomstick]

You are over-analyzing my point. The point is that construction is more likely to pose risks than occupancy/non-occupancy when considered house by house. Also, what you refer to is a matter of crime, which is different than physical risks imposed by unsafe construction. As I mentioned, other factors might come into play, and crime would be one of them, but I was discussing the merits of regulating construction more than anything else.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You are over-analyzing my point. The point is that construction is more likely to pose risks than occupancy/non-occupancy when considered house by house. Also, what you refer to is a matter of crime, which is different than physical risks imposed by unsafe construction. As I mentioned, other factors might come into play, and crime would be one of them, but I was discussing the merits of regulating construction more than anything else.

A fair point. Though occupancy is also controlled by the government, in some respects. For example, the number of unregistered cars on your lawn, and spilling oil into the soil are some of the examples of that.

[Broomstick]

Well, again - pouring noxious substances out on your lawn can affect local water supplies and may affect other people who wander through the puddles so that, again, impacts public health and safety. I would also say that if the government prevents you from disposing of things like waste oil the government should also either provide a safe means of disposal or broadly advertise where such disposal can safely and legally occur (indeed, in my county there is a monthly "hazardous household waste day" where such items are collected, the locations rotating for additional convenience to the population). The limitation on cars is less clear cut to me - but then, I live in an area where people may own sufficient land that a pile of cars out back of their house may not even be visible to the neighbors. In that case context would matter.

[KrauserKrauser]

Well, the governments of some states are already banning incandescent lightbulbs, so you're basically accusing me of trying to engage in vast government regulation that... already exists. The government, after all, already controls what you build on your property, and can ban you from building at all on wetlands. It can force you to undertake expensive mitigation, and indeed anything except changing the interior partitions in a home requires the approval of the county, or the city you live in (at least in Washington State). You can't even put in a swimming pool or a tool shed without the government signing off on it, so why is regulating use and occupancy any different from these regulations which already exist?

Well I previously opposed the light bulb ban due to flourescent light being harsher and incandescent lights having a warmer light spectrum. I have since run into flourescents which are mostly identical to incandescent light, though it does still fail to warm the surrounding area like a regular light bulb does. Who is to say that I believe this ban to be correct. I see the utility of it but am still against the government mandating incandscent lights to be forcibly removed from the marketplace.

Your argument that regulations on how one modifys existing property somehow equates to suddenly being able to tell an individual how often they must visit and maintain the house is a red herring. Apples and Oranges. Does the city take away my house if I don't fill out the forms to expand? No, I might be jailed at the extreme but my house will still remain my house.

That would be a pretty specious argument, I'd say. The government would be operating based off of quantifiable statistics... I mean, lord god, there was a car that was my father's that I drove once upon a time, and it got wrecked, and I'd moved on over that in a week, even though I'd always wanted it growing up. If you are that attached to your father's car that owning it is necessary for you to function at work, you're utterly psychotic.

True, not the best argument and reaching a bit far. The point is that my property can and does contribute to my well being. What about a vacation home that I visit once a year for a week, the rest of the time left vacant? Vacations are obviously beneficial and contribute to worker efficiency, should I lose my right to determine how often that property is in use? Should the government determine where I choose to vacation and how I want to spend my money or use my property?

The government would say so.

Incidentally, this already happens. If you have more than three cars in your yard in Washington State which are not licensed and registered, the additional cars will be confiscated by the government and you will be fined.

What if it is in good repair and in a garage with license and registration? What if it is a car that I am not using and plan to sell in a few years? These houses were locked up and not open to the general public, are they not allowed an expectation to not be invaded and taken over by squatters?

The government already does this. Do you actually own a house? You have to, legally, get permission to add on a room, or a sauna, and you cannot keep a bunch of abandoned cars in your yard or the government will go after you. What rock are you living under?

Same red herring argument as before, the government is not telling me how to use my property, they are controlling improvements or changes made to my property, there is an obvious difference that you are refusing to acknowledge.

