Because builders are somewhat free to compete. Many homeowners associations are good. I live in a small subdivision of about two dozen single family homes. The people who bought here didn't want to look out their windows and see eyesores - a reasonable goal. And we run the association ourselves (we being this small group of like minded people), so have a say in what our dues are and what they go toward. To most of us, the dues are pay are a very small price to pay for living in a beautiful neighborhood.

Exactly - the HOA rules may not be explicit - so the board/committee may be left with judgement on approving color (and can be challenged) - but I have not seen that level of real detail in this press splash.
But in general - there may be people that want to live in a quite (color or noise, etc.) community and signed a group agreement on the matter
(the HOA CC&R's). This is an explicit contract.

Other folks may like living next to bright pink and green houses, using drums and jack hammers as entertainment - or at least taking the risk without and local/neighborhood CC&R's. Other like to collect appliances and vehicles and park them in the front, side, and back yards,

suing for harm is an accepted part of a proper government. It is the least intrusive remedy we have in society for disputes

There was mention of the a homeowners association above (I've heard of the purple swing issue, but didn't check it out), But for argument's sake; let's say putting put a purple eyesore is against the homeowners association rules, and a person agrees to move into the association - no one forced them to, it's NOT the government sticking their nose into something, it's a group of free people agreeing to a set of rules - now a member of the homeowners association renigs on his commitment to live by those rules. Why would that person be the one in the right?

May grow up to14 feet? Article says 18 feet.
But who cares? I also read the statement that Already Deadly As Hell Huge-Assed King Cobra probably won't bite anyone.
So move along. Nothing to see here, folks.
One thing is for sure. Me dino will damn well move on.
Me dino don't wanna see nuttin' near or about that snake-handling bozo's bungle in the jungle place.

Well, children enjoy purple playsets. A king cobra can kill many children.

I hope this helps you figure it out...

well that's insulting. A proper government does not "anticipate" criminal acts. That's what leads to over-regulation and programs like "Stop and Frisk." and it very well is "use the government " only when you need it-harm has happened-else we get "wars" on stuff like drugs and terror-anti-concepts, btw. You are coming off as the typical law and order republican here. where your safety (perceived) trumps my liberties and freedoms (rights that are objective).

...but free will is involved in using firearms or meds to cause harm to another.
A snake will act out of instinct. It has no free will to act a different way if it feels threatened.
I have absolutely no problem with non-lethal snakes.
When the animal is a slithering potential "deadly weapon" that can strike at any time, there is a real threat that should be dealt with or the thought of ownership availability should be re-examined thoroughly.

You are correct in what you said here, db. The problem is that with inherently dangerous animals like the king cobra, the actual harm would be death, in which case no amount of remuneration in civil court could possibly be sufficient.

In common law these issues are treated only in civil law. The law classifies animals as domesticated or inherently dangerous. In both case there had to be actual harm for the plaintiff to have a case. With inherently dangerous animals strict liability is applied. For domesticate animals the case was judged based on negligence.

exactly

Gives me "the willies" too, Mamaemma. The "weak" is not valid criteria in this context. +1

the parent

Actually it's a perfectly correct summation. Just go back and string your posts together.

FWE means Finished With Engines. When the ship is secured to her berth, this tells the engine
room that the particular voyage is over and we
have no further need of you.

You may have noticed, k, that I compared the loose snake situation to the immigration issue.

Saltydog, your summation is not at all correct, but that's ok. What the heck does FWE mean?

The purpose of the fine is to tell the snake owner that he/she was irresponsible and that his/her actions or inactions have effects on others. Discouragement of similar acts in others (the so-called deterrent effect) is not the primary purpose of the fine. It might be a secondary effect.

This issue actually is similar to the immigration issue we all have discussed recently when it comes to the infringement aspect. I think that SaltyDog and I are quicker to take offense about infringements on society, whereas most of the people in this forum are offended more quickly when the rights of the individual are infringed upon. Both are affronts and deserve our indignation.

To expect the neighbors to bring a lawsuit is really too much of a burden on the neighbors. They have already been punished by their irresponsible neighbor. To have to go to court to get justice is more trouble than it is worth, unless, of course, the king cobra kills one of your family members (or more likely, pets).

So to sum up, you don't want government in our lives, except when someone does something that you don't like, and then you can go to the government that suddenly you want in our lives, so you can sue.

I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

FWE

"The government should do something!"

Thank you, K, bedause this post has a definite whiff of statism, and that gets my hackles up.

Try to remember that if a cobra gets into your house.

Perfectly, actually

you're doing great mama :)