I Gotta Stand with Pam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I Gotta Stand with Pam

I really didn't want to address the NY Subway ads in support of Israel, but too much is attacking our First Amendment.

A judge ruled that Pamela Geller's ad could go up. According to Geller, this ad was formulated at a time when there were some vicious anti-Israel ads up. But The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) banned her response ad at the time and she sued. Justice took its sweet time and the ads were recently released.

Now, in response to some controversy around the response to this ad (and a silly attempt by a leftie publicity hound to spray paint it), the MTA has approved a new code that's even worse than before. Here's how Alan Dershowitz sees it:

Alan Dershowitz Calls Amended M.T.A. Advertising Rules “Plain Dumb” and “Unconstitutional”

September 28, 2012

The Algemeiner

From the article:

The new rules allow the M.T.A. to ban ads that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

“A. it's clearly unconstitutional” he said, and “b. it incentivizes people to engage in violence. What it says to people, is that if they don't like ads, just engage in violence and then we'll take the ads down.”

“It’s very bad policy,” he continued, “and it’s just plain dumb, because it is going to encourage violence.”

(btw - I originally got this from The Blaze here.)

That's bad enough.

Now here's Geller in a face-off with holy man apologist for tyranny, Jim Wallis. This leftie dude didn't tell her he disagrees with her. He begged her to please stop talking in public. Not to change her mind. Just to shut up. He wants her voice silenced--all in the name of Jesus or God or something, apparently. You have to see this crap to believe it.

I don't like Geller's ad, although I have grudging admiration for it within the context of combating the anti-Israel propaganda at the time. It's extremely well-done for that purpose.

This interesting part to me is that I only knew it was a response to anti-Israel propaganda from what Geller said in the video. I have tried to look it up so I could quote the propaganda lines, but everyone is yelling too much and nobody is mentioning it. And my life is not eternal. But placing the ads side-by-side is the only truly objective way of seeing this issue in full context.

Geller's ad says:

In any war between the civilised man and the savage, support the civilised man.

Support Israel

Defeat Jihad

She used the term jihad to mean only the violent political form of it. But I think she knows exactly what she is doing. This is a propaganda war.

Regardless. Now the deal is to silence her?

For Pete's sake, this is still the USA.

I gotta stand with Pam.

I don't have to like what she says, but I gotta stand with her. Free speech is too precious.

Michael

[caroljane]

I agree with her and your right to free speech here, Michael.\

But when you are standing with her, around you, claiming you an ally, are standing people unworthy to stand with you.

[Selene]

I was thinking of a more horizontal position myself...

[caroljane]

I was thinking of a more horizontal position myself...

You usually are.

[Selene]

I was thinking of a more horizontal position myself...

You usually are.

Show me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his philosophy of life?  <<<<Well, as much as I ascribe to that generally, there are exceptions to a nice piece of ass lol...for example...

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bKygGXI3ioI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[caroljane]

Are you implying that Michael is attracted to Geller? He is a happily married man!

[caroljane]

Adam, I would ask if you are a Kim Kardashian fan but I do not think I want to know the answer.

[Selene]

Adam, I would ask if you are a Kim Kardashian fan but I do not think I want to know the answer.

Absolutely not. Frankly, she disgusts me.

I believe Kat and Michael have a relationship. However, it is, basically, none of our business babes...love pushing the envelope and calling you babes...

[Robert Campbell]

But when you are standing with her, around you, claiming you an ally, are standing people unworthy to stand with you.

Wouldn't the same be true if it were Ward Churchill or Noam Chomsky's freedom of speech that needed protecting?

That's how freedom of speech works.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

But when you are standing with her, around you, claiming you an ally, are standing people unworthy to stand with you.

Wouldn't the same be true if it were Ward Churchill or Noam Chomsky's freedom of speech that needed protecting?

That's how freedom of speech works.

Robert Campbell

All too true. So we have to listen very carefully to what everyone standing with us is really saying.

[9thdoctor]

But when you are standing with her, around you, claiming you an ally, are standing people unworthy to stand with you.

I already wore out my feet standing for Buttman:

http://www.objectivi...8935&hl=buttman

Geller tried to use the Government, in other words initiate force, to stop the Ground Zero Mosque, or whatever it's proper name is. Now the Government is giving her the run around and actually attracting more attention to her cause. Subways ought to be privately owned anyway, in which case it would be up to the owner's discretion whether her ads could go up and rile people, or not.

