Don`t you think lawns with grass on them is kind of stupid.. you have to cut them, they dont really serve a purpose unless your using the space which most people dont.... i think having a garden growing food you can eat which tastes 100 times better than store bought food is way smarter-better than stupid grass. Yes you can turn grass into DMT the most hallucinogenic drug on Earth (you also produce it when you sleep, hence why you have dreams, aka hallucinations at night) but still..
Libertarians are right about many things, just not economics and especially not about "free markets," the role of democratic government in regulating corporations in the public interest or global warming.
@LaughingLefty Dude..you CAN'T be serious. The role of the government is to stay out of peoples way and not make laws and such so they CAN have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
if this would have went to trial, and if this could have become a jury trial, and if that said jury would have actually known what a jury is to do, they would have acquitted this woman and thus nullified a senseless law, rendering it null and void.....it is her property and it is her god given right to nurish her family and herself, actually it is her responsibility...our government has grown to hate self sustainability, because it robs it of it's power to control
@mebake2 OMG you are making to much sense! but really, you are XTREMELY correct. our government has invisible chains tied to all of us and we are trained to think its normal. we need to go back to the old days like my grandparents and their parents when you could accually live your life how you seen fit and if someone had a problem with it, well, thats why we have god given rights to DEFEND OURSELVES i.e. right to bear arms. :))))))
Somebody from Oak Creek needs to take that pig out in the street and set an example for anyone else who thinks they can oppress people that way. I hope he gets brutally ass raped and then drowned in a prison cell toilet.
City planners have "unique" definitions of words that always err on the side of more restrictions and less freedom. And when you challenge them on it by pulling out a dictionary, they get all huffy puffy and refuse to approve your project anyway. I've had clients decide not to open a business because of overzealous bureaucrats and their "unique" definitions. Result = higher unemployment and lower GDP.
I for one think that everyone should replace that worthless grass in their yards with food. Of but that would put the rich and powerful out of business. Seriously grass is such a waste of space, time, and water. Why are we the way we are. Because we have been programed. It is time to wake up now.
@1979john1979 We have grass in our yard, most people do, but a lot of people are going with rocks and I've seen where not just part of a yard but the whole thing is landscaped this way.. I'm all for it, whatever you want in your yard, it is your yard and people should be allowed to do what they want..
I (and so do trial lawyers) love subjective words. I mean what I deem suitable differs from the next person. I may think poison ivy might be a suitable plant (keeps burglars away).
And I've been called a nazi by too many people in this thread for saying it's not an abuse of government to tell this lady she can't have a garden in her front yard.
@DOHC2L Maybe you've been called that so many times because a great many people feel 'very' strongly that government has absolutely no business doing so. The simple truth is that you feel it is appropriate to use the threat of violence, to have men with guns 'force' compliance, for the most penny-ante of reasons. You are perceived by this crowd as sticking a gun to this woman's head because you don't like her front lawn.
@Panpiper I appreciate your candor with me. But it's irrational to believe the threat of law, or law itself, is the same as the threat of violence, or the act of violence itself. Before this lady was threatened by arrest, she was levied with a fine, and before that she was warned multiple times. She has been uncompromising in her defiance of the law. Her unlawful behavior (willful defiance of the law and the warnings) has compelled the situation to where it stands now. Am I not reasonable?
@DOHC2L I disagree; the threat of law most emphatically is the same as the threat of lethal force. If you do not obey some penny-ante regulation, you will be fined. If you fail to pay the fine, men with guns will come to take you away. If you resist those men, they will use violence. If you successfully defend yourself from their violence, they will kill you. Any law is implicitly backed up by this maximum threat, "obey or die".
@Panpiper: You are correct... the state has a "monopoly" on the use of force, and uses that power to undergird its authority to enforce whatever laws it deems appropriate. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master" George Washington, 1st President of the United States.
@GeorgiaBoy1961 "You are correct... the state has a "monopoly" on the use of force"
How do you say the state has a monopoly on the use of force? Does not the Second Amendment guarantee the you the right to bear arms? Isn't bearing arms using force? Or at least the threat of using force? Your argument is rubbish and you are sorely misquoting George Washington, not his words but certainly the sentiment. Remember the fact of the matter is the issue of a municipal ordinance about, gasp, lawns.
@DOHC2L People have a right to defend themselves. People have a right to the means with which to defend themselves. That does not at all imply that people have the right to aggress other people. I am beginning to suspect that you are just trolling. This should be plainly obvious to anyone.
As for what it has to do with the 'state', I submit that the key word in that amendment is the word "free".
@Panpiper At no time have I disrespected you personally sir. Insulting your argument is not the same as insulting you sir. I do not troll. Usually I have to look past personal attacks in order to authentically debate someone, as ideological arguments tend to piss people off. But I prefer to keep my arguments directed at attacking other people's arguments. Sometimes it appears I'm personally attacking someone when actually I'm not, I'm just being poignant.
@DOHC2L Trolling does not necessarily mean insulting people. Trolling is doing whatever it takes to get lots of attention. For most people, those not capable of much sophistication, that usually takes the form of stupid comments and insults. A few, such as I suspected of you, can simply argue a point for no purpose other than to argue, with little or no attempt made to understand the other person's reasoning.
@Panpiper "A few, such as I suspected of you, can simply argue a point for no purpose other than to argue, with little or no attempt made to understand the other person's reasoning."
Have I once tried to characterize your motives? No, I have not. That is disrespectful. But it's what you've done to me. I've characterized your argument, but not you. There is a salient difference between the two. Read back from my first post to you to this one and try to recognize that.
@DOHC2L I stand by my assertion. I suggest you play your games on a logician's forum where people care about the minutia you would structure your debating around.
Second Amendment is a bunch of words written on a piece of paper and open to interpretations, apparently by men who have a lot of firepower at their disposal. Sheep are taught to think that such a piece of paper will grow fangs or a tail (don't ask me, I live in the real world so never made much sense to me) and bite anyone who violates it.
Sheep are satisfied with it and keep telling others how everything is okay.
Is there some sort of requirement to be satisfied before watching ReasonTV? Maybe I have to believe unthinkingly believe everything and (what )everyone at Reason believes? ...to qualify watching anything on ReasonTV?
@utubehayter "Maybe I have to believe unthinkingly believe everything and (what )everyone at Reason believes? ...to qualify watching anything on ReasonTV?"
No, but it should mean you should aspire to argue well-reasoned arguments. That involves laying out the reasons beyond just assertions. That's what I always try to do, so that if you disagree with me at least I've given you my reasoning so you can question that reasoning. Unfortunately it often turns out to people questioning my motives.
No, I am arguing with reason AND reality. Just because 2nd amendment is written on paper, does not mean it is satisfying its much disputed intentions. You think the state is not a monopoly of force? Try disagreeing with it on the second amendment in action (not idle talk as most Reason people seem to do.. talk is cheap). See what happens.
@utubehayter "No, I am arguing with reason AND reality." Really?
Then what the hell does this mean, "Just because 2nd amendment is written on paper, does not mean it is satisfying its much disputed intentions." ?!? Speaking as a logician, what you said is nonsense.
@DOHC2L Excuse me, but you yourself plainly stated that the threat of law was NOT the threat of violence, that therefore it was NOT explicit. Now you tell me that I don't know what I am talking about because the link is plain as day, explicit? It is not me that is absurd.
@Panpiper "Excuse me, but you yourself plainly stated that the threat of law was NOT the threat of violence, that therefore it was NOT explicit. Now you tell me that I don't know what I am talking about because the link is plain as day, explicit? It is not me that is absurd."
