...what the king forces you to buy by prohibiting what you can grow and eat on your own land.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything here.

Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts can grow food in their back yard.

Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts can grow food in their back yard.

Major "Gatlin" Burns hath spoken.

You do have a hard time handling facts ...

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything here.

Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts can grow food in their back yard.

Or they can buy some property out of town with plenty of open land and no trees.

I find it hard to sympathize with this couple.

My community association enforces stuff like that and it doesn't bother me.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything here.
Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts can grow food in their back yard.
Or they can buy some property out of town with plenty of open land and no trees.
I find it hard to sympathize with this couple.
My community association enforces stuff like that and it doesn't bother me.

Absolutely.

You choose to live in a town, you live by the rules established for the community.

If you don't like the rules, you either get the rules changed or you move away.

Simple.

I find it hard to sympathize with this couple. My community association enforces stuff like that and it doesn't bother me.

Absolutely.

You choose to live in a town, you live by the rules established for the community.

It's their property. The "rules" were already established for at least 16 years - now the town wants to arbitrarily change the rules.

None of the neighbors have complained, this is just another instance of petty bureaucrats denying the rights of citizens to use their own property.

Plastic flamingos are OK, but veggie garden is not

Hermine and Tom are part of a nationwide movement of small-scale food producers and consumers who are tired of the government dictating what foods they can grow, sell, and eat.

On November 19, 2013, they joined with the Institute for Justice to challenge Miami Shores’ senseless front-yard vegetable garden ban. Their case aims to vindicate the right of all Americans to peacefully use their own property to support their own families.

An Affront To Gardeners Everywhere: Miami Shores Forces Homeowners To Destroy Their Front-Yard Vegetable Garden

Miami Shores Village, Fla.’s unconstitutional ban on front-yard vegetable gardens prohibits homeowners from growing vegetables in their front yards. But trees, fruit and garden gnomes are just fine.

The argument for regulating neighborhood aesthetics is not a new one in South Florida. Coral Gables used to have an ordinance prohibiting residents from parking pickup trucks in their own driveways at night.

I don't know about you government apologists, but I would much rather live next to a house with a well-maintained front-yard garden (like this one) than a yard littered with pink flamingos and garden gnomes.

It's their property. The "rules" were already established for at least 16 years - now the town wants to arbitrarily change the rules.

Sorry, SPORT, that is the way government works.

You live in a town, you follow the rules, the old ones and the new changed ones.

Miami Shores Village Council adopted a new zoning plan for the town of about 10,500 north of Miami.

A town council has the right to do that whether you like it or not and you obviously do not.

That's tough shitsky!!!

You want to be the anarchist that YOU are and not obey town ordinances established by an elected city council ... then you move FAR out in the country where there are no zoning requirements, if you can find such a place.

... unconstitutional ban ...

Determined to be unconstitutional by whom, why and when?

If you don't like the rules, you either get the rules changed or you move away.

Seems to me they are getting the rules changed via the courts.

That should be okay with you. Is it not okay?

You want to be the anarchist that YOU are and not obey town ordinances established by an elected city council ... then you move FAR out in the country where there are no zoning requirements, if you can find such a place.

Somehow, the idea of freedom being a central facet of living in America seems quite foreign to you.

If you don't like the rules, you either get the rules changed or you move away.
Seems to me they are getting the rules changed via the courts.
That should be okay with you. Is it not okay?

Seems to me that they are TRYING to get the rules changed via the courts.

Is that okay with me?

Oh, absolutely, you betcha, that's fine with me. It's the way to go. We have laws in our society that represent a purpose to supply a deficit in human consciousness. If people would only act with deep discernment, then we would have no need for laws … but unfortunately they do not. It is only that we are unable to cultivate esoteric discernment that we need laws to provide an exoteric alternative to facilitate and channel human interactions with each other.

idea of freedom

front
yard
refrigerators
washing
machines

night
clubs
too

one
big
ghetto

what's
next

meth
labs

hoarders
rubbish
collectors

particulary
bother
me

bring
the
funny
farms
back

tobacco road

love
boris

Somehow, the idea of freedom being a central facet of living in America seems quite foreign to you.

I believe in the idea that the basic foundation that has continued to separate America from essentially every other nation founded throughout history is the concept of America being a nation of laws and not a nation of men.

For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. So said John Adams in the year 1870.

It has long been established that under our nation of laws, laws rule and everyone is to be governed equally by the same laws. No one can ever be allowed to be above the law.

There can be no better way for America to deal with people that to treat all of them equally under the law.

