Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why is that absurd?

Especially in suburbia, that tree when chopped down could damage another person's property, or it could very well positively-- or negatively-- effect the property values of nearby houses. Nevermind the fact that trees actually have long-term benefit in many cases through soil retention.

Not that I'm saying I support homeowners associations (dear Emperor, no! I'm just playing devil's advocate, not ACTUALLY advocating for the devil...), but there is non-absurd logic behind their decisions.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.

And you outght to be smart enough to realise a regulatory environment built entirely around punishment after the fact would be utterly disfunctional.

Are you honestly defending the position that a person needs government permission to chop down a tree on their own property? Such regulations are absurd both facially and usually as applied.

In the UK we have local conservation areas which are designated because of particular concentrations of high quality architecture and environmental amenities such as mature planting.

In such areas a householder often does have to apply for permission to make changes which will affect the area as a whole. This could include preservation of trees, roof lines and so on.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Obama is the US's Tony Blair, he wants to follow the model and attain the same goal. Obama is was and always will be a chancer, his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.

Unfortunately for Obama the global recession means the US cannot afford a 'Blair term' right now. This wont stop Obama from trying to cash in though, and that will be very costly for the American tax payer, not just for the current generation, but also for the next.

This is completely and entirely devoid of content. It means literally nothing.

Fiscal policy is not to be decided by incredibly vague personality assessments.

The content is there, you are just not able to read it. Its expected that politicians will go the exta mile in self interest to get elected, then there is the breed who are motivated solely by self interest. Normally the public see through them, but Blair produced a model, now widely emulated on how to spend, look good doing it, not worry about any future but his own but still appear a great statesman in spite of the long term damage done.

There is nothing vague about that, but it yes does have more to do with personality than the economic need of the nation under these peoples charge.

Let me give you just one highly visible and historically provable indicator here. During the Blair-Bush years a sea change occured in US/UK politics. The relationship became between the US and Blair not the US and UK. An example of this was the complete cold shoulder given to William Hague and other opposition politicians at the time. In any prior administration the US would not have done this, even when faced with vocally anti-American leaders like Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill. whether they were also crurrently electable or not would also not be an indicator of welcome. They would be welcome anyway, the UK/US relationship would remain seperate to the party divide. However Blair asked for a personalisation. Bush agreed and I have no problems from the US end because the so called 'special relationship' became one of support the US in return for help for Blair. Not actual national mutual support. As supporting one self interested poltician is cheaper than supporting a nations interests this was a cheap deal, and Bush did well out of it. It was however catestrophic for the UK, as Blair gave much away but asked for very little in turn unless it was directly to his benefit.

I am duly concerned that Obama is such a man as to put his own interests first and second and Americas little at all. I see echos of this in pursuing such a concept as wholesale care reform would normally be attempted in a second term, its a legacy move, yet Obama wanted it implemented pretty much immediately, i.e. to see the benefits while still in office, damn the cost. This is not the best example as there are parts of Obamams health reforms that are laudable, but its an opening move. Move evidently I see it in the mans personal biases heavily driving US foreign policy, pissing off an alarming number of long term trading partners, of which the UK is one.
Such a man cannot be trusted to budget for the US economy and peoples current and future benefit when much can be squandered for his own.

Orlanth wrote:The content is there

No, it really isn't. It is an assertion with no real substance to back it up.

And it's further amusing that you would claim Obama has "his own interests" solely in mind... I'm fairly certain that one could point out more than a few decisions which were NOT in his political best interest but fit his ideology and his beliefs about what is best for the country.

His attempts to compromise with the Republican party (rebuffed by the reps, for the most part) were loathed by the Democratic party and certainly didn't help him with his political base, and what effect they've had on his appeal to centrists has yet to be seen-- certainly it's likely most Republican voters didn't even notice these across-the-isle attempts so it wouldn't help him there (as if it would even if they did notice due to ideological differences and Republican obstructionism).

Melissia wrote:Why is that absurd?

Especially in suburbia, that tree when chopped down could damage another person's property, or it could very well positively-- or negatively-- effect the property values of nearby houses. Nevermind the fact that trees actually have long-term benefit in many cases through soil retention.

Not that I'm saying I support homeowners associations (dear Emperor, no! I'm just playing devil's advocate, not ACTUALLY advocating for the devil...), but there is non-absurd logic behind their decisions.

Come on Melissia tell him the truth. We don't cut down trees in Texas. We just let the wildfires take care of them.

in truth, at least in Houston and Austin, there is no approval needed. You just need (if you're smart) to have a bonded service if its a big tree like a 50 ft pine.