Critique your own reasoning to understand that it's irrational. I can't explain exactly how your wrong, it would take a phD in psychology to do that. But you are wrong and using false justification to rationalize it all.
@Panpiper Something implicit is something that's not stated. If you're standing in line, it's implicit which order you are in... if your next in line or third in line or last in line. You don't have to announce it. The prices in the store are explicit, they are not implicit. Law is explicit, it's never implicit.
In philosophy, if something is associated with it's opposite, the association is said to be absurd. Your arguments are absurd, this isn't personal. Learn from the mistake. Cheers
@pf91rodman She faced 90+ days in jail, she was not put in jail at all. There is no way that she could have been found guilty as, when you define "suitable" (in a dictionary and not a crazy man's head) it is clear the a veggie garden is with the ordnance of the city.
this is sad. the article at 00:54 states there were charges for failing to license her dogs. wtf people?! the dog is NOT the government's property!!!!!!
@thegreatlordkaiser Yes, a dog is not government property and licensing a dog does not make it government property. Nor does the licenses required for a house make that house a government property. Dog licenses are really about making sure all dog get there rabies shots, cause pet dog do in fact bit people and if they contracted rabies they would be a public danger. You might not like it, but it has nothing to do with "government's property".
Actually the law does not imprison the dog. It is about ownership of the part of life of the owner. If I can tell you how you can dress, then I don't own the dress .. I own you. Your dress may be vulgar, indecent or be a public danger.. but that is not the point. The failure of govts to protect people against rabid dogs is failure of the govt. They want to suppress evidence of their impotency, i.e. instances of their failure by forcing more and more controls on you.
@utubehayter ya, the law does imprison dogs, it is called the pound... The government does not own you because it resticts some action, cause there is no reason you can't replace "where a dress...therefor they own you" with "raping someone... therefor they own you", both restrict your action, right? So, both are "owning you", right? The government is very effective at protecting people against rabid dogs and they do it via requiring owners to license their dogs. You logic is very poor.
@utubehayter "Actually the law does not imprison the dog. It is about ownership of the part of life of the owner."
Your argument is irrational. It's absurd to argument to parts of a whole. Either it is owned or it's not owned. There is no such thing as owning part of something, unless you are referring specifically to a time-share, which is considered a lease in property law. Know that you are just rationalizing your arguments, they're not real arguments of law or legal statute.
If you cannot understand it. Say so. Labeling something Z does not make it Z. FYI, you wouldn't know logic, if logic became a rabid bureaucrat and bit you.
Yes, I am saying govt is claiming ownership over you, when it asserts control over any part of your life against your will, including your right to your property, dog or otherwise, (even if it is or could be a rabid one).
@utubehayter That's why I explained my reasoning. I understand how your argument was (is) irrational. You're accusing me of only making the claim your argument is irrational, but your failing to recognize everything else I said after I said "Your argument is irrational." I laid it all out... the 'Z does not make it Z' isn't a rational justification of your objection... it's just a snide denial meant to look smart.
Good point. Let's also recall that "legal definitions" are quite different from common definitions, that's why they have their very own dictionary, Black's Legal. It certainly is a favored trick for them to play the old dictionary switching trick.
The video obfuscates the issue when it cites a liberal definition of 'suitable' because the context is turned 180degrees from what is defined as suitable for a yard to what is defined as suitable for land. Clearly growing vegitables is suitable for land, but clearly it's not suitable for a 'front yard.' Address this before you attack me for being a nazi just because I defend this one meager little law... GEEZ.
@DOHC2L "Clearly" it is not suitable? It is clearly to me, none of your BLEEPING business. Clearly you too feel it is somehow your business to micromanage your nose into other people's lives and feel quite happy about other people doing the same. It is her land, her property, her life. But because her lawn looks different than most others, because it might cause you a moment's notice, you feel it appropriate to force, yes at gun point, a massive change in her life?
@DOHC2L The government is not there to protect us from ourselves or from consequences brought about by our actions, that's the same as saying that slavery was for the benefit of the slaves, to protect them from themselves.
@Celebrian666 Your analogy is irrational. I'm not suprised seeing how you have '666' in your screen-name, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Get lost
@DOHC2L get lost...? because of my screen name...very mature. You expect people to take you seriously when you disregard others due to a screen name, pretentious much. It's not the governments job to protect us from every little 'what if'. You know it's really dangerous out there in the world, maybe you should stay inside with every possible entrance locked and barred.
@DOHC2L I think your totally missing the point, this is america, we're supposed to have freedom here, having garden police is NOT freedom, its a sign that the government has gone totally insane, you simply cant see the forest for the trees, talking about how a garden isnt lawfull, when the real point is that you should be able to have a garden if you want without government intervention, or have you come to love your enslavers to the point you refuse to question them???
@duanescot Do not lecture me. Stop insulting me. Quit portraying me as ignorant. Don't mischaracterize me. Do not stereotype my beliefs. Quit disrespecting me. And stop behaving immaturely. Are you unable to engage in a rational debate? I challenge you to engage me in an authentic debate. I'm not stupid, don't waste my time with weak arguments or bother me with irrelevant assertions. Now tell me, what gives you the right to plant a garden in your front yard?
@DOHC2L I was following this debate about a week ago, and although I haven't read every comment, it seems to me you have been a voice of moderate and rational discussion, while your opponents have behaved in a juvenile and sensationalist manner.
You have been mischaracterised, insulted, and disrespected, and I want you to know that other readers can see this.
I wouldn't waste any more time on these children, they obviously have their minds made up and no amount of logic will change that.
"Having money" also encourages theft. We should ban "having money".
"Being alive" also makes us susceptible to murder. We should ban "being alive". And if you don't agree with a bureaucrat trying to ban "being alive", then you must really want people to be murdered! ;)
@utubehayter "Having money" is not an avoidable act, we must "have money" in order to survive, as a matter of commerce. Leaving your keys in your car is an avoidable act that has no negative consequence to your life. That's why your analogy is false.
@utubehayter Sorry, I thought I had made that analogy with you. I'm comparing your analogy with the analogy I had used earlier to someone else. The analogy is that it's illegal to leave your keys in the car in most cities because it encourages theft. Likewise, having a garden in your front yard encourages theft because food is valuable to people... especially poor people. Eventually it will invite theft or at least encourage it. That's why the analogy I used holds whereas yours does not.
@DOHC2L oh so the gardener is the one creating thieves, im not following your logic here, does that mean If i have expensive stuff in my home, things a theif would want, Im creating crime?
@duanescot I had made the analogy to laws against leaving your keys in your car while it's unattended. Leaving your keys in your car invites someone to steal your car. The difference is that you don't have to leave your keys in your car, it's not a necessary part of life. That law makes sense because it doesn't infringe on your liberty, but it does restrict your action doesn't it? It's not an infringement of your rights if your city restricts gardens to backyards to deter the chance of theft.
@duanescot (following up from my previous reply)... So the analogy you used of having expensive stuff in your home doesn't hold... because there's not a ~better~ or, in better words, there's not a more suitable way for you to store your stuff.
If you stored your valuables in your front yard, that would invite criminals to steal that property. Thus the analogy doesn't hold because you're analogizing to things that are suitable (keeping expensive stuff in your home) in comparison to this issue.
Reason TV, we expect you to be reasonable. It's not unreasonable for city's to have codes restricting what people can plant in their front yards. Quit presenting this case as a case of government restricting people's ability to garden. It's about what's decent and acceptable as far as aesthetics go. You're taking quite a liberal perspective in framing this issue as a rights issue or property rights issue when this is clearly just a matter of city codes with respect to yard maintenance, duh.
