...if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.

First off, thanks for proving my point. You have no interest in hearing about any problem that turns your political ideology on its head. This pretty much seals the deal of what your motives actually are.

Which problem would that be? The correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof. This would be fine, except the alarmists wish to radically change the world to suit their "vision" in aforementioned ways. Not just tomorrow but 100 years from now. We've seen this collectivist BS repackaged and resold over and over again, and the result is always the same: central planning by elites = failure.

My "motive" is this: I wish to live free, it's my GOD-given right to live free. Or, if you prefer, it's a NATURAL right to live free, and this right cannot be "revoked" by any legit government. Pure anarchy doesn't work, so a free society surrenders some freedom to achieve the maximum amount of freedom possible.

Now along come the warming alarmists. They have declared, in hysterical fashion, that our dynamic ever-changing global climate now poses a threat because it isn't doing what they assumed it would do, without even knowing what is "normal". By some accounts, we're way past due for another ice age.

Private property rights and free markets have proven they're the best ways to manage both themselves and the "common good", which too often is code for non-competitive hangers-on and government incompetence. Capitalism creates ecologically-friendly goods when they're what consumers want. Capitalism creates new, more efficient technologies.

Does this mean capitalism is perfect? NOPE. Humans are selfish and regulation is necessary, but the latter is not a "solution" to all of life's problems any more than capitalism.

In the case of global warming, just for the sake of this discussion, assume that yes, burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming, and that global warming is in fact detrimental to humans.

Then there's still no easy answer. The burning of fossil fuels has made a high standard of living for nations which in turn grow food and build technology to sell to less advanced nations. Global warming (or cooling) simply cannot be detrimental to all humans at the same time. So assuming--for the sake of argument--that the alarmists' theories were somehow proven, there is still no solution, only trade-offs.

Free markets and private property rights are not utopian. HOWEVER, while they may not self-correct to the exacting standards of some, they're a hell of a lot more responsive and 'organic' than governments, whose motives are all over the map.

The most effective way to deal with such a problem for capitalists is simply deny the problem actually exists. Your problem is you desperately want there to not be a problem to fit your capitalist ideology, so you will not ever be convinced that global warming is real and human influenced. This is largely because if it is real, it likely cannot be dealt with using market forces solely, and your ideology will be irreparably destroyed.

This is just a silly ad hominem attack. One more time: the direct correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof.

No, heropsycho, I have no interest in personally labeling anyone, as if that would solve anything.

As a former security guard I am empathise with the guards position. They are hired to protect the interests of private property and to investigate potential incidents concerning that property. However, they have no powers beyond that and have no legal status beyond the bounds of that property. They are allowed to ask questions of you but no more than anyone else does. You can tell them whatever you want. What particularly annoys me about the guards in this video is that they try to intimidate people and they are not even really sure why. If they genuinely thought it was a security risk, ie. terrorism, they should be calling the police immediately. Terrorism act? "What part of the act?" "We're going to stop this conversation now". Intimidation FAIL!

As a former photographer I did like the property manager guy. What he said was spot on. Private use = a ok. Commercial use = maybe some issues but nothing major. I dealt with many such people and most of them were proud of their buildings and found it exciting to have people interested in it.

i think he is in Publix, not public

>> ^BoneRemake:

He is not in public, he is on private property

He is not in public, he is on private property, secondly, most every grocery store you walk into has a sign that there is to be no recording or picture taking.

Starting out I did not understand the point to this video, and I am left with the same feeling.

Okay, so say the kid was racially profiled... what now ? a discussion? this isn't anything new to the world.

I just kind of compare this to posting a video of a bird flying and titling it " bird flies in the wind"

If the citizens hate the law against front yard gardens (yardens?) so much they should change it. Until then, if the law is proven to define no front yardens, then that's the law.

It's all a matter of degree, isn't it liberals? You're upset about THIS when your eco-fascism is now fully one-third of fedguv's laws...LOOK at the arbitrary power you've given your masters!

All of a sudden you're FOR private property rights? Out-RAGEOUS!



Here's some of the voices of reason of your heroes:

"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."

--Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Albert Gore

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."

--Judi Barri of Earth First!

"Capitalism is a cancer in the biosphere."

--Dave Foreman, Founder, Earth First!

"The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old-growth forest protection," explained Andy Stahl, staff forester for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, at a 1988 law clinic for other environmentalists. "Thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Pacific Northwest," he joked, "for if it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it."

--Andy Stahl at a 1988 law clinic for environmentalists, staff forester, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

"Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real."

--Jonathan Shell, author of Our Fragile Earth

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

--Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

--Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor and author Quoted by Dixey Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)


"More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crises until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one."