This is true, but I'd still personally prefer the wildfires to stay in okie. I mean nobody likes okie anyway, right?

The only time I like to smell smoke is when we're barbequeuing.

Melissia wrote:His attempts to compromise with the Republican party

OK, now you're just making crap up.

Melissia wrote:Why is that absurd?

Especially in suburbia, that tree when chopped down could damage another person's property, or it could very well positively-- or negatively-- effect the property values of nearby houses. Nevermind the fact that trees actually have long-term benefit in many cases through soil retention.

As I said, there are remedies for damage to adjacent property, usually based in trespass but could also be an action based on subjacent support. However, the common law of property presumes that when a person acquires property they are free to do with it what they wish, but they are responsible for the consequences. It wasn't even illegal to burn down your own house (modern statutory law has changed this, largely for the benefit of insurance companies).

Therefore, we can dispense with the actual damage objection to free use of land.

The only remaining objection is that the free use of land (including cutting down trees) creates an injury to someone else's interest other than actual damage, generally fashioned around aesthetics. However, this is based on a faulty assumption that there is a right to a certain aesthetic, or maintaining an aesthetic in a neighborhood. Absent consent from buyers (and this is where homeowner agreements are superior to local ordinances), other people have no right to control your use and enjoyment of land.

Melissia wrote:Not that I'm saying I support homeowners associations (dear Emperor, no! I'm just playing devil's advocate, not ACTUALLY advocating for the devil...), but there is non-absurd logic behind their decisions.

Actually, as I said above, homeowners' associations are preferable to local laws because their enforcement is based on consent from a buyer rather than government use of force. If I don't want to follow a homeowners association policy, I can buy land not governed by it. If all of my neighbors want to make a homeowners association, I don't have to join. The same is not true of government intrusion.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:His attempts to compromise with the Republican party

OK, now you're just making crap up.

Melissia wrote:certainly it's likely most Republican voters didn't even notice these across-the-isle attempts

Hey, I was right!

Melissia wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The content is there

No, it really isn't. It is an assertion with no real substance to back it up.

One cannot teach a ostrich. You have an opposed party political view, lets leave it at that. We can have widely differing opinions on which politicians are 'great' and 'suck', but a flat disagreement with an opposing view is not equal to the opposing view having no merit under its own paradigm.

Melissia wrote:
And it's further amusing that you would claim Obama has "his own interests" solely in mind... I'm fairly certain that one could point out more than a few decisions which were NOT in his political best interest but fit his ideology and his beliefs about what is best for the country.

Yet while examples were given of his large scale economic self interest, you have followed up with none. Please do point to those decisions.

Melissia wrote:
His attempts to compromise with the Republican party (rebuffed by the reps, for the most part) were loathed by the Democratic party and certainly didn't help him with his political base,

Make up your mind. Appeasing an opposition party can hardly be ideological driven policy making unless the Democrats themselves were not moving with the presidents ideology. But it fits the profile as a sell out to give the illusion of personal achievement.

Melissia wrote:This is true, but I'd still personally prefer the wildfires to stay in okie. I mean nobody likes okie anyway, right?

The only time I like to smell smoke is when we're barbequeuing.

yea. Seriously now when I smell wood smoke I freak out. I called 9-11 last week when I smelled smoke (Houston house) and had to call them back when I traced it to some who started a grill with mesquite wood.

Lord Scythican wrote:
My thoughts exactly. I can't believe we are paying them to not do their job. Didn't they say last year that they were going to totally commit themselves to fighting Obama every chance they got? Could you imagine telling your boss that you was going to undermine him every chance you got? Try that at Wal-Mart and you would be fired within the hour.

Are you implying the President is the Boss of Congress? If so, I strongly recommend you re-read the constitution. Your analogy makes no sense when you consider separate and equal branches of government.

Orlanth wrote:You have an opposed party political view

I don't give a damn about parties, so no, I don't hold the democratic political view. I disagree firmly with many democratic positions, especially on gun control, and I disagree with both parties when it comes to health care reform... not that either party seems to have a coherent position on that topic to begin with.

Orlanth wrote:Yet while examples were given

You gave nothing that supported your positions. No examples at all. The example you gave actually worked against you, because by your own words if he was acting in his own self-interest he'd not have done that in his first turn.

But I guess that means he wasn't acting in his own self-interest, was he?

Orlanth wrote:Appeasing an opposition party can hardly be ideological driven policy making unless the Democrats themselves were not moving with the presidents ideology.