Yes, because an arbitrary, ill-defined system of city codes that ensures you can go to jail for the victimless crime of planting vegetables in your front yard is not a rights issue at all. I really hope you were being sarcastic.
@LunaticFringe20 "...an arbitrary, ill-defined system of city codes..."
Those assertions are nonsense. Those points have been argued, the city code is not arbitrary, nor is it ill-defined. You've simply precluded that ikt's ill-defined and arbitrary because the story doesn't fit with your beliefs. Don't be naive.
@DOHC2L Really? Then please explain to me how the notion of 'suitable live plant material' can't be arbitrary defined by bureaucrats. Unless there is a massive deconstruction directed towards what constitutes suitable plant material (and judging by the case so far, there isn't) then yes, it is arbitrary. The public response causing it to be thrown out proves that. Throwing a woman in jail for a victimless action she did on her own property is absurdly immoral.
@LunaticFringe20 "Then please explain to me how the notion of 'suitable live plant material' can't be arbitrary defined by bureaucrats."
Watch the video from 0:46 to 0:53, that's a bureaucrat giving a ~reasonable~ argument to exactly your question, or more to the point, his reasonable argument negates the point your question attempts to deny as being possible. This is a matter of semantics about the word 'suitable'. His argument is more than valid, it's cogent. Reason TV all but ignores it.
@DOHC2L hate to break it to you bro, but i just looked it up on websters dictionary and i can't find the word "common" anywhere. you might want to check your facts before restating facts that have already been debunked 0:57 IF ONLY YOU LISTENED INSTEAD OF BEING STUCK ON SPOUTING RUBBISH MODE
"Throwing a woman in jail for a victimless action she did on her own property is absurdly immoral."
When something is associated with it's opposite, the association is said to be absurd. You rationalized the immorality and the absurdity, because the premises from which you argue preclude the possiblity that the action in question is victimless. You aren't arguing reasonable arguments, you're rationalizing.
The ~reason~ codes like this exist is to protect property owners value, it's civics.
@DOHC2L no it's not, it was over zealous bullshit that is why it was throw out of COURT BY A JUDGE, whose opinion i trust more that some pencil neck little dicked nazi civil servant. you come that shit im my suburb you be found hangin from a tree
@superfuzz "...is why it was throw out of COURT BY A JUDGE"
According to the video the case was dropped because of public pressure. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just saying I don't know the specifics beyond this video and another one by Reason TV on this same case. If it were thrown out by a court, then I'd be interested in hearing the cited merits to it.
The video is INCREDIBLY biased in that it does NOT address the legitimate merits of why city's have codes in the first place.
Right because of all those carrot thieves that growing gardens in your front yard attracts. They clearly don't want the nation's garden bandits coming to this small town!
@chronDiggity "Right because of all those carrot thieves..."
It's analogous to why there are laws making it illegal for you to leave your keys in your car while you're not in it. It encourages theft. Anything of value (and you can't argue food isn't valuable, that would be absurd) is considered vulnerable to theft. It's not the specifics of the matter, it's the principle. Without city codes regulating what's acceptable for a front yard anyone could just park their cars on their front yards.
There's a difference between a car and some vegetables. I can't imagine being able to take veggies somewhere and make a quick couple of grand for their parts hehe
Why don't they ban the pink flamingos, garden gnomes, sprinklers, and bird baths, ALL of which are more valuable than vegetables? This has NOTHING to do with theft, you bozo. It has to do with some nosy prick telling people their front yard is ugly.
Your comment about parking cars on yards shows you don't have a clue.
@chronDiggity "Why don't they ban the pink flamingos, garden gnomes, sprinklers, and bird baths"
Some cities do have codes against those things, some don't. It's not a blanket law, it's city code. In Texas right now, I can't water my lawn during the day.... EVEN THOUGH ITS MY LAND. I don't have a "right" to use my front yard however I wish... that's why codes exist, to prevent people from doing tacky things that ruin the property values of their neighbors. There are ~reasons~ for such laws.
Which cities don't allow garden gnomes or bird baths in front yards? Name one.
As far as watering your lawn, that has to do with drought and sharing water with your community. If you're on a well, then you have to be mindful of the water table you and your neighbors access during a drought. That's a shared resource, you know this.
Your ~reasons~ surmount to nothing more than people abusing power. You think a pink flamingo has a serious effect on property value? Where!?
@chronDiggity It's not the specifics, it's the principle. City ordinances protect homeowners property values by insisting some level of uniformity, ie code. That's how it is, live with the fact that it's improper to plant a vegtible garden in your front yard, but the government isn't saying don't have a garden in your back yard is it? For real, you and I have gotten into this heated debate over whether or not it's abusive for government to enforce an ordinance over a garden in a front yard...
Cmon man, you're making stuff up to make a point. The 99% stat, the banning of gnomes, you just made this up.
Anyways, you believe city ordinances PROTECT homeowners, but isn't it possible that some ordinances are designed to treat people as income sources for the state? That's our main point. Not everyone in government is GOOD lol
And what if this woman didn't have room in her back yard? Could she set up some structure at the very front and call anything behind THAT her back yard?
Before amalgamation with the city of Ottawa, the city of Kanata most certainly did not allow garden gnomes or other lawn ornaments. They literally had a list of paint colours that were acceptable to paint the front door and garage door. And it didn't stop at the front yard, clotheslines were banned in the back yards, as they were deemed unsightly for neighbours.
Not sayin' it's right, in fact it seems pretty stupid to me, I'm just saying it does happen it does happen
@chronDiggity "Your comment about parking cars on yards shows you don't have a clue."
HOW?!? It's a cheap shot to make a claim like that but not give a sufficient reason behind making the accusation. I explain reasons behind every assertion I make, you didn't understand the analogy, but how does that translate into evidence I don't understand the issue? No. That's an irrational statement you make, because you just make the accusation but provide no reasons. That's shameless.
Well you see, Einstein, these comments sections only give us 500 characters to make our point.
I say you don't have a clue because who THE FUCK are YOU to tell anyone they can't park their car on property THEY OWN!?
Private property principal goes right out the door with "progressives" like you you just want to use the government to force any old thing they can think of.
BTW, notice how in 500 characters you couldn't refute my points AND bitch about my last statement? ;)
@chronDiggity "Private property principal goes right out the door with "progressives" like you you just want to use the government to force any old thing they can think of."
I'm not a progressive, I'm a conservative. I'm arguing conservative, normative, civics. And you can't park your car on your front yard in 99% of the cities in the United States... all by city code ordinances. Recognize that you're arguing against the entire concept of municipal law, and their legitimacy therein.
I consider anyone who uses the government to force their ideals onto other people as progressive. Being a conservative definitely doesn't give you a pass. You guys can be worse than liberals.
You just made up that 99% figure. You just keep making up shit. The CITIES that do this are trying to avoid over-crowded homes, and people turning their yards into parking lots during major events. If anything, I'd say 99% ALLOW you to, with it less often being banned.
@chronDiggity "I consider anyone who uses the government to force their ideals"
Please read my profile written on my channel. Didn't this disagreement involve semantics over the term 'suitable'. That's quite a stretch from that to forcing ideals. Nobody's forcing ideals on anyone, it's whether or not it's suitable to use a front yard to plant vegetables. So I'm arguing the slippery-slope argument when I make the analogy to parking on your front yard, well that's not suitable either is my point.
The guy gave a completely wrong definition of suitable, and used that definition to justify throwing a woman in jail for growing legal plants on her property.
My opinion of what makes someone a progressive has NOTHING to do with our argument. If you feel I called you one in error, that doesn't make your point any more valid. I even said "I consider anyone" so I'm not here to argue semantics over that.
Your point is and has been that city counsel should be able to pass horrible laws.