When there are disputes, the most familiar way for parties to engage in a dispute resolution process is the civil justice system where litigation and a trail by a judge or jury to decide who/what is right or wrong. That is the place to decide where someone wins and someone loses. The is not to say that negotiation, mediation and arbitration do not fit in as alternative solutions to dispute resolution.

So, I do believe in freedom. But a gaggle of anarchists, libertarians and Paultards on LF are not going to tell me to comply with their version of freedom and try to force their ideas on me or tell me what to believe.

I am in a townhouse so it would look pretty bad.

Back yard is fine.

Leads to this tomorrow:

And this "Green Acres" next week:

My wife and I grow our vegetables on the side and back of the house. We leave the front for Aesthetics. Because my neighbors have just as much rights as I have. Then again, normal people are more concerned with ANOTHERS RIGHTS... and a Paultard is only concerned about their own rights.

A Paultards definition of constitutional rights are having more rights than the next guy.

Vegetable Pests: Garden Nazis

.....and then at the bottom of the decently written article, you had to post your favorite anarchist art.

Seriously?

And what "anarchist art" would that be?

And what "anarchist art" would that be?

Playing stupid only works for your Paultard fan base.

And what "anarchist art" would that be?

Playing stupid

I posted a picture of the couple's well-tended garden that apparently none of the neighbors ever complained about.

Gosh - I didn't realize that growing your own food was something only "anarchists" do.

Vegetable Pests: Garden Nazis

Great image - seems we have quite a few of the Nazis here.

Sie werden nicht Nahrung in Ihrem eigenen Garten wachsen.

But a gaggle of anarchists, libertarians and Paultards on LF are not going to tell me to comply with their version of freedom and try to force their ideas on me or tell me what to believe.

No, of course you won't. Instead you'll let Republicans and Democrats tell you to comply with their version of freedom because R&D freedom is sooooooo much better than libertarian freedom.

No, of course you won't. Instead you'll let Republicans and Democrats tell you to comply with their version of freedom because R&D freedom is sooooooo much better than libertarian freedom.

No, I will not allow that either, but the Republicans and Democrats make more sense since they possess far greater intelligence than the grotesquely ignorant and dim-witted anarchists, libertarians and Paultards who continually display their extremely slow mental development while trying to promote themselves as experts on everything.

This is a scientific fact. It has been proven 100% accurate. People who do this are officially categorized as mentally ill dimwitted retards. What is it?

It's posting an idiotic picture in a post without anything supporting or illuminating the poster's position. A variation on this deranged type of posting are posts that contain nothing but personal attacks and name calling, lacking any substance and failing to actually promote critical thinking or to promote or defend a sensible and sane position. Mentally ill retards use this technique because they became exhausted trying to write something sane and sensible, or they were so proud of having finally written something that wasn't totally retarded they find themselves compelled to keep reposting it.

Why, you might ask, is this a sure sign of mentally ill retards? Because these people don't have the mental horsepower to articulate a cogent statement. They have to rely on pictures to do their speaking. Because they're mentally ill retards. 97% of mental health experts agree.

Strange but true.........

The bottom line is this... Either a person owns property or he does not. If he does, he has a right use his property as he wishes (within reason). If he does not have that right, he does not fully own the property in question. If he does fully own the property, he has no mandated duty to base his use of his land on whether or not it might affect the value of property belonging to others.

If a person believes a neighbor's use of his property devalues his own property; or, dislikes how said neighbor uses his property for whatever reason, THAT person has the option of moving into a neighborhood with a homeowner's association which has use of property restrictions already set up and agreed on by the homeowners living there.

"Within reason" means things other than those that are against the law for ANY citizen to do ANYwhere or that might reasonably be believed to be a clear and present danger to others living in close proximity to where certain things might be occurring.

On the other hand, any property owner who wishes to be a "good neighbor" by using his property only for things his neighbors approve of can certainly do so; but, that is HIS choice.

If [a person owns the property], he has a right use his property as he wishes (within reason).

Who gets to decide what is “within reason?”

Who gets to decide what is “within reason?”

In the following order...

1. The property owner. If a dispute arises, then;
2. The local authorities. If their decision is disputed, then;
3. The court system.

I'll buy that.

I never thought otherwise.

When you participate in society by buying a home, you take your neighbor's feelings into consideration when you make decisions, realizing that not only do you have rights, so do they.

50 years ago we didn't need 90% of the laws we have today. People took care not to offend other people, especially their neighbors.