What if the cars are in a garage or under a carport? Does the government get the magical powers to determine "Hey, that car hasn't moved in a year from that spot under the car port, the owner is obviously retarded, let's go steal it." Good luck getting that legislation passed, you must use your house every 3 months! Drive each car once a week or the Repo Man will steal it away from you.

And yet in many areas of the country there are Homeowner's Associations which can in fact fine you for keeping your grass above a certain height or keeping your house in disrepair. I'm beginning to see that your arguments are those of someone who is rather naive to the nature of property "rights" which already exist in America today, without any of my proposals.

If any of these houses are in such a homeowners association, then the association should be taking appropriate actions as per their charter. How does that equate to, "Oh the banks aren't using the property often enough for my liking and haven't sold it fast enough to my liking, bring on the squatters!" God forbid we allow the foreclosure process to go forward.

And I am beginning to see that you easily lose the point of an argument and shift away from the details. I am not advocating that the government should not be able to control the process in whoich changes are made to existing property, I am simply against the government mandating usage requirements of property, specifically I am against the government allowing squatters to steal houses away.

Keeping the houses safe from theft and in functional condition would be a sufficient criteria, I think. Though it would be easier to just mandate that they be rented out.

Were the banks nationalized sane policies such as this could be put in place, but setting precedent that any non-occupied property must be forcibly rented out at prices lower than market value is not something I am willing to support and will in fact actively oppose.

The government already has total regulatory control over how you use your property. Pouring motor oil out on your lawn can be a prosecutable crime in some areas of the country, for instance.

Because the government can regulate what changes I can make to the property, even when you already stated that they don't regulate interior desgin changes, how do they already have total regularatory control of how I use my property? Are you confirming a slippery slope before one was even introduced? The government in no way has TOTAL regulatory control over my property and how I use it. They don't tell me where I can and can't plant a garden for instance, regulating how I dispose of hazardous substance does not indicate massive government invasion of my property rights.

Ethics are not a set of rigid rules, they're basic guiding principles, and they're not agreed upon by a people, they're either wrong or right.. They reflect fundamental constraints of human biology. And ethically it is appropriate for us to take care of our own. Squatting is legal in certain circumstances and should be legal in more because it can be acknowledged that for sake of social utility, property rights are not absolute, just as they are not absolute when it comes to spilling motor oil, expanding your house, building a tool shed, digging near electrical utilities, or having a bunch of old junked cars in your yard.

And how do a group of people decide to indicate that they have agreed on a certain set of ethics and then try to apply those ethics to society? Laws! Ethics = fundmental constraints of human biology? Huh? Whether or not it is right or wrong to kill someone or steal something is defined by biology? Can you try to be understandable?

It has been found in studies that the number of people per each household is a direct relation to greenhouse gas emissions. In short, large single family homes are very inefficient, whereas small individual dwellings concentrated into large multifamily groupings are highly efficient, and this ratio holds true for energy use across all of society, so, actually, yes, the McMansion culture does in fact contribute to expanded energy use and thus global warming.

Right, and that is a justification of theft again how?

You can own property within the regulatory limits established by the government, of course.

Which the banks are currently doing, they are not breaking any laws by leaving the houses empty in preparation for a foreclosure auction, the final step in the foreclosure process. The banks aren't sitting around their comfy chairs gloating about all of the houses they now have with random maniacal laughter inserted, they know they need to get rid of the houses and the foreclosure process takes time.

The banks are taking hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people, and then letting those same people live in the streets. The banks certainly should be punished for that, as it is objectively harmful.

Agreed and I disagree with the current course being taken with the banks as it will not solve the fundamental problems that are present in the banking industries. That does not mean that I support individuals taking their own actions to get back at the banks, as apperantly you do. I hear vigilantism is a bad thing.

The government can already size the vehicles if they're not registered and licensed.

And what if they are? The houses are legally owned by the banks, should people be able to steal my hypothetical collection of cars that are legally owned and registered and licensed because I don't use them?

