City tows junk cars

[Ixiah]

In this regard a junk car sitting in a yard or on jackstands in the street for years is basically something that most people do not want in their neighborhoods.

You might want to slightly edit that to seen in their neighborhoods. I know in the county you can have an old clunker in your yard as long as its behind a fence and cant be seen. Who cares if its full of animals - the important thing is "Out of site".

[Maggie]

Re: City tows junk cars

I'm curious what the "conservatives" on SN think about this story:
http://www.kansas.com/news/story/446961.html.

It's a story about Wichita city authorities towing cars with "flat tires" and cars that look "run down". Do conservatives think this is a violation of private property rights? I'm not very conservative, but I strongly support private property rights. City shouldn't be able to tow cars because they are inoperable or have flat tires. Please tell me I can find common ground with conservatives on this issue.

Thanks

Look as a general principal; I believe that the individual is supreme. You do not mess with the individual. However, that it not necessarily a strict dogma – we reside in a living breathing world that requires a practical application of that principal.

In the case of towing cars that are on blocks in a yard, cars that have flat tires and have not been moved for an extended period of time, fining people who don't take care of their lawn or home, etc. the actions of these people have an adverse affect on the "property rights" of their neighbors. It is quite reasonable for the municipal authorities to regulate conduct in this manner. Do you disapprove of laws that ban graffiti on the grounds that it restricts an individual's freedom of speech or expression?

In a sense, what "we the people" do when "we the people" acquiesce to the passage such regulations is affect certain moral, for lack of a better word, standards on our fellow man. This is true with respect to most laws.

Do these regulations impinge upon the property rights of the offenders – yes they do. However, it seems self evident to me that people cannot always to what they want all the time – that is anarchy.

In sum, I don't think you have, what I would consider to be, a true understanding of what conservatism really is if you believe that the conservative community would reject such regulations out of hand.

[WuShockFan]

Thanks to Royal, Maggie, rrshock, Doc, KC, Sub, and everyone else for discussing this topic.

I respect everyone's opinion, but I don't understand why conservatives think it is the government's job to protect their property values. It doesn't sound like a conservative principle. You're using the government to take personal property from a neighbor, so that your own property values won't go down. Wouldn't a conservative say that the neighbor has a right to do what he wants with his property, and if you don't like it you have a right to move to a different neighborhood?

[Maggie]

Do you get your car towed? :)

I tried to explain to you that a conservative's belief, at least my belief, that the individual is supreme is not an absolute. You are correct that traditional Conservative thought has strongly favored property rights. But on this level there has to be a balancing of "rights".

Generally speaking (and keep in mind there are many types of "conservatives"), conservatives believe that political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom and the purpose of government is to protect that freedom through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice.

In this case, it is reasonable not to permit someone to do whatever he or she wants with his or her property when that use, or lack thereof, adversely affects other citizens economically.

So the short answer to you questions is: No.

I am curious, what exactly were you expecting?

[RoyalShock]

You're using the government to take personal property from a neighbor, so that your own property values won't go down.

Taking your syntax as written, I'm not using the government to take anyone's personal property. What I'm doing is asking the government to set reasonable standards for property maintenance so that my property and the community at large is not adversely affected. And like I said before in listing some hypothetical but probable situations, the issue of enacting and enforcing ordinances isn't just to maintain property values, but also to maintain public health, safety and peace.

[Ixiah]

Do you get your car towed? :)

I tried to explain to you that a conservative's belief, at least my belief, that the individual is supreme is not an absolute. You are correct that traditional Conservative thought has strongly favored property rights. But on this level there has to be a balancing of "rights".

I find your statement ironic considering a decision in 2005 made by a supreme court dominated by conservative appointees. Essentially they expanded the common practice of evicting people out of homes and businesses when they had to put in a highway, school, or some other public building. The decision allows the local governments to clear away existing businesses and homes to make way for private enterprises that are deemed more worthy. In view of this I find the notion of conservatives having more respect of property rights no longer valid. Maybe the 'true' conservatives moved over to the libertarian party. 8)

Republican appointees

William Rehnquist - Richard Nixon
John Paul Stevens - Gerald Ford
Antonin Scalia - Ronald Reagen
Anthony Kennedy - Ronald Reagen
Sandra Day O'Connor - Ronald Reagen
David Souter - George Bush
Clarence Thomas - George Bush

Democrat appointees
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Bill Clinton
Stephen Breyer - Bill Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

[RoyalShock]

The SCOTUS doesn't always get it right. That was an awful decision. The majority was wearing some awfully foggy glasses that day.

Appointed by a Republican president does not equal conservative.

[SubGod22]

Most Conservatives were also outraged by that ruling. It's one thing to use property for public purposes that benefit the community. Forcing people out so someone can build a condo or whatever is absolutely wrong. The Supreme Court really screwed up that day.

[Maggie]

Do you get your car towed? :)

I tried to explain to you that a conservative's belief, at least my belief, that the individual is supreme is not an absolute. You are correct that traditional Conservative thought has strongly favored property rights. But on this level there has to be a balancing of "rights".