I gotta go cry me a river over this one.

[caroljane]

But when you are standing with her, around you, claiming you an ally, are standing people unworthy to stand with you.

I already wore out my feet standing for Buttman:

http://www.objectivi...8935&hl=buttman

Geller tried to use the Government, in other words initiate force, to stop the Ground Zero Mosque, or whatever it's proper name is. Now the Government is giving her the run around and actually attracting more attention to her cause. Subways ought to be privately owned anyway, in which case it would be up to the owner's discretion whether her ads could go up and rile people, or not.

I gotta go cry me a river over this one.

Your video will not play because of "copyright infringements", ha, that is what the anti free speech jihadists always say.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Geller tried to use the Government, in other words initiate force, to stop the Ground Zero Mosque, or whatever it's proper name is.

Dennis,

You mean local government, like in zoning laws?

Michael

[9thdoctor]

You mean local government, like in zoning laws?

Yup. Even Peikoff called for a "by any means necessary" campaign to abrogate freedom of religion in this case. Now I'm going to have to go cry me another river...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Do you think all zoning laws are abuse of government or initiation of force?

Michael

[caroljane]

The "civilised man" sentence sounds like a Rand quote. Is it?

[9thdoctor]

Do you think all zoning laws are abuse of government or initiation of force?

I've worked a lot in Real Estate development, so my full answer would have to be more extensive and nuanced than is called for here. Should the Government have a say in whether a commercial building (a retail store, in this case) is converted into a church? Nope.

[Peter]

Zoning could be rational and rights protecting. Should an Objectivist be against, or endorse laws created to stop or protect:

Some” Insider Trading,

Privacy issues,

Dirty Tricks,

Mental Cruelty,

The spreading of false and harmful information,

Impersonation,

Cruelty to Animals,

Frivolous Lawsuits?

Peter

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

Do you think all zoning laws are abuse of government or initiation of force?

end quote

Ninth Doctor responded:

I've worked a lot in Real Estate development, so my full answer would have to be more extensive and nuanced than is called for here. Should the Government have a say in whether a commercial building (a retail store, in this case) is converted into a church? Nope.

end quote

Thanks Doc. I won’t nickname you Witch Doctor. I wrote about this on a different thread once, so let me use some of that to explain my view.

Did Ayn Rand write or say anything about zoning laws? I looked at the Lexicon today, October 1, 2012 and could not find anything about zoning though I vaguely remember her writing something about zoning. I would think she would be opposed to zoning laws unless the laws are proven to be objective and rational. There are gray areas between property rights and the rights of others.

Zoning Laws can sustain property values, and stop coercive activities. Objective laws define the legal line between what individuals might consider morally wrong and what is a legally wrong behavior, that infringes upon legitimate rights. Many illegal activities do not involve the ‘strict’ initiation of force. Rather, they are considered coercive. I maintain that zoning CAN prohibit coercive activities.

One Objectivist view might be:

The proper purpose of laws is to guarantee your right to do what you want with your property subject only to the restrictions you have agreed to in contracts with others. The purpose of zoning laws should not be to enable others (who work through the government) to tell you what to do with your property without your agreement.

I agree in spirit with this view, but like Ninth Doctor, I disagree on finer points that might be considered coercive in nature, in this strict interpretation of *absolute* property rights.

When someone buys or already owns property the land’s dimensions are strictly defined, by surveying. One could say a piece of land is five acres in area, relatively rectangular in shape, and borders three other properties and the road. However, there is a further dimension to land: The sky above it, the soil and rock below it, the surrounding view, and the air you breath while you stand on that land. So, real property is more than two dimensional. Let me enumerate some cases that illustrate more than two of a property’s dimensions.

Water and mineral rights.

Air quality rights.

The sky above. In other words, sunlight and rainfall rights.

My last three enumerated rights are intertwined and tougher to defend:

Who got there first?

The right to a surrounding view.

And the right to a continuation of a property’s fair value.