Really? So you didn't make up the fact that 99% of cities ban parking on your front lawn? You didn't just think 99% was a number that was good enough, and not one that actually reflects reality?
Someone else had to chime in about how Kanata once banned gnomes and things, but even then that's not a current example. You said cities ban these things, but couldn't name a single city.
Remember when that republican said abortion was 90% of what planned parenthood did? Thats like you lol
Whoa, it`s true regarding the garden gnomes, but there are still codes in existence. Under amalgamation, parking on your front lawn is certainly banned, as it is here in the greater Toronto area, and every other city in the province. Parking Pads are part of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, and I think it is a fair bet that is would be the same in most of North America. Don`t know about 99%, but it is fair to say "most'
@chronDiggity "I say you don't have a clue because who THE FUCK are YOU to tell anyone they can't park their car on property THEY OWN!?"
This is basic civics... I DON'T have the legal authority to do anything when it comes to what my neighbor does with his property. But there are many things he can do to his property which is unappealing to the neighborhood. Those unappealing things consists of keeping an unkept lawn to not maintaining the house itself. That's why city ordinances exist...DUH!
You don't understand. City ordinances are intended to address issues of local concerns only. They aren't laws that are passed down from the federal or state, they are made by a city council. They can be as idiotic as this because it's corruption at this level is such much easier. Just look at DC's city counsel. They make news constantly.
Not all laws they pass are meant to protect people. They could just as easily be designed to treat people as income sources for the state.
@chronDiggity No, you don't understand. I don't disagree with the fact that city ordinances can be abusive and, like say the Washington DC or Chicago gun-bans, are UN-Constitutional. Don't take my defense of one meager ordinance as a wholesale endorsement of a fascist position. Everything about your reply says to me I am an extremist, and that is not so. You seem to think I'm not capable of being rational in my beliefs, that's because you're arguing against your (false) characterization of me!
@DOHC2L I'm not going to continue this debate because you just seem to dive in doublespeak every chance you get. But if you honestly don't see anything immoral with throwing someone in a cage for this then you're really not the kind of person I want to discuss things with anyway.
@LunaticFringe20 "I'm not going to continue this debate because you..."
So basically you just had to declare yourself better than me, so why even say anything? Why not just end the debate then and not post anything? Like I'll do starting ... now.
@DOHC2L Based on your logic, it was totally acceptable for cities and subdivisions to enforce segregation. After all, one black family could dramatically slash the value of the properties in a given neighborhood back in the day. And many whites found them to be not very aesthetically pleasing. And it does not matter whether a law comes in the form of a federal regulation, a state law, or a city code, if they dictate what you can and cannot do with your property, than it is an issue of rights.
Don`t you think lawns with grass on them is kind of stupid.. you have to cut them, they dont really serve a purpose unless your using the space which most people dont.... i think having a garden growing food you can eat which tastes 100 times better than store bought food is way smarter-better than stupid grass. Yes you can turn grass into DMT the most hallucinogenic drug on Earth (you also produce it when you sleep, hence why you have dreams, aka hallucinations at night) but still..
Hemptastic47 4 months ago
yea his definition of suitable is for a slave state of mind. america the free to do what we tell you.
2late4thisshat 6 months ago
6 people only have 2 functioning braincells
johammbass 6 months ago
Its suitable for a society about to face starvation due to poverty.
7Hook 6 months ago
having a huge swath of grass in front of your house that never gets any use is in most of the usa an awful waist of precious water.
angrywhenroused 6 months ago 2
Libertarians are right about many things, just not economics and especially not about "free markets," the role of democratic government in regulating corporations in the public interest or global warming.
LaughingLefty 6 months ago
@LaughingLefty Dude..you CAN'T be serious. The role of the government is to stay out of peoples way and not make laws and such so they CAN have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
machineaow 6 months ago
@LaughingLefty The U.S. is not a "democratic government" it is a "Constitutional Republic!" Well, at least it's supposed to be!
MrWatchdawg77 5 months ago
George Washington is rolling in his grave... Remember this you government lovers, power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Skunkdynamite 6 months ago
if this would have went to trial, and if this could have become a jury trial, and if that said jury would have actually known what a jury is to do, they would have acquitted this woman and thus nullified a senseless law, rendering it null and void.....it is her property and it is her god given right to nurish her family and herself, actually it is her responsibility...our government has grown to hate self sustainability, because it robs it of it's power to control
mebake2 6 months ago
@mebake2 OMG you are making to much sense! but really, you are XTREMELY correct. our government has invisible chains tied to all of us and we are trained to think its normal. we need to go back to the old days like my grandparents and their parents when you could accually live your life how you seen fit and if someone had a problem with it, well, thats why we have god given rights to DEFEND OURSELVES i.e. right to bear arms. :))))))
2late4thisshat 6 months ago
Somebody from Oak Creek needs to take that pig out in the street and set an example for anyone else who thinks they can oppress people that way. I hope he gets brutally ass raped and then drowned in a prison cell toilet.
milkman52879 6 months ago
Great news for Julie Bass!
Platewarp 6 months ago
someone waterboard that commie fuck
HangProgressives 6 months ago
If Obama gets another 4 years, we'll ALL have to plant gardens, just to feed ourselves.
TheHireTheBetter 6 months ago 4
FUCK THAT BITCH ASS NIGGER SOMEONE GO FUCKIN PLANT SOME TALL ASS CORN FIELDS ON HIS FRONT YARD SO BODY CAN SEE THIS FUCK
robertha 6 months ago
i don't think it's OK to walk with your pants down it;s disgusting and should be banned.
daabaa1 6 months ago
@daabaa1
Then go move somewhere that doesn't permit freedom of expression. You would LOVE Iran!
milkman52879 6 months ago
Green grass lawns that we see ALL over America are responsible for 70% of our FRESH water usage..70% OF OUR DRINKING WATER IS USED TO WATER LAWNS
HELP US. HELP US. HELP US!!!
420xwaytoomanyx420 6 months ago
City planners have "unique" definitions of words that always err on the side of more restrictions and less freedom. And when you challenge them on it by pulling out a dictionary, they get all huffy puffy and refuse to approve your project anyway. I've had clients decide not to open a business because of overzealous bureaucrats and their "unique" definitions. Result = higher unemployment and lower GDP.
CaliforniaArchitect 6 months ago 3
And if you don't like the view in a certain direction just turn your damn head. You don't have to look at people. GROW THE FUCK UP!
1979john1979 6 months ago
I for one think that everyone should replace that worthless grass in their yards with food. Of but that would put the rich and powerful out of business. Seriously grass is such a waste of space, time, and water. Why are we the way we are. Because we have been programed. It is time to wake up now.
1979john1979 6 months ago
@1979john1979 We have grass in our yard, most people do, but a lot of people are going with rocks and I've seen where not just part of a yard but the whole thing is landscaped this way.. I'm all for it, whatever you want in your yard, it is your yard and people should be allowed to do what they want..
Stutch13 6 months ago 12
Wasn't Oak Park the city who wanted to waste money on a light rail when it already has one?
bittergunowner12 6 months ago
He probably has a dicKtionary...
RockTheOcean4me 6 months ago
Next thing people will want to have chickens and eat unapproved eggs!
ArtStone 6 months ago 3
@ArtStone Yeah funny thats why there's a ecoli or saminilla out break evry month the FDA is crap!
1979john1979 6 months ago
We shouldn't have the position of city planning in any city.
MooseOfReason 6 months ago 2
@mictheorist ya, stupid whores
Grevlo 6 months ago
3 people are busy bodies minding your own business.