And yet you're the one who evidences absolutely no knowledge of land use regulations and vehicle ownership regulations. I've looked into these laws before when looking at helping someone add onto a house before, and I'd need four permits to put in a new room with a sauna off to the side. The regulatory process for opening a new business that I participated in reviewing a few years ago involved more permits than you could imagine. Hell, we couldn't even start work if we weren't able to secure a required number of minimum parking spaces reserved for the business. Do you begin to understand now? You may own the land, you may own the building, but you cannot open a business in it if you don't have a certain number of parking spaces based on the square footage of the business' floorspace. This regulatory environment already exists, and you seem perfectly unaware of it. I am just proposing adding two or three extra regulations to the existing hundreds of pages of regulatory documents and building code which cover even a bookstore and restaurant in a small town with a population of 10,000.

Yes because I don't know Washington State building codes and business laws I must be completely oblivious to the state of property rights in the US. I understand the regulations exist that determine what you can and cannot do on your property without government approval as these things would impact other people beyond yourself. But since basically every action you take affects someone else, these regulations have limits. Saying that because regulations exist that require you to register changes to your property = use or lose your property is another red herring. You are not just proposing two or three more regulations, you are proposing a fundmamental shift in the amount of intrusion allowed by the government with respect to use of property. The government does not currently tell me whether I must use a piece of of my property a given number of times before I lose ownership of it. Squatters gain ownership of the property because of inaction and not being noticed by the owner. The banks obviously noticed the squatters and too bad for the squatters, they now get free public housing in the form of a holding cell.

Statement about 2 examples of nationalized business suriving and a vague statement about France

Man, that must be why the USPS is so well known for being an efficient business operation. Definitely use the few shining examples instead of completely ignoring the long long LONG list of nationalized business = clusterfuck. Nice argument.

And yet you're "Just trying to see how much of a kook" I am--and you're completely ignorant of the current regulatory environment in America! Please, think about this--you appear to know utterly nothing about the legal responsibilities and limitations of owning real property, and you seem to imagine that people can actually do whatever they please with their property in America, when in reality the permit process and regulatory apparatus is already enormous, and my modifications would actually be minor additions to it which would have considerable social benefit by forcing property to be continuously occupied or used, when you already have to go through hundreds of permits to do anything substantial with that property.

Again, not knowing specific regulations in Washington State does not equate to ignorance of the current regulatory environment in America. You are the one that is deluded into thinking that the government now being able to set a frequency of use and standard of repair set for each piece of property is a simple change. Not only is it extremely MORE intrusive by telling the propert owner what they MUST do instead of what they CAN do, but it would require so many extra special conditions to meet all of the requirements for all of the differnt property that is owned that it would be insane to think that this viewpoint would not require massive amounts of changes to be made.

Yes, I believe that you are an idealistic kook that is using their limited personal experience and appearant inability to fully explore the implacations of an action and justify this belief by the fact that you time and again fail to realize the fundamnetal change that you are requesting be made in the way the US handles personal property and that fundamental changes requires mass amounts of legislation and are not the simple operations that you believe them to be.

I want the houses seized by the government and redistributed, and redistribution of private land is something governments have often done in history to deal with social ills, because the owners of the land, the banks, have caused massive objective hurt to American society. I sanction the occupation of those houses (which is not theft, but trespassing) as a form of social protest.

Squatting is most definitely theft as they are depriving the banks of the use of the property. If the squatter is not noticed for a given period of time they gain ownership but any time before that they would charged with trespassing. While legalling you are correct, squatting before ownership is transferred is simply trespassing, but it is still trespassing with the intent to steal ownership from the current owner of the property.

Funny, but the Russians got into space just as fast as we did, for all the proud declarations of the superiourity of American capitalism.

Yes, because Russia's space program is justification of collectivism, the purges, the lack of variation between product offerings, censorship, secret police, military invasions of rebellious client states, shit that must be why USSR was such a great place to live and the world was amazed by the advanced nature of their economy when the wall came down. Weak argument. Try again.