--Lynn White, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," Science, (Mar. 10 1967), p 1206

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

--David Brower, Friends of the Earth

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

--Keith Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."

--Earth First! newsletter

"Please call this number to snitch on whomever you might want to harass with lawyers and unwarranted investigations of her or his most personal and private property/data.

Really, we don't care who it is."

>> ^blankfist:

They want their keys to their private property. What answer could they possibly expect?


The biggest joke of the whole thing after watching both the May 25th and June 13th meetings? The law is already in effect, and has been since 2004.

All they're doing is changing it from 6-unit apartments and up need one to 3-units and up.

Similar laws are in effect in thousands of cities in the US, and more, because it's part of an international fire code.

>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, and BTW, I found the video of the entire council meeting:
http://agenda.cedarfalls.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=10
3&doctype=AGENDA
It doesn't look like they really answered the questions, but that's because they were posed as rhetorical questions in speeches, not as part of a conversation where they expected an answer.


They want their keys to their private property. What answer could they possibly expect?

>> ^burdturgler:

It's the net result.
The bottom line is, at the end of this "meeting" a vote was cast and the people of Cedar Falls were then obligated by law to turn over the keys to their private property, whether they wanted to or not. I don't think there's anything dishonest about the way the video portrays those facts. They are the facts.

Well, let's start with that. What we're talking about is giving firemen a way to access locked areas in case of a fire, you know, so they can put it out, or possibly save a life.

It's not applicable to people's houses, it's apartment buildings (i.e. the residents don't own the property), and businesses (where no one lives).

The particular method involves a process where the keys are placed in some sort of secured lockbox on the exterior of the building, to which the fire department gets a key.

Using that key to enter your home when there isn't a fire is still a crime.

>> ^burdturgler:

Safeguards? Who gives a shit? I don't want you to have a key to my house, my apartment, my business .. they are still mine aren't they? It is my property? I can still decide who I will allow to have a key to the place?

Well they still have the legal authority to smash your door down now. Keys just save them time, result in less destroyed property, and I suspect firefighters may also want to keep the doors intact so they can be used to control the airflow in & out of a building with them.

I'm just fishing for someone to explain what the actual harm is here.

If you think the fire department would start randomly invading people's homes, I think you've lost your mind.

If you think this weakens the physical security of your residence generally (e.g. what if someone steals the fire department's key?), then I think that's a legitimate concern, but one that could be addressed by adding more safeguards.

I also think there's something of an argument to be made about privacy concerns, but those apply just as equally to the landlord having a key to your apartment as it does to the fire department.

There's also something to a line of reasoning questioning the necessity of this, but I guess I instinctively understand why they're doing it -- to protect property and lives.

Mostly I just see people having knee jerk reactions to this that don't make sense to me.

@marbles That doesn't sound like strict constitutionalism so much as strict ideology. The constitution/BoR says nothing about restricting the first amendment on private property. Therefore, under what authority do the courts uphold laws against trespassing?

Also, call me a commie, but I don't view property as a natural right. It's arguable that using the threat of force to lay siege to resources stolen from the commons is the original sin of violence. I don't recognize the lords of old, nor their "rights" to the land. No man toiled to create the Earth.

It's the net result.

The bottom line is, at the end of this "meeting" a vote was cast and the people of Cedar Falls were then obligated by law to turn over the keys to their private property, whether they wanted to or not. I don't think there's anything dishonest about the way the video portrays those facts. They are the facts. Safeguards? Who gives a shit? I don't want you to have a key to my house, my apartment, my business .. they are still mine aren't they? It is my property? I can still decide who I will allow to have a key to the place? It's crazy imo. I haven't had a chance to look up what happened on the 13th but I hope somehow this city has figured out how horribly stupid this is.

>> ^bmacs27:

marbles, It isn't clear what right I'm infringing by trespassing (is it a search?). Still, what you are saying is that the government purpose cited is not a compelling one. How about the park service's offices, can I demonstrate there?


Frederic Bastiat: "Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

If you're trespassing on private property, then you're violating the owner's natural right to life.

If you're trespassing on public property, rarely is that ever violating anyone's natural rights. Depending on the circumstances you could be violating legal rights or statutory rights by interfering with a government function. Sometimes that may be the intent of the demonstrators. Dancing at the JM doesn't violate anyone's rights, natural or legal. Outlawing it does.

> Let's do like Ron Paul says, de-regulate everything. Let the oil companies
> drill right in the town's water source!

Ron Paul believes quite intently that a company cannot do something which causes harm to an individuals private property.

You're on private property! F#$%!

The police are hired guns of the state. Though they are exploited, they cannot be seen as members of the proletariat. They represent the state, seized by the bourgeoisie to protect their private property