9971explorer 6 months ago 3
You know what would be suitable? Kicking his mother fucking ass
s0beit 6 months ago 44
That idiot needs to look up idiot in the dictionary.
Yoshiisland1 6 months ago 2
I don't think he is suitable to be a councilman based on this action.... hahaha.
gonzhornet 6 months ago 2
wow, that guy rulkowski sounds like a cunt
MrDarknessandDeath 6 months ago 4
people who wear their pants below their asses should be beaten in public
Grevlo 7 months ago
unbelievable
saxmanmax 7 months ago
I (and so do trial lawyers) love subjective words. I mean what I deem suitable differs from the next person. I may think poison ivy might be a suitable plant (keeps burglars away).
MRLarkin 7 months ago
at least shitbags backed up...
Oh It would be healthy to hang one or another - the rest would think twice before violating people's rights.
Look at China - it's doable :-P
grraadd 7 months ago
punch him in the face!
audioblogs12 7 months ago
Look at all those disgraceful raw and unregulated vegetables. Makes me sick. The USDA will be all over her next!
chuckarama451 7 months ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it legal to just wear boxers and no jeans at all? If so why the hell should sagging be illegal?
FatherTime89 7 months ago
This should be called Totalitarian of the month.
Confederalist 7 months ago
Dont insult shit by comparing it to that guy. Shit has a purpose for plants.
darkwhitedirewolf 7 months ago
And I've been called a nazi by too many people in this thread for saying it's not an abuse of government to tell this lady she can't have a garden in her front yard.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L Maybe you've been called that so many times because a great many people feel 'very' strongly that government has absolutely no business doing so. The simple truth is that you feel it is appropriate to use the threat of violence, to have men with guns 'force' compliance, for the most penny-ante of reasons. You are perceived by this crowd as sticking a gun to this woman's head because you don't like her front lawn.
Panpiper 7 months ago
@Panpiper I appreciate your candor with me. But it's irrational to believe the threat of law, or law itself, is the same as the threat of violence, or the act of violence itself. Before this lady was threatened by arrest, she was levied with a fine, and before that she was warned multiple times. She has been uncompromising in her defiance of the law. Her unlawful behavior (willful defiance of the law and the warnings) has compelled the situation to where it stands now. Am I not reasonable?
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L I disagree; the threat of law most emphatically is the same as the threat of lethal force. If you do not obey some penny-ante regulation, you will be fined. If you fail to pay the fine, men with guns will come to take you away. If you resist those men, they will use violence. If you successfully defend yourself from their violence, they will kill you. Any law is implicitly backed up by this maximum threat, "obey or die".
Panpiper 7 months ago
@Panpiper: You are correct... the state has a "monopoly" on the use of force, and uses that power to undergird its authority to enforce whatever laws it deems appropriate. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master" George Washington, 1st President of the United States.
GeorgiaBoy1961 7 months ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 "You are correct... the state has a "monopoly" on the use of force"
How do you say the state has a monopoly on the use of force? Does not the Second Amendment guarantee the you the right to bear arms? Isn't bearing arms using force? Or at least the threat of using force? Your argument is rubbish and you are sorely misquoting George Washington, not his words but certainly the sentiment. Remember the fact of the matter is the issue of a municipal ordinance about, gasp, lawns.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L The state has a monopoly on the right to "initiate" the use of force.
Panpiper 7 months ago
Comment removed
DOHC2L 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Panpiper "The state has a monopoly on the right to "initiate" the use of force."
Again, then explain how the Second Amendment works? You can't. You're arguing a false argument.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L People have a right to defend themselves. People have a right to the means with which to defend themselves. That does not at all imply that people have the right to aggress other people. I am beginning to suspect that you are just trolling. This should be plainly obvious to anyone.
As for what it has to do with the 'state', I submit that the key word in that amendment is the word "free".
Panpiper 7 months ago
@Panpiper At no time have I disrespected you personally sir. Insulting your argument is not the same as insulting you sir. I do not troll. Usually I have to look past personal attacks in order to authentically debate someone, as ideological arguments tend to piss people off. But I prefer to keep my arguments directed at attacking other people's arguments. Sometimes it appears I'm personally attacking someone when actually I'm not, I'm just being poignant.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L Trolling does not necessarily mean insulting people. Trolling is doing whatever it takes to get lots of attention. For most people, those not capable of much sophistication, that usually takes the form of stupid comments and insults. A few, such as I suspected of you, can simply argue a point for no purpose other than to argue, with little or no attempt made to understand the other person's reasoning.
Panpiper 7 months ago
@Panpiper "A few, such as I suspected of you, can simply argue a point for no purpose other than to argue, with little or no attempt made to understand the other person's reasoning."
Have I once tried to characterize your motives? No, I have not. That is disrespectful. But it's what you've done to me. I've characterized your argument, but not you. There is a salient difference between the two. Read back from my first post to you to this one and try to recognize that.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L I stand by my assertion. I suggest you play your games on a logician's forum where people care about the minutia you would structure your debating around.
I have better things to do.
Panpiper 7 months ago
@Panpiper "This should be plainly obvious to anyone."
The reasons why your wrong are different from the reasons why I'm right.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Second Amendment is a bunch of words written on a piece of paper and open to interpretations, apparently by men who have a lot of firepower at their disposal. Sheep are taught to think that such a piece of paper will grow fangs or a tail (don't ask me, I live in the real world so never made much sense to me) and bite anyone who violates it.
Sheep are satisfied with it and keep telling others how everything is okay.
utubehayter 7 months ago
@utubehayter If you believe that then why are you watching a video from 'ReasonTV'?
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Is there some sort of requirement to be satisfied before watching ReasonTV? Maybe I have to believe unthinkingly believe everything and (what )everyone at Reason believes? ...to qualify watching anything on ReasonTV?
utubehayter 7 months ago
@utubehayter "Maybe I have to believe unthinkingly believe everything and (what )everyone at Reason believes? ...to qualify watching anything on ReasonTV?"
No, but it should mean you should aspire to argue well-reasoned arguments. That involves laying out the reasons beyond just assertions. That's what I always try to do, so that if you disagree with me at least I've given you my reasoning so you can question that reasoning. Unfortunately it often turns out to people questioning my motives.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
No, I am arguing with reason AND reality. Just because 2nd amendment is written on paper, does not mean it is satisfying its much disputed intentions. You think the state is not a monopoly of force? Try disagreeing with it on the second amendment in action (not idle talk as most Reason people seem to do.. talk is cheap). See what happens.
utubehayter 7 months ago
@utubehayter "No, I am arguing with reason AND reality." Really?
Then what the hell does this mean, "Just because 2nd amendment is written on paper, does not mean it is satisfying its much disputed intentions." ?!? Speaking as a logician, what you said is nonsense.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Yes it is!.. again, just because you said it, so it must be so.
utubehayter 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Yes it is!.. again, just because you said it, so it must be so.
utubehayter 7 months ago
@Panpiper "Any law is implicitly backed up"
"If you do not obey some penny-ante regulation, you will be fined." That's explicit.
"If you fail to pay the fine, men with guns will come to take you away." That's explicit.
"If you resist those men, they will use violence." That's explicit.
"If you successfully defend yourself from their violence, they will kill you." That's explicit.
You don't know what you're talking about. Your arguments are absurd. (go read a definition for absurd).
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L Excuse me, but you yourself plainly stated that the threat of law was NOT the threat of violence, that therefore it was NOT explicit. Now you tell me that I don't know what I am talking about because the link is plain as day, explicit? It is not me that is absurd.
Panpiper 7 months ago
@Panpiper "Excuse me, but you yourself plainly stated that the threat of law was NOT the threat of violence, that therefore it was NOT explicit. Now you tell me that I don't know what I am talking about because the link is plain as day, explicit? It is not me that is absurd."