... which was the case, yes? Democrats utterly fethed up and failed to deliver and because of their incompetence they lost their majority-- so Obama tries to make due with what options he has to try to do what's best for the country, which means attempting to broker deals with the Republicans.

I don't know about US property law but in the UK land is often subject to historical conditions called restrictive covenants.

For example, when I lived in Richmond, the property when established in the late 1780s had a covenant that it must be bordered on the front by a wood fence.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know about US property law but in the UK land is often subject to historical conditions called restrictive covenants.

For example, when I lived in Richmond, the property when established in the late 1780s had a covenant that it must be bordered on the front by a wood fence.

Depending on the state, we often have those as well. Covenants however, are also impacted by federal/state/county law.

For example: there used to be covenants akin to "This property may not be sold to INSERT ETHNIC GROUP YOU DISLIKE." There were even homeowner association provisions to similar effect. Those have been struck down thankfully. And yes this was a bar question and real estate license exam question (in California).

Melissia wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yet while examples were given

You gave nothing that supported your positions. No examples at all. The example you gave actually worked against you, because by your own words if he was acting in his own self-interest he'd not have done that in his first turn.

But I guess that means he wasn't acting in his own self-interest, was he?

Ok, lets help you here. Poliicies take time to mature. If you pass a bill now it will probably be implemented in 2015 or so, and that is for something mundane. An entire shake up of public healthcare is anything but mundane. If you speed things up it is usually at extra cost. Legacy moves are usually made in a presidents second term. Here they get the stuff done, and it takes a while for the benefits to mature. Obama wanted Obamacare actioned on quickly and early in his first term. Why? To bask in it, perhaps.

Melissia wrote:
which was the case, yes? Democrats utterly fethed up and failed to deliver and because of their incompetence they lost their majority-- so Obama tries to make due with what options he has to try to do what's best for the country, which means attempting to broker deals with the Republicans.

Dealing with majority opposition in Congress is daily bread and butter for much of the term of most US presidents. Negotiations are inevitable, but if the Democrats are particularly concerned about Obama caving in or selling out then perhaps there is a message there.

Yes, that the democratic party is incompetent becauase it can't accomplish what it wants when it has both the majority AND the president. It's a rather clear message, really.

Orlanth wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yet while examples were given

You gave nothing that supported your positions. No examples at all. The example you gave actually worked against you, because by your own words if he was acting in his own self-interest he'd not have done that in his first turn.

But I guess that means he wasn't acting in his own self-interest, was he?

Ok, lets help you here. Poliicies take time to mature. If you pass a bill now it will probably be implemented in 2015 or so, and that is for something mundane. An entire shake up of public healthcare is anything but mundane. If you speed things up it is usually at extra cost. Legacy moves are usually made in a presidents second term. Here they get the stuff done, and it takes a while for the benefits to mature. Obama wanted Obamacare actioned on quickly and early in his first term. Why? To bask in it, perhaps.

Melissia wrote:
which was the case, yes? Democrats utterly fethed up and failed to deliver and because of their incompetence they lost their majority-- so Obama tries to make due with what options he has to try to do what's best for the country, which means attempting to broker deals with the Republicans.

Dealing with majority opposition in Congress is daily bread and butter for much of the term of most US presidents. Negotiations are inevitable, but if the Democrats are particularly concerned about Obama caving in or selling out then perhaps there is a message there.

Its not all a long term change. The price of chemo that Seniors pay under Medicare jumped directly as a result of the healthcare raid on medicare funds.
2010: $1,400
2011: $3,400

biccat wrote:
As I said, there are remedies for damage to adjacent property, usually based in trespass but could also be an action based on subjacent support. However, the common law of property presumes that when a person acquires property they are free to do with it what they wish, but they are responsible for the consequences.

Even if a permit is required by the government, the property owner would still be free to do with his property as he wished, they would simply be responsible for the consequences of non-compliance with city regulations. The idea that freedom exists even in the face of responsibility for external consequences is farcical, and countermands any practical definition of the term.

biccat wrote:
The only remaining objection is that the free use of land (including cutting down trees) creates an injury to someone else's interest other than actual damage, generally fashioned around aesthetics. However, this is based on a faulty assumption that there is a right to a certain aesthetic, or maintaining an aesthetic in a neighborhood.

If we can regulate obscenity, which is based on an aesthetic determination, then why not the appearance of a neighborhood?

biccat wrote:
If I don't want to follow a homeowners association policy, I can buy land not governed by it.

The same argument applies to municipal law vis a vis choosing to live in another municipality.

biccat wrote:
If all of my neighbors want to make a homeowners association, I don't have to join. The same is not true of government intrusion.