Today, it's me, me, me. My rights. My life. My choices. Fuck everyone else. So we write laws to control this rude, impolite, and selfish behavior. You reap what you sow.

When you participate in society by buying a home, you take your neighbor's feelings into consideration when you make decisions, realizing that not only do you have rights, so do they.

Carroll, who attended the hearing, said the couple sought to grow produce using organic practices, such as no use of pesticides.

He said he had never gotten a complaint from a neighbor in all the years he tended the garden, which grew some 75 varieties of vegetables.

"Carroll, who attended the hearing, said the couple sought to grow produce using organic practices, such as no use of pesticides."

Great! Do it in the back yard.

"He said he had never gotten a complaint from a neighbor in all the years he tended the garden"

HE said that, huh? Makes you wonder why the ordinance was passed. Did his neighbors come to his defense, supporting his decision to keep that eyesore in front of his house?

Makes you wonder why the ordinance was passed.

A mystery for the ages.

the couple sought to grow produce using organic practices

Night soil?

"Night soil?"

It's their garden. Shut up.

It's called "common courtesy" and "being a good neighbor".

Which in some "communities" gets perverted into whatever Bullshyte the Politically Correct herd decides to pull out of their collectivized arse.

Flamingo hater.

"Which in some "communities" gets perverted into whatever Bullshyte the Politically Correct herd decides to pull out of their collectivized arse."

If they're in the majority, maybe you're the one who's perverted.

But I guess you're saying the majority shouldn't have their way if it's contrary to what you want.

But I guess you're saying the majority shouldn't have their way

Not too up on De Tocqueville are ya super genius?

www.google.com/search? q=d...e+tyranny+of+the+majority

their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a "living ground cover" not further defined.

Not further defined. So that includes vegetables and their is no reason to single that particular kind of plant out for special treatment. Of course if we are singleing edible plants then anyone with dandelions needs to get fined. More plants are edible than the common person realizes.

It is an irrational city ordinance that will more than likely be struck down because of the stupidity of it. It's on par with illegal collection of rain water.

their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a "living ground cover" not further defined.

Not further defined. So that includes vegetables and their is no reason to single that particular kind of plant out for special treatment. Of course if we are singleing edible plants then anyone with dandelions needs to get fined. More plants are edible than the common person realizes.

It is an irrational city ordinance that will more than likely be struck down because of the stupidity of it. It's on par with illegal collection of rain water.

The landscaping ordinance is very specific and states the area “... shall be planted with grass, sod or living ground cover and a minimum of two trees. ...”

The ordinance goes on to specifically define “ground cover.”

DIVISION 17. – LANDSCAPING

Sec. 5386. landscaping descriptions and definitions.

[…]

Ground cover. A planting of living low growing plants which reach a maximum height of not more than eighteen (18) inches upon maturity that provide a complete cover over an area in one growing season and including the area of lawful mulch around the plant

[…]

The phrase “not further defined” does not appear in the “ground cover” section.

This is not "ground cover" as defined in the ordinance:

Nice looking yard.

It is a very nice looking garden.

Perhaps Tom and Hermine should plant Pueraria Lobata which thrives well in the Southeast US. The leaves, vine tips, flowers, and roots are edible; the vines are not. The leaves can be used like spinach and eaten raw, chopped up and baked in quiches, cooked like collards, or deep fried. Young kudzu shoots are tender and taste similar to snow peas. The kudzu plant also produces fragrant, purple blossoms which you can make into jelly, syrup and candy. The flowers which bloom in late summer have a very pleasant fragrance.

Check the house in the left background. Kudzu offers excellent insulation qualities.

By ... the illogic of the ordinance lettuce, carrots, squash, trimmed jalapenos plants , all of that and more would be fine.

The ordinance could be interpreted that way, if the plants "provide a complete cover over an area."

I guess there could be trouble in getting an agreement on the definition of "complete."

"Not too up on De Tocqueville are ya super genius?"

So you define "tyranny" as neighbors getting together and deciding to have a nice-looking neighborhood?

Wow! Let them get away with that and next thing you know they'll ban junkers up on blocks in the driveway.

"It is a very nice looking garden."

It's the ugliest "garden" I've ever seen. It looks like Hiroshima after the bomb. It looks like a commercial showing the results of using Round- Up.

I wouldn't have that in my back yard.

"I guess there could be trouble in getting an agreement on the definition of "complete."

I'm sure that any landscape architect will tell you that if you plant them really close together, lettuce, carrots, squash and jalapenos plants would be ground cover.

Weeds are ground cover. As is concrete. Lots of garbage. Old cars.