Critique your own reasoning to understand that it's irrational. I can't explain exactly how your wrong, it would take a phD in psychology to do that. But you are wrong and using false justification to rationalize it all.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@Panpiper Something implicit is something that's not stated. If you're standing in line, it's implicit which order you are in... if your next in line or third in line or last in line. You don't have to announce it. The prices in the store are explicit, they are not implicit. Law is explicit, it's never implicit.
In philosophy, if something is associated with it's opposite, the association is said to be absurd. Your arguments are absurd, this isn't personal. Learn from the mistake. Cheers
DOHC2L 7 months ago
0:54 "The Detroit News"
well there you go.
Emidretrauqe 7 months ago
He needs to be beaten to death with a dictionary.
richardcadbury 7 months ago 51
@richardcadbury
There isn't a dictionary detailed enough for that job. :)
utubehayter 7 months ago
Kevin Rulkowski is a sack of shit.
luc649 7 months ago
how about this...LET US DO WHATEVER THE HELL WE WANT WITH THE PROPERTY THAT WE OWN!!!!
shadowlurker816 7 months ago
aw I want to be a nanny of the month. Looks a good way of pissing people off.
mansson111 7 months ago
@mansson111 If that fails you can always join the Westboro Baptist Church
FatherTime89 7 months ago
I hope that woman got compensated for that 90 something days of jail
pf91rodman 7 months ago
@pf91rodman She faced 90+ days in jail, she was not put in jail at all. There is no way that she could have been found guilty as, when you define "suitable" (in a dictionary and not a crazy man's head) it is clear the a veggie garden is with the ordnance of the city.
Loathomar 7 months ago
When I read the top comment here, I thought "Surely that's unnecessarily harsh".
Now that I've watched the video, I'm just as enraged by his stupidity.
Jotto999 7 months ago
this is sad. the article at 00:54 states there were charges for failing to license her dogs. wtf people?! the dog is NOT the government's property!!!!!!
thegreatlordkaiser 7 months ago
@thegreatlordkaiser Yes, a dog is not government property and licensing a dog does not make it government property. Nor does the licenses required for a house make that house a government property. Dog licenses are really about making sure all dog get there rabies shots, cause pet dog do in fact bit people and if they contracted rabies they would be a public danger. You might not like it, but it has nothing to do with "government's property".
Loathomar 7 months ago
@Loathomar
Actually the law does not imprison the dog. It is about ownership of the part of life of the owner. If I can tell you how you can dress, then I don't own the dress .. I own you. Your dress may be vulgar, indecent or be a public danger.. but that is not the point. The failure of govts to protect people against rabid dogs is failure of the govt. They want to suppress evidence of their impotency, i.e. instances of their failure by forcing more and more controls on you.
utubehayter 7 months ago
@utubehayter ya, the law does imprison dogs, it is called the pound... The government does not own you because it resticts some action, cause there is no reason you can't replace "where a dress...therefor they own you" with "raping someone... therefor they own you", both restrict your action, right? So, both are "owning you", right? The government is very effective at protecting people against rabid dogs and they do it via requiring owners to license their dogs. You logic is very poor.
Loathomar 7 months ago
@Loathomar You sir, know logic very well.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@utubehayter "Actually the law does not imprison the dog. It is about ownership of the part of life of the owner."
Your argument is irrational. It's absurd to argument to parts of a whole. Either it is owned or it's not owned. There is no such thing as owning part of something, unless you are referring specifically to a time-share, which is considered a lease in property law. Know that you are just rationalizing your arguments, they're not real arguments of law or legal statute.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
"Your argument is irrational"
If you cannot understand it. Say so. Labeling something Z does not make it Z. FYI, you wouldn't know logic, if logic became a rabid bureaucrat and bit you.
Yes, I am saying govt is claiming ownership over you, when it asserts control over any part of your life against your will, including your right to your property, dog or otherwise, (even if it is or could be a rabid one).
utubehayter 7 months ago
@utubehayter That's why I explained my reasoning. I understand how your argument was (is) irrational. You're accusing me of only making the claim your argument is irrational, but your failing to recognize everything else I said after I said "Your argument is irrational." I laid it all out... the 'Z does not make it Z' isn't a rational justification of your objection... it's just a snide denial meant to look smart.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
That guy's a douche. :/
KatharsisAmok 7 months ago
This man would have made a great Nazi. Rigid, by the book rule followers!!! Thats what a society needs.
eirefrance 7 months ago
What an asshole....
Xenthoid 7 months ago
I don't know how that person can make that argument? When the fuck did Merriam Webster gain governing powers?!
"Look up the definition..." is not the bases of any governing system, it's an etymological one.
PerfectionObsessive 7 months ago 24
@PerfectionObsessive
Good point. Let's also recall that "legal definitions" are quite different from common definitions, that's why they have their very own dictionary, Black's Legal. It certainly is a favored trick for them to play the old dictionary switching trick.
OhNoyate 7 months ago
WE MUST BAN POISON IVY RIGHT NOW!!!!!
I hate that evil plant.
GunOwnerDan 7 months ago
I hate gnomes. Maybe I should ban them.
TravistheHuman 7 months ago
One dislike? They must have missed the like button.
bttalbot 7 months ago
@bttalbot that was Kevin from oak park Michigan.
nogivenogets1 7 months ago 2
The video in collinsville was filmed in the north gate housing projects, full of nigger scum
docwondernuts 7 months ago
@docwondernuts
Oh that explains why they aren't allowed to have gardens
lol wtf? moron...
chronDiggity 7 months ago 2
The video obfuscates the issue when it cites a liberal definition of 'suitable' because the context is turned 180degrees from what is defined as suitable for a yard to what is defined as suitable for land. Clearly growing vegitables is suitable for land, but clearly it's not suitable for a 'front yard.' Address this before you attack me for being a nazi just because I defend this one meager little law... GEEZ.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L I don't think it's clear at all that a garden in your front yard is "unsuitable."
weablez 7 months ago
@DOHC2L "Clearly" it is not suitable? It is clearly to me, none of your BLEEPING business. Clearly you too feel it is somehow your business to micromanage your nose into other people's lives and feel quite happy about other people doing the same. It is her land, her property, her life. But because her lawn looks different than most others, because it might cause you a moment's notice, you feel it appropriate to force, yes at gun point, a massive change in her life?
Panpiper 7 months ago
Next they will sick the FDA on here because of her walnut tree.
TheStrazy 7 months ago
This city planner should be put to prison.
newyorkairsoft 7 months ago
The problem with government is that it is used as a bludgeon to take freedom away from individuals instead of protecting it.
Government is primitive. There are more effective and non-violent ways of dealing with disputes.
The greatest trick government ever pulled was persuading people that it is necessary.
RodCornholio 7 months ago
America. It was nice while it lasted.
carcabe 7 months ago
"Tonight on 60 Minutes, Are Gardens the ultimate evil?"
adulby 7 months ago
mr wikowski deserves a kick in the nuts, whats wrong with a garden ANYWHERE??
duanescot 7 months ago
@duanescot "whats wrong with a garden ANYWHERE??"
Having a garden in your front yard encourages theft, whereas a garden in your backyard does not.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L The government is not there to protect us from ourselves or from consequences brought about by our actions, that's the same as saying that slavery was for the benefit of the slaves, to protect them from themselves.
Celebrian666 7 months ago
@Celebrian666 Your analogy is irrational. I'm not suprised seeing how you have '666' in your screen-name, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Get lost
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L get lost...? because of my screen name...very mature. You expect people to take you seriously when you disregard others due to a screen name, pretentious much. It's not the governments job to protect us from every little 'what if'. You know it's really dangerous out there in the world, maybe you should stay inside with every possible entrance locked and barred.