I've never heard of a homeowner association being created following to the initial sale of property by the developer, and very few of them involve voluntary membership as distinct from purchase.

I haven't seen new property which DIDN'T have home-owners associations.

And that's in Texas, where we are still expanding our suburbs.

Melissia wrote:I haven't seen new property which DIDN'T have home-owners associations.

And that's in Texas, where we are still expanding our suburbs.

Get out of the suburbs.

(since we have horses, we tend to live out in da sticks, where home-owner's associations don't go)

Melissia wrote:I haven't seen new property which DIDN'T have home-owners associations.

That's because you live in Texas. Most of the rest of the country doesn't have a home owners association for every neighborhood.

Too many people aren't looking at it tactically.

Think of it like a strategy game:

Obama's optimal play is to make it look like the repubs are stonewalling. he can do this by introducing something that goes against republican ideology but sounds juuust nice enough to regular people at the same time. Then when he breaks it up, he can be like "look, I broke it up even, you still don't like ANY of it? What gives?" and make a big show of shrugging about it.

The republicans' optimal play is to act like something huge and radical has been FORCED opon them and they have to HOLD BACK THE TIDE OF SOCIALISM WITH THEIR BARE HANDS RAAAARRRR. They do this by blocking everything and wringing their hands about how they wish they could do things.

Yes, everyone involved is trying to get re-elected. If you don't get re-elected, the things you DID do will get undone, so you might as well not have even done them.

Logically the correct play is to gun for re-election and build your legacies out of tiny incremental victories over a long career rather than make huge changes, flame out, get voted out and get your changes repealed immediately.

I don't LIKE the republicans' position, but I can absolutely respect that what they're doing is their correct play tactically.

TLR, this is normal. Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:I haven't seen new property which DIDN'T have home-owners associations.

And that's in Texas, where we are still expanding our suburbs.

Get out of the suburbs.

(since we have horses, we tend to live out in da sticks, where home-owner's associations don't go)

If I moved out of the 'burbs, I'd go downtown, not in the sticks. Downtown Fort Worth is nice. Dallas... not so much.

But then that's Dallas. Noone expects good things out of Dallas.

Rented Tritium wrote:Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.

Are you saying that the change is always positive in the long run or that "deadlock" (which I agree is a feature, not a bug of the current system) is positive in the long run?

Frazzled wrote:

Its not all a long term change. The price of chemo that Seniors pay under Medicare jumped directly as a result of the healthcare raid on medicare funds.
2010: $1,400
2011: $3,400

Thats a nasty price hike. never said anything about the extra costs take a long time, just the positive benefits of new government programs. Yep, as you indicate the costs are pretty much immediate. Its an indicator of the pricetag for Obama being able to claim to see progress during his term in office. Had the heakthcare reforms beendone over a decent steady timeline, i.e. not quickly enough for Obama to look good from it, then such price hikes could be avoided.

This is exactly the sort of dangerous demogoguery people need to look out for in their leaders. You Yanks should learn from our mistakes, the last thing you need is what we just had.

sebster wrote:Do you consider that at all likely, given the political rhetoric that's existed in Washington during Obama's presidency?

Which is different from the behavior from the Democrats when Bush was in office, how? I thought the point of having different branches of government was to debate things and not have one branch making all of the decisions?

To answer your question directly: Yes, I think that there are some people that actually believe that they are doing the right thing. Forgive me for not being a complete cynic. I mean, I'm getting there, but still. My apotheosis is not yet complete it would appear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Get out of the suburbs.

Agreed. I prefer to actually be in a city or as far away from the city as possible.

Suburbs are the worst.

Rented Tritium wrote: Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.

It may be designed that way, but in practice it hasn't produced results consistent with that design. The American system tends to produce policy outcomes that are more consistent with punctuated equilibrium, though the "punctuations" (things like healthcare reform, Reagan's tax reform, Great Society, the Louisiana Purchase, the New Deal, etc.) have arguably grown closer to together over time.

Orlanth wrote:Had the heakthcare reforms beendone over a decent steady timeline, i.e. not quickly enough for Obama to look good from it, then such price hikes could be avoided.

Well, ultimately, there are two ways to stretch the time line for any reform project. The first is to simply extend the time line included in the initial piece of legislation. This allows the sitting President to take credit for passing the bill, but also renders the legislation itself more vulnerable to repeal (in general, its easier to repeal legislation, or parts of legislation, that has not taken full effect). The second is to pass the proposed reform package in sections. To some extent this can be politically expedient, allowing for certain agreeable provisions to be passed while others are not, but it also stretches out the time line of legislative action; which can prove intractable in the wrong environment (I would argue that this environment is the wrong one).