I believe that the government should be the one seizing the assets, and from the start my proposals were clearly phrased in terms of a government plan.

I can see some justification for the siezing of the property if the banks were actually nationalized. Currently this is not the case and these people are breaking the law, they should be prosecuted accordingly.

It should make you immune to prosecution, because the law should be removed. They are trespassing (not stealing, they're not moving the houses somewhere), but if they were convicted of it, I would pardon them if I had the power to do so, and rewrite the laws so that the government would seize the houses, and then rent them at a very low nominal rate to the homeless.

They are trespassing with the intent to steal. While the squatters are in the house they are depriving the owners of the use or potential use of the house and are stealing it as per the definition of theft. Because I am now claiming ownership of an object that I cannot move while you are the legal owner, am I stealing it or simply trespassing? Are you saying that a house cannot be stolen because it cannot be moved?

I support some limited uses of individual property, in that statement I was not being inconsistent, I was coming out against the American worship of property rights as a religion. Which is ironic, because as I've detailed throughout this reply, Americans' property rights are already substantially limited. Go read the building code for your local municipality before you make grandiose claims of my being a kook.

America has a history of defining what you can and cannot do with property that you own. It does not have much in the way of what you must or must not do with the same property. There aren't any laws saying that if I don't clean my gun often enough someone that will take better care of it will now gain ownership of it. What you are proposing would be afundamental change in the US's approach to property rights and you are currently either blind to this or purposefully being ignorant.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My entire complaint about the bank issue, has been the ginormous profits maintained by the credit card company's, housing lending companies, etc. Who actually used predatory tactics to get people to apply for loans that they probably couldn't afford, the credit card companies in particular have been found guilty of purposfully "losing" payment checks, in order to penalize someone for default. Simular tactics of delayed cashing of payments, or holding a payment for further scrutiny so that they could issue a penalty fee, and rack up an extra 2 for one in fees, interest and penalties to the principal of the loan.

having previously been a victim of such practices, I have little sympathy for that group.

[K. A. Pital]

I see KrauserKrauser's point actually, but I would summarize it better.

Moral imperatives may be in favour of illegal action (theft), however, the consequences of theft may be more destabilizing to society in the long run.

Seizure of non-used property by the government, with preceding legal basis - laws, is not theft, however, and therefore the second part of Duchess' arugument, the necessity of government seizure of assets that currently are used wastefully or not used, is valid.

Yeah, vacation homes do contribute to psychological well-being of a rich citizen who builds it and then uses 3 weeks in a year. However, a person who is lacking a house - possibly fired by the same rich person to cut costs - is suffering greater. The moral imperative for reduction of overall suffering demands that the greater suffering be diminished, and in case suffering is not equivalent (lack of vacation home not equal to lack of home), seizue of said vacation home by government and giving to a homeless person is a moral, ethnically valid act.

[KrauserKrauser]

I agree that in this case the seizure by the government could be a valid fix, but that would be the government, which reports and is elected by the public, and not individual squatters taking action in their own hands.

I also believe that the government would be better served in taxing the rich person heavily enough that he can have possibly a slightly smaller vacation home and give the homeless person housing at the same time. There is no need for the government to have the right to seize property at will just because homeless people exist and homes are going unoccupied for given periods of time that other people deem outrageous and the owner decides is right. I object to expanding governmental powers into the decisions made as to how often or how well any given piece of property needs to be in use before said property is deemed forfeit.

[Broomstick]

The belief in individual property is the bad thing, not harming the belief in it... It is better to work for accolades and fame than for wealth.

Accolades and fame don't pay the rent and don't put food on the table.

Some things simply must be paid for with money or other tangible items. If you will allow people more than a materially bare bone existence then people must also have a means to earn and accumulate wealth.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I agree that in this case the seizure by the government could be a valid fix, but that would be the government, which reports and is elected by the public, and not individual squatters taking action in their own hands.