Celebrian666 7 months ago
@DOHC2L I think your totally missing the point, this is america, we're supposed to have freedom here, having garden police is NOT freedom, its a sign that the government has gone totally insane, you simply cant see the forest for the trees, talking about how a garden isnt lawfull, when the real point is that you should be able to have a garden if you want without government intervention, or have you come to love your enslavers to the point you refuse to question them???
duanescot 6 months ago
@duanescot Do not lecture me. Stop insulting me. Quit portraying me as ignorant. Don't mischaracterize me. Do not stereotype my beliefs. Quit disrespecting me. And stop behaving immaturely. Are you unable to engage in a rational debate? I challenge you to engage me in an authentic debate. I'm not stupid, don't waste my time with weak arguments or bother me with irrelevant assertions. Now tell me, what gives you the right to plant a garden in your front yard?
DOHC2L 6 months ago
@DOHC2L I was following this debate about a week ago, and although I haven't read every comment, it seems to me you have been a voice of moderate and rational discussion, while your opponents have behaved in a juvenile and sensationalist manner.
You have been mischaracterised, insulted, and disrespected, and I want you to know that other readers can see this.
I wouldn't waste any more time on these children, they obviously have their minds made up and no amount of logic will change that.
psteverific 6 months ago
@psteverific Thank you. I appreciate your kind words.
DOHC2L 6 months ago
@DOHC2L
"Having money" also encourages theft. We should ban "having money".
"Being alive" also makes us susceptible to murder. We should ban "being alive". And if you don't agree with a bureaucrat trying to ban "being alive", then you must really want people to be murdered! ;)
utubehayter 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@utubehayter " "Having money" also encourages theft. We should ban "having money". "
That's false analogy.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Yes, it is.. just because you say so.
utubehayter 7 months ago
@utubehayter "Having money" is not an avoidable act, we must "have money" in order to survive, as a matter of commerce. Leaving your keys in your car is an avoidable act that has no negative consequence to your life. That's why your analogy is false.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@utubehayter Sorry, I thought I had made that analogy with you. I'm comparing your analogy with the analogy I had used earlier to someone else. The analogy is that it's illegal to leave your keys in the car in most cities because it encourages theft. Likewise, having a garden in your front yard encourages theft because food is valuable to people... especially poor people. Eventually it will invite theft or at least encourage it. That's why the analogy I used holds whereas yours does not.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L oh so the gardener is the one creating thieves, im not following your logic here, does that mean If i have expensive stuff in my home, things a theif would want, Im creating crime?
duanescot 6 months ago
@duanescot I had made the analogy to laws against leaving your keys in your car while it's unattended. Leaving your keys in your car invites someone to steal your car. The difference is that you don't have to leave your keys in your car, it's not a necessary part of life. That law makes sense because it doesn't infringe on your liberty, but it does restrict your action doesn't it? It's not an infringement of your rights if your city restricts gardens to backyards to deter the chance of theft.
DOHC2L 6 months ago
@duanescot (following up from my previous reply)... So the analogy you used of having expensive stuff in your home doesn't hold... because there's not a ~better~ or, in better words, there's not a more suitable way for you to store your stuff.
If you stored your valuables in your front yard, that would invite criminals to steal that property. Thus the analogy doesn't hold because you're analogizing to things that are suitable (keeping expensive stuff in your home) in comparison to this issue.
DOHC2L 6 months ago
Reason TV, we expect you to be reasonable. It's not unreasonable for city's to have codes restricting what people can plant in their front yards. Quit presenting this case as a case of government restricting people's ability to garden. It's about what's decent and acceptable as far as aesthetics go. You're taking quite a liberal perspective in framing this issue as a rights issue or property rights issue when this is clearly just a matter of city codes with respect to yard maintenance, duh.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
Yes, because an arbitrary, ill-defined system of city codes that ensures you can go to jail for the victimless crime of planting vegetables in your front yard is not a rights issue at all. I really hope you were being sarcastic.
LunaticFringe20 7 months ago
@LunaticFringe20 "...an arbitrary, ill-defined system of city codes..."
Those assertions are nonsense. Those points have been argued, the city code is not arbitrary, nor is it ill-defined. You've simply precluded that ikt's ill-defined and arbitrary because the story doesn't fit with your beliefs. Don't be naive.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L Really? Then please explain to me how the notion of 'suitable live plant material' can't be arbitrary defined by bureaucrats. Unless there is a massive deconstruction directed towards what constitutes suitable plant material (and judging by the case so far, there isn't) then yes, it is arbitrary. The public response causing it to be thrown out proves that. Throwing a woman in jail for a victimless action she did on her own property is absurdly immoral.
LunaticFringe20 7 months ago
@LunaticFringe20 "Then please explain to me how the notion of 'suitable live plant material' can't be arbitrary defined by bureaucrats."
Watch the video from 0:46 to 0:53, that's a bureaucrat giving a ~reasonable~ argument to exactly your question, or more to the point, his reasonable argument negates the point your question attempts to deny as being possible. This is a matter of semantics about the word 'suitable'. His argument is more than valid, it's cogent. Reason TV all but ignores it.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L hate to break it to you bro, but i just looked it up on websters dictionary and i can't find the word "common" anywhere. you might want to check your facts before restating facts that have already been debunked 0:57 IF ONLY YOU LISTENED INSTEAD OF BEING STUCK ON SPOUTING RUBBISH MODE
superfuzz 7 months ago
@superfuzz It's quite stupid for you to admit you need a dictionary to know what the word 'common' means.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
"Throwing a woman in jail for a victimless action she did on her own property is absurdly immoral."
When something is associated with it's opposite, the association is said to be absurd. You rationalized the immorality and the absurdity, because the premises from which you argue preclude the possiblity that the action in question is victimless. You aren't arguing reasonable arguments, you're rationalizing.
The ~reason~ codes like this exist is to protect property owners value, it's civics.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L no it's not, it was over zealous bullshit that is why it was throw out of COURT BY A JUDGE, whose opinion i trust more that some pencil neck little dicked nazi civil servant. you come that shit im my suburb you be found hangin from a tree
superfuzz 7 months ago
@superfuzz "...is why it was throw out of COURT BY A JUDGE"
According to the video the case was dropped because of public pressure. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just saying I don't know the specifics beyond this video and another one by Reason TV on this same case. If it were thrown out by a court, then I'd be interested in hearing the cited merits to it.
The video is INCREDIBLY biased in that it does NOT address the legitimate merits of why city's have codes in the first place.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"whose opinion i trust more that some pencil neck little dicked nazi civil servant. you come that shit im my suburb you be found hangin from a tree"
No reasonable person will see your rhetoric as reasonable. You only weaken the side you argue for. My advice to you is STFU.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Right because of all those carrot thieves that growing gardens in your front yard attracts. They clearly don't want the nation's garden bandits coming to this small town!
There's no defending this, buddy, but nice try.
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity "Right because of all those carrot thieves..."
It's analogous to why there are laws making it illegal for you to leave your keys in your car while you're not in it. It encourages theft. Anything of value (and you can't argue food isn't valuable, that would be absurd) is considered vulnerable to theft. It's not the specifics of the matter, it's the principle. Without city codes regulating what's acceptable for a front yard anyone could just park their cars on their front yards.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
There's a difference between a car and some vegetables. I can't imagine being able to take veggies somewhere and make a quick couple of grand for their parts hehe
Why don't they ban the pink flamingos, garden gnomes, sprinklers, and bird baths, ALL of which are more valuable than vegetables? This has NOTHING to do with theft, you bozo. It has to do with some nosy prick telling people their front yard is ugly.