Water and mineral rights. This is the easiest to defend property right because virtually everyone agrees, mineral rights under the property are justifiable, and require little defense. However, a corollary right is that no one on surrounding properties can legally pump out ground water until the water table under your property is lowered so much that you have no access to well water. My daughter just got a letter from the county and a local farmer about his intent to put a pumping station for irrigation about 1,700 feet from her residential well. I looked into it. If the farmer is granted a permit to pump, the individual landowners around the station MUST PAY TO RE-DIG THEIR WELL, if the water table drops causing a water outage. At first I thought this was outrageous, but when you consider dozens if not hundreds of residential wells around the farmer’s property you can see the cost to the farmer to replace other people’s wells would be prohibitive.

This issue also recently happened in Somerset County, Maryland where a newly built state prison caused dozens of surrounding properties that only had “well water” to go dry, and it stopped Wal-Mart from building a distribution center in that County. And there have been many cases where corporations poisoned the ground water.

Another issue, is using up all the water in a river, or damming it. Should this be legal, if the river previously ran through your property? Not unless you agree. And there have been cases where individuals or countries drilled sideways under a neighbor’s property to steal oil or minerals.

Air quality rights. No one can deny you breathable air, by burning, building a pig farm, or a manufacturing plant near you, without your consent, if the land is zoned residential or agricultural .

The sky above. No one may plant trees that extend over your property, or block the sun or the rain, with a building, without your permission, if the land is zoned residential, or agricultural.

Who got there first, and the surrounding view? This is a tough one. If I have bought property with the sensible expectation that I may have a certain view, then a property owner near me should not be legally able to block my view, at a later date. This happens frequently in tourist areas, where preexisting buildings have a view of the ocean, or of mountains, or of a waterfall. This right to a surrounding view should also extend to commercial property.

And now my last, more nebulous concept. Does a person have a right to diminish your property’s value, because of something that they do on their property? Let us postulate that I have a Beverly Hills estate and The Clampetts move in next door . . .

I am dumbfounded that no Objectivists have tackled these issues. What a great subject for an essay. Let me throw out the gauntlet! I would like to see a definitive article on Zoning published. Who is up to the task?

And a question for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and other libertarians, about that *Hollywood* sign, and other *historic* properties, “Should the Government buy the land and name it a historic landmark, or should all land remain private property?”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Notes:

I am no lawyer or Objectivist scholar, but how does my view square with the following quotes?

Ayn Rand, "What is Capitalism" Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, p. 19

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned . . . . The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

end quote

[Grames]

I am dumbfounded that no Objectivists have tackled these issues. What a great subject for an essay. Let me throw out the gauntlet! I would like to see a definitive article on Zoning published. Who is up to the task?

David Wilens is up to the task. See the 4 part series of articles in Capitalism Magazine advocating the replacement of zoning laws with the judicially applied "Coming to the Nuisance" doctrine.

The Evils of Zoning: Subjecting Landowners to Arbitrary Whim

Isn’t Zoning Necessary to Prevent Nuisances? (Part 2)

The Antidote for Zoning: Bringing Objectivity to the Land Development Process (Part 3)

The Antidote for Zoning: The “Coming to the Nuisance” Doctrine (Part 4)

[Peter]

Grames wrote:

See the 4 part series of articles in Capitalism Magazine advocating the replacement of zoning laws with the judicially applied "Coming to the Nuisance" doctrine.

end quote

Thank you so much Grames. I see your real name is Paul. I hope you will hop over here from other sites and post more often. I will read your links before commenting further.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Thanks again to Grames for the links.

David Wilens in The Evils of Zoning: Subjecting Landowners to Arbitrary Whim wrote:

A “nuisance” is defined as the effect from an activity on others which unreasonably interferes with another’s lawful use of property, or causes undue inconvenience, hardship, or discomfort to another person . . . . “Coming to the Nuisance” means exactly what it sounds like: if a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use . . . . The proponents of zoning claim that such initiation of force is necessary against developers to prevent the occurrence of nuisances. A “nuisance” is defined as the effect from an activity on others which unreasonably interferes with another’s lawful use of property, or causes undue inconvenience, hardship, or discomfort to another person.

Examples aren’t hard to visualize. For example, a factory which emits harmful fumes that cause breathing problems for nearby residents is a nuisance, as is a restaurant which does nothing to prevent bad odors emanating from its dumpster to the properties nearby. A college fraternity house near a residential neighborhood which plays loud music late into the evenings might also be considered a nuisance, if it affects the ability of neighboring residents to sleep.