I also believe that the government would be better served in taxing the rich person heavily enough that he can have possibly a slightly smaller vacation home and give the homeless person housing at the same time. There is no need for the government to have the right to seize property at will just because homeless people exist and homes are going unoccupied for given periods of time that other people deem outrageous and the owner decides is right. I object to expanding governmental powers into the decisions made as to how often or how well any given piece of property needs to be in use before said property is deemed forfeit.

Yeah, and this means we don't actually have any disagreement, since my proposal from the first was to have the government do it... I just also argued that these people had an ethical right to protest the refusal of the American government to acknowledge a fundamental right to housing. Once the government has conformed to ethics, of course, further behaviour on these grounds would be... outrageous, a genuine poor sentiment rather than political protest. But let's get these people shelter first, okay? Because their safety should be the primary concern of a government. Can't you see the distinction which makes these acts taken in the present environment as ethical, and yet unethical and dangerous in the long term in an environment where guaranteed housing already exists.. since then it is theft out of greed, rather than the necessity of protecting these people from the harms of street life.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The belief in individual property is the bad thing, not harming the belief in it... It is better to work for accolades and fame than for wealth.

Accolades and fame don't pay the rent and don't put food on the table.

Some things simply must be paid for with money or other tangible items. If you will allow people more than a materially bare bone existence then people must also have a means to earn and accumulate wealth.

I'm talking more about the Soviet system of rewarding academicians and intellectuals and high performing workers and so on. I'd be quite happy with a cozy little modest apartment for my family, and a little dacha in the countryside that we have some old woodsman live in to take care of it when we're not there, a tiny little but solidly reliable care, and a yearly vacation to the Crimean; I'd hold the successes of being an excellent nuclear engineer to be mainly counted by the number of awards on the wall, you see.

This is of course in a state which guarantees healthcare and shelter and food to everyone. Those guarantees are what's important for me--I am becoming a professional to secure for myself and those I love, for life, those three things, which are not guaranteed here. If I was in the USSR before its collapse, I'd be doing it for the challenges of the engineering projects and the desire to be recognized for my brilliance--and I'd be happier, since the fear and weight of how to pay for everything as costs around the tight circle of those I care about are substantial... Would be gone, and I could concentrate entirely on my academic pursuits without distraction. That was what I was referring to.

[KrauserKrauser]

I'm talking more about the Soviet system of rewarding academicians and intellectuals and high performing workers and so on. I'd be quite happy with a cozy little modest apartment for my family, and a little dacha in the countryside that we have some old woodsman live in to take care of it when we're not there, a tiny little but solidly reliable care, and a yearly vacation to the Crimean; I'd hold the successes of being an excellent nuclear engineer to be mainly counted by the number of awards on the wall, you see.

This is of course in a state which guarantees healthcare and shelter and food to everyone. Those guarantees are what's important for me--I am becoming a professional to secure for myself and those I love, for life, those three things, which are not guaranteed here. If I was in the USSR before its collapse, I'd be doing it for the challenges of the engineering projects and the desire to be recognized for my brilliance--and I'd be happier, since the fear and weight of how to pay for everything as costs around the tight circle of those I care about are substantial... Would be gone, and I could concentrate entirely on my academic pursuits without distraction. That was what I was referring to.

So the secret police, lack of freedom of speech, random abductions, gulags, censorship, etc. wouldn't be enough to be evidence that your wonderful Communist dream doesn't work?

Are you seriously that deluded to think that the engineers in the USSR were all happy happy and in no way until constant threat of being abducted for reeducation were they too, I don't know, say something bad about the party?

What if someone wants more than you? Too bad? Fuck them you think they are being greedy? If you believe in performance being rewarded, what if that person wants rewards in money and not worthless commendations and awards?

Obviously the USSR was a wonderful socialist paradise and not a backward fucked up system of government that collapsed in on itself.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm talking more about the Soviet system of rewarding academicians and intellectuals and high performing workers and so on. I'd be quite happy with a cozy little modest apartment for my family, and a little dacha in the countryside that we have some old woodsman live in to take care of it when we're not there, a tiny little but solidly reliable care, and a yearly vacation to the Crimean; I'd hold the successes of being an excellent nuclear engineer to be mainly counted by the number of awards on the wall, you see.