In any case, all things being held equal, the only thing stretching the time line for implementation would have accomplished is a slower shift to the present cost of state funded procedures, like chemo. The price may have reached its apogee more slowly, but it would still reach it, which isn't necessarily a key point of contention if the ultimate goal is passing legislation.

Orlanth wrote:
This is exactly the sort of dangerous demogoguery people need to look out for in their leaders. You Yanks should learn from our mistakes, the last thing you need is what we just had.

National politics is all about demagoguery, rational argument is not something you can use to gain the support of a large crowd. It never has been, and it never will be. In fact, that's the reason there is generally a significant between political rhetoric and political action, which is arguably a good thing.

Monster Rain wrote:
To answer your question directly: Yes, I think that there are some people that actually believe that they are doing the right thing. Forgive me for not being a complete cynic. I mean, I'm getting there, but still. My apotheosis is not yet complete it would appear.

I believe that there probably are a significant number of politicians, especially in the House, that believe they are doing the right thing by opposing the Democrats/Republicans, regardless of what the Democrats/Republicans want to do. I think there are significantly fewer people that believe they are doing the right thing in opposing a particular policy, if that policy is divorced from its political origin.

dogma wrote:
In any case, all things being held equal, the only thing stretching the time line for implementation would have accomplished is a slower shift to the present cost of state funded procedures, like chemo. The price may have reached its apogee more slowly, but it would still reach it, which isn't necessarily a key point of contention if the ultimate goal is passing legislation.

Fair point, but when you rush buy those with the ability to action set the price and normally aim higher. Maybe thats not what happens over your side of the pond, but its usually the case here.
Even if this is not the case and costs eve out the cost spike has to be accounted for. Often this means national debt and thus interest, at other times it means a sudden and harsh cost change elsewhere suddenly occurs with little warning for those who have to cope with it. So even if a project costs the same whether over one year or ten, rushing it costs more indirectly.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
This is exactly the sort of dangerous demogoguery people need to look out for in their leaders. You Yanks should learn from our mistakes, the last thing you need is what we just had.

National politics is all about demagoguery, rational argument is not something you can use to gain the support of a large crowd. It never has been, and it never will be. In fact, that's the reason there is generally a significant between political rhetoric and political action, which is arguably a good thing.

Like your comments earlier we are agreeing just on a different scale. Every politician has access to the same toolkit, but some stick the screwdriver in harder than others. in the same manner that all men are liars and hypocrites, we still reserve those epithets to those who cross various thresholds. Yes I do believe that some stoop lower than others, and some few are to all intents and purposes honest servants of the people (applying previous caveat about humans and lying/hypocrasy in general).

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.

Are you saying that the change is always positive in the long run or that "deadlock" (which I agree is a feature, not a bug of the current system) is positive in the long run?

The first because of the second.

Orlanth wrote:
Fair point, but when you rush buy those with the ability to action set the price and normally aim higher. Maybe thats not what happens over your side of the pond, but its usually the case here. Even if this is not the case and costs eve out the cost spike has to be accounted for.

Well, setting the price isn't something legislators generally do. Rather, that gets handled by bureaucracy, and to a lesser extent by the policy community; who actually have a pretty easy time of it given that they are working with what they're given rather than trying to get something different (as is the case with politicians).

Orlanth wrote:
Often this means national debt and thus interest, at other times it means a sudden and harsh cost change elsewhere suddenly occurs with little warning for those who have to cope with it. So even if a project costs the same whether over one year or ten, rushing it costs more indirectly.

My contention would be that either there as in increase in the deficit, and increase in personal cost, or an increase in both. When you're altering the underlying funding of any state program the money has to come from somewhere. In the case of Medicare it is the recipient of benefits, but if it hadn't been them it would have been the state. If the cost adjustment, in this case, would have been extended the state would simply have paid more (provided all other variables are held equal).

In general, the time line of implementation for any program doesn't affect how much is paid, so much as who pays it.

Orlanth wrote:
Like your comments earlier we are agreeing just on a different scale. Every politician has access to the same toolkit, but some stick the screwdriver in harder than others. in the same manner that all men are liars and hypocrites, we still reserve those epithets to those who cross various thresholds. Yes I do believe that some stoop lower than others, and some few are to all intents and purposes honest servants of the people (applying previous caveat about humans and lying/hypocrasy in general).

I suppose the distinction (outside my natural reservations about the word "hypocrite") between our views would be my belief that lying, even when the lies our large ones, does not preclude being a faithful public servant.