Your comment about parking cars on yards shows you don't have a clue.
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity "Why don't they ban the pink flamingos, garden gnomes, sprinklers, and bird baths"
Some cities do have codes against those things, some don't. It's not a blanket law, it's city code. In Texas right now, I can't water my lawn during the day.... EVEN THOUGH ITS MY LAND. I don't have a "right" to use my front yard however I wish... that's why codes exist, to prevent people from doing tacky things that ruin the property values of their neighbors. There are ~reasons~ for such laws.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Which cities don't allow garden gnomes or bird baths in front yards? Name one.
As far as watering your lawn, that has to do with drought and sharing water with your community. If you're on a well, then you have to be mindful of the water table you and your neighbors access during a drought. That's a shared resource, you know this.
Your ~reasons~ surmount to nothing more than people abusing power. You think a pink flamingo has a serious effect on property value? Where!?
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity It's not the specifics, it's the principle. City ordinances protect homeowners property values by insisting some level of uniformity, ie code. That's how it is, live with the fact that it's improper to plant a vegtible garden in your front yard, but the government isn't saying don't have a garden in your back yard is it? For real, you and I have gotten into this heated debate over whether or not it's abusive for government to enforce an ordinance over a garden in a front yard...
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Cmon man, you're making stuff up to make a point. The 99% stat, the banning of gnomes, you just made this up.
Anyways, you believe city ordinances PROTECT homeowners, but isn't it possible that some ordinances are designed to treat people as income sources for the state? That's our main point. Not everyone in government is GOOD lol
And what if this woman didn't have room in her back yard? Could she set up some structure at the very front and call anything behind THAT her back yard?
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity
Before amalgamation with the city of Ottawa, the city of Kanata most certainly did not allow garden gnomes or other lawn ornaments. They literally had a list of paint colours that were acceptable to paint the front door and garage door. And it didn't stop at the front yard, clotheslines were banned in the back yards, as they were deemed unsightly for neighbours.
Not sayin' it's right, in fact it seems pretty stupid to me, I'm just saying it does happen it does happen
psteverific 7 months ago
@chronDiggity "Your comment about parking cars on yards shows you don't have a clue."
HOW?!? It's a cheap shot to make a claim like that but not give a sufficient reason behind making the accusation. I explain reasons behind every assertion I make, you didn't understand the analogy, but how does that translate into evidence I don't understand the issue? No. That's an irrational statement you make, because you just make the accusation but provide no reasons. That's shameless.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Well you see, Einstein, these comments sections only give us 500 characters to make our point.
I say you don't have a clue because who THE FUCK are YOU to tell anyone they can't park their car on property THEY OWN!?
Private property principal goes right out the door with "progressives" like you you just want to use the government to force any old thing they can think of.
BTW, notice how in 500 characters you couldn't refute my points AND bitch about my last statement? ;)
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity "Private property principal goes right out the door with "progressives" like you you just want to use the government to force any old thing they can think of."
I'm not a progressive, I'm a conservative. I'm arguing conservative, normative, civics. And you can't park your car on your front yard in 99% of the cities in the United States... all by city code ordinances. Recognize that you're arguing against the entire concept of municipal law, and their legitimacy therein.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
I consider anyone who uses the government to force their ideals onto other people as progressive. Being a conservative definitely doesn't give you a pass. You guys can be worse than liberals.
You just made up that 99% figure. You just keep making up shit. The CITIES that do this are trying to avoid over-crowded homes, and people turning their yards into parking lots during major events. If anything, I'd say 99% ALLOW you to, with it less often being banned.
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity "I consider anyone who uses the government to force their ideals"
Please read my profile written on my channel. Didn't this disagreement involve semantics over the term 'suitable'. That's quite a stretch from that to forcing ideals. Nobody's forcing ideals on anyone, it's whether or not it's suitable to use a front yard to plant vegetables. So I'm arguing the slippery-slope argument when I make the analogy to parking on your front yard, well that's not suitable either is my point.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
The guy gave a completely wrong definition of suitable, and used that definition to justify throwing a woman in jail for growing legal plants on her property.
My opinion of what makes someone a progressive has NOTHING to do with our argument. If you feel I called you one in error, that doesn't make your point any more valid. I even said "I consider anyone" so I'm not here to argue semantics over that.
Your point is and has been that city counsel should be able to pass horrible laws.
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity "You just keep making up shit."
I NEVER make up shit. I've studied ethics for a long time.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Really? So you didn't make up the fact that 99% of cities ban parking on your front lawn? You didn't just think 99% was a number that was good enough, and not one that actually reflects reality?
Someone else had to chime in about how Kanata once banned gnomes and things, but even then that's not a current example. You said cities ban these things, but couldn't name a single city.
Remember when that republican said abortion was 90% of what planned parenthood did? Thats like you lol
chronDiggity 7 months ago
Comment removed
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@chronDiggity
Whoa, it`s true regarding the garden gnomes, but there are still codes in existence. Under amalgamation, parking on your front lawn is certainly banned, as it is here in the greater Toronto area, and every other city in the province. Parking Pads are part of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, and I think it is a fair bet that is would be the same in most of North America. Don`t know about 99%, but it is fair to say "most'
psteverific 7 months ago
@chronDiggity "I say you don't have a clue because who THE FUCK are YOU to tell anyone they can't park their car on property THEY OWN!?"
This is basic civics... I DON'T have the legal authority to do anything when it comes to what my neighbor does with his property. But there are many things he can do to his property which is unappealing to the neighborhood. Those unappealing things consists of keeping an unkept lawn to not maintaining the house itself. That's why city ordinances exist...DUH!
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
You don't understand. City ordinances are intended to address issues of local concerns only. They aren't laws that are passed down from the federal or state, they are made by a city council. They can be as idiotic as this because it's corruption at this level is such much easier. Just look at DC's city counsel. They make news constantly.
Not all laws they pass are meant to protect people. They could just as easily be designed to treat people as income sources for the state.
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity No, you don't understand. I don't disagree with the fact that city ordinances can be abusive and, like say the Washington DC or Chicago gun-bans, are UN-Constitutional. Don't take my defense of one meager ordinance as a wholesale endorsement of a fascist position. Everything about your reply says to me I am an extremist, and that is not so. You seem to think I'm not capable of being rational in my beliefs, that's because you're arguing against your (false) characterization of me!
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L
Fair enough. We'll just agree to politely disagree about this issue with growing veggies :)
chronDiggity 7 months ago
@chronDiggity Agreed.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
Comment removed
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L I'm not going to continue this debate because you just seem to dive in doublespeak every chance you get. But if you honestly don't see anything immoral with throwing someone in a cage for this then you're really not the kind of person I want to discuss things with anyway.
LunaticFringe20 7 months ago
@LunaticFringe20 "I'm not going to continue this debate because you..."
So basically you just had to declare yourself better than me, so why even say anything? Why not just end the debate then and not post anything? Like I'll do starting ... now.
DOHC2L 7 months ago
@DOHC2L Based on your logic, it was totally acceptable for cities and subdivisions to enforce segregation. After all, one black family could dramatically slash the value of the properties in a given neighborhood back in the day. And many whites found them to be not very aesthetically pleasing. And it does not matter whether a law comes in the form of a federal regulation, a state law, or a city code, if they dictate what you can and cannot do with your property, than it is an issue of rights.
TracyII77 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
DOHC2L 6 months ago
@"Based on your logic, it was totally acceptable for cities and subdivisions to enforce segregation."
STFU you racist.
DOHC2L 6 months ago