This is of course in a state which guarantees healthcare and shelter and food to everyone. Those guarantees are what's important for me--I am becoming a professional to secure for myself and those I love, for life, those three things, which are not guaranteed here. If I was in the USSR before its collapse, I'd be doing it for the challenges of the engineering projects and the desire to be recognized for my brilliance--and I'd be happier, since the fear and weight of how to pay for everything as costs around the tight circle of those I care about are substantial... Would be gone, and I could concentrate entirely on my academic pursuits without distraction. That was what I was referring to.

So the secret police, lack of freedom of speech, random abductions, gulags, censorship, etc. wouldn't be enough to be evidence that your wonderful Communist dream doesn't work?

Are you seriously that deluded to think that the engineers in the USSR were all happy happy and in no way until constant threat of being abducted for reeducation were they too, I don't know, say something bad about the party?

What if someone wants more than you? Too bad? Fuck them you think they are being greedy? If you believe in performance being rewarded, what if that person wants rewards in money and not worthless commendations and awards?

Obviously the USSR was a wonderful socialist paradise and not a backward fucked up system of government that collapsed in on itself.

I said I would be happy in the USSR. You misinterpreted that into a blanket endorsement of the entire communist system, for which I do expect you to concede, as I said nothing of the sort.

Furthermore, you are misrepresenting the USSR of the 1956 -- 1991 period, the most recent period immediately before its collapse, as being identical to the period of the Stalinist terror, which is simply wrong. If we are to cherry pick which era of any country we're to discuss, then let's compare the 1970s USSR with 1840s antebellum America where slavery was legal.

See the problem with this?

[Stark]

I see KrauserKrauser's point actually, but I would summarize it better.

Moral imperatives may be in favour of illegal action (theft), however, the consequences of theft may be more destabilizing to society in the long run.

Seizure of non-used property by the government, with preceding legal basis - laws, is not theft, however, and therefore the second part of Duchess' arugument, the necessity of government seizure of assets that currently are used wastefully or not used, is valid.

Yeah, vacation homes do contribute to psychological well-being of a rich citizen who builds it and then uses 3 weeks in a year. However, a person who is lacking a house - possibly fired by the same rich person to cut costs - is suffering greater. The moral imperative for reduction of overall suffering demands that the greater suffering be diminished, and in case suffering is not equivalent (lack of vacation home not equal to lack of home), seizue of said vacation home by government and giving to a homeless person is a moral, ethnically valid act.

This was so obvious we talked about it earlier, and while it's politically difficult in America, saying it's better to let random people take the law into their own hands as some do here is crazy. What if people start hiring security to protect their investments? Whoops, social problems from a short sighted fix that anyone could have predicted, when more moderate and less dangerous options were readily available and obvious.

I'm not sure what the legal framework of real estate seizure by the government would be, but in the US they could just take them in return for piles of bailout money for their banker mates and administer them as poor housing; it wouldn't even have to be free. The procedure for this seizure would be simplified a great deal in the case of foreclosures, and this wouldn't be at all applicable to the class warfare concept of taking 'excessive' housing in the same way.

[Broomstick]

Speaking of occupying bank owned property....

Chicago Sun-Times

Window closes on company
GOOSE ISLAND | Republic Windows & Doors to close, union angry

December 4, 2008
BY DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Republic Windows & Doors, once an emblem of corporate expansion on Goose Island, said it must shut down Friday because of inability to get financing.

It said more than 200 jobs will be eliminated. Amy Zimmerman, vice president of sales and marketing at Republic, said the shutdown was forced by Bank of America Corp., which withdrew a credit line because of the manufacturer's declining sales.

The decision brought two busloads of Republic's unionized work force to Bank of America's Chicago headquarters, 231 S. La Salle. Members of the United Electrical Workers picketed outside the bank, saying the forced closure violates state law that requires a 60-day notice of mass layoffs.