But nuisances may work the other way as well: for example, a house in a noisy industrial district may be a nuisance there — if the residents’ desires to sleep affect the ability of the factory owners to operate their businesses.

Because one has a right to use his property, and because nuisances unreasonably interfere with one’s use of property, it follows that nuisances are a violation of property rights and, as such, must be addressed objectively by a proper legal system.

end quote

I like it, but with a few misgivings. The “coming to the nuisance doctrine” could be abused just as when “domain names” were bought up by speculators. Suppose I bought irs.gov when the internet began? I see entrepreneurship involved but also the very real potential for sly theft. A speculator could buy up parcels of land, put up real or sham businesses or residences, simply to prevent someone else from building on their property as they see fit.

David Wilens in The Evils of Zoning: Subjecting Landowners to Arbitrary Whim wrote:

“Coming to the Nuisance” is a corollary of the right to keep and use property. One must have the ability, without permission from others, to use property indefinitely (unless, of course, one voluntarily agrees to use it only for a specific time period, such as with a lease). If one does not have such an ability — meaning, in essence, that someone can come along at any time and arbitrarily demand that one no longer may use his property — then all use of property in effect ends up being by permission of those who have the power to stop its use, and the right to property in effect vaporizes . . . . Also, because the only objective means by which men can properly deal with one another is for them to respect each other’s rights, then in the appropriate context the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine is the only objective means for men to deal with one another as well.

end quote

I am not convinced this doctrine is the sole remedy needed. I am certainly against every level of “government” abuse of zoning laws for reasons of personal preference or for silly environmental reason, or prolonging the approval process, or increasing the costs of approval needlessly. However, an objective use of zoning could be an extension of the “Coming to the Nuisance” principle, not a hindrance.

And I have had a lot of experience with the horrors of getting approval to build. A convenience store chain put down money on a property my family owns and the process dragged on for two years before the potential builder just gave up. We have also had the same problem with a Russian Orthodox Church that wanted to build at this fine location on the intersection of two major highways, and we currently have another potential buyer doing his due diligence. I have begun calling planning and zoning “the fascists in the county seat.”

We shall see how this latest venture turns out.

I am getting ready to send this letter to Objectivist Living and I came across this headline on my Yahoo home page: Construction of a highway comes to a halt when a rare arachnid is discovered at the site.

Spiders and chiggers and worms, Toto! I will be rereading your referenced article, Paul.

Peter Taylor

[Robert Campbell]

Did Ayn Rand write or say anything about zoning laws? I looked at the Lexicon today, October 1, 2012 and could not find anything about zoning though I vaguely remember her writing something about zoning. I would think she would be opposed to zoning laws unless the laws are proven to be objective and rational. There are gray areas between property rights and the rights of others.

Zoning Laws can sustain property values, and stop coercive activities. Objective laws define the legal line between what individuals might consider morally wrong and what is a legally wrong behavior, that infringes upon legitimate rights. Many illegal activities do not involve the ‘strict’ initiation of force. Rather, they are considered coercive. I maintain that zoning CAN prohibit coercive activities.

To my knowledge, Ayn Rand never wrote about zoning laws.

She did, however, write about property rights.

I suspect there are some implications of the latter regarding the former.

As one of my brothers puts it, "Zoning delays the inevitable on behalf of the connected."

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

And a question for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and other libertarians, about that *Hollywood* sign, and other *historic* properties, “Should the Government buy the land and name it a historic landmark, or should all land remain private property?”

Historical preservation is a worthy goal—when done by private entities with private funds.

When it isn't... well, there is the passage in The Bonfire of the Vanities in which the Mayor of New York City obtains his revenge on an Episcopal minister who wouldn't get with his program politically. "Landmark him!"

Besides, a strict historical preservationist holding a bureaucratic post with the City of Los Angeles would no doubt insist that the sign be restored to its original condition—when it read HOLLYWOODLAND.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

lol about the landmarking.

There are always layers of history underneath us and it is always about who cares the most about what, historical preservation or progress or industry or whatever.

It is the history we are making now that this thread is about. Should existing laws local state or federal be used to advance fundamentally morally wrong agendas?