I find your statement ironic considering a decision in 2005 made by a supreme court dominated by conservative appointees. Essentially they expanded the common practice of evicting people out of homes and businesses when they had to put in a highway, school, or some other public building. The decision allows the local governments to clear away existing businesses and homes to make way for private enterprises that are deemed more worthy. In view of this I find the notion of conservatives having more respect of property rights no longer valid. Maybe the 'true' conservatives moved over to the libertarian party. 8)

Republican appointees

William Rehnquist - Richard Nixon
John Paul Stevens - Gerald Ford
Antonin Scalia - Ronald Reagen
Anthony Kennedy - Ronald Reagen
Sandra Day O'Connor - Ronald Reagen
David Souter - George Bush
Clarence Thomas - George Bush

Democrat appointees
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Bill Clinton
Stephen Breyer - Bill Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

Historically, the party that appoints members of the Supreme Court has had no or very little impact on their ultimate decisions - especially as it concerns Republican appointees. And it had nothing to do with the question posed in this thread. Make your own point -- don’t conveniently seek to justify it through external, and inappropriate examples.

[Ixiah]

Historically, the party that appoints members of the Supreme Court has no or very little impact on their ultimate decisions. .

Now isnt that convenient. A huge part of McCain's (and Bush for that matter) platform as a 'conservative republican' is to stack the Supreme Court court with conservative justices who have a particular legal ideology and make the appropriate decisions. Now would you call their statements false?

Make your own point -- don’t conveniently seek to justify it through external, and inappropriate examples.

You indicated that traditional conservatives care about property rights. My point is that the representatives of 'traditional conservatives' dont reflect this (unless you discount Reagen and Bush as a traditional conservatives). I would hardly call this innappropriate! One switch I can understand (justice Kennedy is nearly single handedly deciding our country's future) but not three. Sorry, but conservatives made the biggest legal decision about personal property in decades and they convienently found their 'traditional property values' not so important anymore.

Yes there was outrage over the decision but was there a attempt to reverse the decision? Did the republican congress attempt a constitutional ammendment? In a word - no. Heck, I'm not sure a conservative state like Kansas even made a state amendment.

FWIW - I thought the decision stinked.

Edit: There were a few bills after ruling but they all died in various committees. Also Kansas is one of the worst states in abusing eminent domain.

[ABC]

The Sup Ct that rendered the Kelo decision about eminent domain for "economic development" reasons, was not a conservative court.

That decision, with Roberts and Alito, would not be made today.

[Ixiah]

The Sup Ct that rendered the Kelo decision about eminent domain for "economic development" reasons, was not a conservative court.

That decision, with Roberts and Alito, would not be made today.

Wish that were true - If you assume Roberts and Alito vote for property rights that still makes the decision the same. Those two replaced justices that were in dissent (Rehnquist and O'Connor).

[Maggie]

Historically, the party that appoints members of the Supreme Court has no or very little impact on their ultimate decisions. .

Now isnt that convenient. A huge part of McCain's (and Bush for that matter) platform as a 'conservative republican' is to stack the Supreme Court court with conservative justices who have a particular legal ideology and make the appropriate decisions. Now would you call their statements false?

Make your own point -- don’t conveniently seek to justify it through external, and inappropriate examples.

You indicated that traditional conservatives care about property rights. My point is that the representatives of 'traditional conservatives' dont reflect this (unless you discount Reagen and Bush as a traditional conservatives). I would hardly call this innappropriate! One switch I can understand (justice Kennedy is nearly single handedly deciding our country's future) but not three. Sorry, but conservatives made the biggest legal decision about personal property in decades and they convienently found their 'traditional property values' not so important anymore.

Yes there was outrage over the decision but was there a attempt to reverse the decision? Did the republican congress attempt a constitutional ammendment? In a word - no. Heck, I'm not sure a conservative state like Kansas even made a state amendment.

FWIW - I thought the decision stinked.

Edit: There were a few bills after ruling but they all died in various committees. Also Kansas is one of the worst states in abusing eminent domain.

Supreme Court Justices are not representatives of conservative thought despite the best “intentions” of the President that happens to appoint them. Some of the most influential and far reaching decisions of the Court have been authored by Justices that were appointed by politicians that have been appalled and/or surprised the reasoning behind said opinion. As I assume you are aware, an appointment is for life – political allegiance, if any, will most often and should die once the appointment is made regardless of what President recommends the appointment. Not that political party allegiance matters much in this scenario.

So to say the written opinions of Justices of the Supreme Court appointed by a “conservative” President (and I would call into question your assertion that either Bush, Ford, Nixon or McCain would be classified as a conservative) are some how automatically representative of conservative thought is a false and simplified analogy – therefore, convenient. Don’t take that the wrong way.

By "traditional conservative", I was writing about traditional political theory not jurisprudence.

[SubGod22]

Also, neither Bush nor McCain are Conservative no matter what they try and tell us.

[ABC]

The Sup Ct that rendered the Kelo decision about eminent domain for "economic development" reasons, was not a conservative court.

That decision, with Roberts and Alito, would not be made today.

Wish that were true - If you assume Roberts and Alito vote for property rights that still makes the decision the same. Those two replaced justices that were in dissent (Rehnquist and O'Connor).

There will be other eminent domain cases and I believe that Chief Justice Roberts will render a majority opinion that is consistent with the intent of the takings clause of the US Const.

Having someone like Roberts as the top dog is a big deal.