Union leaders also said Bank of America was barring Republic from paying workers for the 60-day period or for accrued vacations. "It's shameless that this bank, after getting a federal bailout, is throwing them out penniless," said union organizer Leah Fried.

A bank spokesman would not discuss Republic, citing customer confidentiality.

Zimmerman said Republic was the victim of "mismanagement on a grand scale" by prior owners, who ran up debt. The current company president, Rich Gillman, acquired Republic in 2005 and sold its sprawling plant at 1333 N. Hickory to Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. for $31 million. Republic continued to occupy most of the space.

Sales have declined from about $75 million a year recently to about $42 million to date in 2008, Zimmerman said. "This was a business decision by the bank and we understand it," Zimmerman said. "We probably could have survived it had we had enough cash on hand."

She said prior owners spent recklessly on hiring and on "software purchases that were beyond the scope of company needs."

The state's Labor Department enforces the 60-day notice requirement of what's known as the WARN act, for Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retaining Notification. Department spokeswoman Anjali Julka said it would investigate any complaint it receives about Republic.

The Chicago Sun-Times

Laid-off workers won't leave until they get their money
GOOSE ISLAND | Bank of America 'completely shameless,' union says

December 6, 2008

About 200 laid-off workers at the Republic Windows & Doors factory remained camped out in the huge building Friday night -- refusing to leave the Goose Island factory without assurance of vacation and severance pay Republic owes them.

They came and went freely, with no police in sight.

They occupied the factory and warehouse after company officials didn't show at negotiations brokered by U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez between the company and its bank.

Republic announced the shutdown Tuesday, saying doors would close Friday as a result of Bank of America cutting its credit line.

Union officials said the company failed to give the 60 days' notice required by federal law and that the bank barred the company from paying for the 60-day period or for vacation time earned by employees.

"It's completely shameless that Bank of America took billions in taxpayer dollars and cuts off credit to a company we believe could have stayed in business," United Electrical Workers union official Leah Fried said.

Bank of America issued a statement saying it was not responsible for Republic's incurred obligations.

Said 20-year employee Juan Cortez: "I just want them to pay me for the time I've put into this company."

[K. A. Pital]

So the secret police, lack of freedom of speech, random abductions, gulags, censorship, etc. wouldn't be enough to be evidence that your wonderful Communist dream doesn't work?

I think the Duchess was referring to the system of non-monetary awards and positive aspects therein rather than endorsing all Soviet policies, and supported the ability to concentrate on scientific research without being concerned about monetary support - which, whether you like it or not, was a feature present in the late Soviet system.

You twisted arms of her statement and started harping about negative policies of the USSR instead of adressing her point - non-monetary award system may be desireable for some people, or even entire groups of people, as opposed to a purely cleptocratic one.

That's remarkable how whenever someone would bring up the positive aspects of non-monetary awards, you'd fly off handle into "secret police and gulags" straight away and denounce those awards as "worthless" despite actually economic science disagreeing with you; noting a similar level of motivation between people in commercial and non-profit organizations.

Likewise, there's little honesty in going about lack of freedom of speech, gulag and censorship when the Duchess was clearly speaking about the late USSR in the 1980s. That's in fact a prime example of gross falsehood.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My suggestion has always been that the property that isn't being used, should be taken through legal process (Emminant Domain to be exact)

[KrauserKrauser]

Ok, so I'll admit my viewpoint on the USSR is decidedly negative, maybe in some cases unreasonably so. My point is that even comparing identical time periods, you believe that a nuclear enigneer in USSR is going to be desireable to the same job in the US?

A Nuclear Engineer's salary in the US should be more than enough to secure more goods and services than what you could get in the USSR at the time, regardless of year. The USSR may have offered more services to more people but by comparison to the US, those services, especially by the late 1980's were arguably substandard compared to the US offerings. I don't remember any significant bread lines in the US during that time, but do recall hearing stories of the same in the USSR, Stas can probably speak to the accuracy of those reports.

At least in the US, the options for changing the system to allow for more stuff for more people are present. Elections take place and laws can be changed. The USSR, with loyalty to the party as A #1 priorty can definitely not be said to be as flexible.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ok, so I'll admit my viewpoint on the USSR is decidedly negative, maybe in some cases unreasonably so. My point is that even comparing identical time periods, you believe that a nuclear enigneer in USSR is going to be desireable to the same job in the US?

A Nuclear Engineer's salary in the US should be more than enough to secure more goods and services than what you could get in the USSR at the time, regardless of year. The USSR may have offered more services to more people but by comparison to the US, those services, especially by the late 1980's were arguably substandard compared to the US offerings. I don't remember any significant bread lines in the US during that time, but do recall hearing stories of the same in the USSR, Stas can probably speak to the accuracy of those reports.

At least in the US, the options for changing the system to allow for more stuff for more people are present. Elections take place and laws can be changed. The USSR, with loyalty to the party as A #1 priorty can definitely not be said to be as flexible.

Sure, you're probably right comparing a nuclear engineer in the U.S.'s salary to that in the USSR in terms of quality of life. However, relative to his community and nation, the nuclear engineer in the USSR is FAR more prestigious and upper-crust than in the U.S. I'd say a huge reason why the U.S. is declining in performance in technical and scientific and hard industrial fields is the way these professions and educations are not treated with the proper prestige and credit due. The mainstream of my entire generation is locked into an absurd fantasy of living at the MTV Beachhouse, and having never worked or studied hard to do it.

[JCady]

I am proposing changing the law to make it lawful on the grounds that it is unethical for businesses and people to allow property to be sit fallow. Note that if they were to, for instance, find a renter, they could preserve the property.

Marina dear, I hope you realize that this is exactly the legal argument which was historically used to justify the vast majority of land theft from Native Americans? White settlers successfully claimed that they had the legal right to take Native American lands because the Native Americans weren't developing them, and longstanding European property law precedents hold that developed use is favored over undeveloped use.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I am proposing changing the law to make it lawful on the grounds that it is unethical for businesses and people to allow property to be sit fallow. Note that if they were to, for instance, find a renter, they could preserve the property.

Marina dear, I hope you realize that this is exactly the legal argument which was historically used to justify the vast majority of land theft from Native Americans? White settlers successfully claimed that they had the legal right to take Native American lands because the Native Americans weren't developing them, and longstanding European property law precedents hold that developed use is favored over undeveloped use.

Yes, and if it had not happened, there would be no modern, industrialized nation here. Let us be honest; there are things that happened in the past which are necessary for the present which nobody would consider ethical today. With the (proud) exception of Russia, and also France, pretty much all colonizing nations in the Americas treated Indians horrifically. The simple fact is that the average native band maintained their traditional lifestyle over a reach of thousands of acres, and if that land had not been made available for farming, there would have been no critical mass to form the United States into an industrialized state.

Furthermore, such an applicaiton of the law today would not be harming the natives, who in fact already collectively hold their property in the co-operative regions that we call "reservations" to avoid admitting the fact that with all property and major industries held in common by the whole tribe that they're some of the more Soviet-like areas remaining on the Earth. Just because one thing resembles another (and let me not sound harsh here--the natives suffered horribly as a result of what happened to them, with some scenes of truly grotesque human suffering inherent in what took place) does not mean it is, by definition, inethical.

Anyway,

A Nuclear Engineer's salary in the US should be more than enough to secure more goods and services than what you could get in the USSR at the time, regardless of year.

So? I don't want to be rich. I want stability in my life. The American system fails at providing long term socioeconomic stability.

I believe IP has already touched sufficiently on the motivational factors. Telling people what I'm studying for gets me this expression like I'm a space alien; people simply don't know what to make of it, like a three-headed calf. There is not merely no respect in the USA, but also complete incomprehension about the higher levels of science... And I prefer, infinitely, to be respected over having some more monopoly paper in the bank.