If all HOA's are socialist institutions, wouldn't The Gulch then be one also? It too is a group of people agreeing to live by a certain set of rules.

Rick is talking about this right now on the Gulch Live radio show. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/activ...

Call in: (712) 775-7031, ACCESS CODE: 560-722

I agree with Mamaemma. I think that if someone wants to let lethal cobras swarm all over their own property, that is their business.

But I think (and perhaps Mamaemma does not) that the moment that one of them wiggles a scale over the property edge, the owner is At That Moment guilty of having released a harmful animal into the environment. You do not have to wait for the snake to bite someone - right then, you go after the owner with the demand that he pay for a competent search for the reptile until it is captured or until he runs out of money. The owner is still legally responsible if the cobra bites someone - but that is a criminal charge.

I think that you can do anything that is legal on your own property, but that 'it' cannot transverse the border of your land.

Jan

Thanks for injecting Rand into the debate, Mike.

should we do away with circuses?
Innocent until proven or found guilty. what about someone who sends their child to school with the flu?

The government should, indeed, anticipate criminal acts. See Ayn Rand on protecting workers from dangerous conditions here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

Moreover, the basic legal case is called TERRY VERSUS OHIO. Terry was a convicted felon, stopped and frisked outside a jewelry store. The police found a gun. He sued. He lost.

Government is the least efficient way to get things done. The absolute last group to ask to fix something. In the case of a non native species, I suspect that there are some things that it needs for survival that arent IN that area, and its scientists who would find this out and figure out how to control it. Government just takes money and does nothing.

Ayn Rand was more pro-active about the government's rightful role in protecting people. See: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

You would buy into a HOA because you have a limited set of options. It is the only thing you can afford to buy in the path to your eventually owning a ranch in the wilderness.

Jan

So dont let them wander outside unattended without realizing when they SEE a snake to leave it alone. Earlier they learn the dangers of certain animals and situations, the better.

If not for fear of reprisals from some "government" agency with the ability to fine you and keep the money for themselves, I bet the owner would tell the neighbors right away so no one got hurt AND he could have better chance of getting HIS SNAKE back !!!! If it were me, I would definitely tell the neighbors and enlist their help in locating it for me.

“But on the matter of protecting people from physical danger, if certain conditions of employment, let us say, are unsafe and it can be proved that there is a physical risk – I don’t say that we have to wait until somebody dies – then the employer who is creating this risk can be sued, and can be severely punished financially. In other words, there can be a law protecting a man from physical injury by another man. In this case, the employer who puts men into conditions of danger – not accidentally, but intentionally or carelessly – can be penalized because he is infringing the right of his workers not to be injured physically.” -- Ayn Rand on Edwin Newman's "Speaking Freely" collected in the anthology Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz (Lexington Books, 2009).

HOA's are socialist institutions. I just wont live in a place with one. I have better things to do that get all worried about a few weeks in the front yard.

There are a lot of dangers, and kids should be aware of them at an early age, OR the parents should keep them safe. Florida has a LOT of lethal little and big animals out there all the time. If one wants to let young children wander unattended, put up a big wall that these critters cant get over.

At least it was 8 feet long and pretty easy to spot. If mine got out I would alert the neighbors but definitely NOT tell the cops so they could fine me and keep the money for themselves and their city retirement funds. Also, I would want it BACK !!!

It is an interesting limit to the idea that we only limit your actions if you actually harm someone. There are potential harms that can be so serious that no post-harm remedy is sufficient to compensate for the damage.

This rapidly evolves into the preventative use of force which doesn't seem very attractive. I guess you could claim you are using retaliatory force against the probabilistic future act that forcefully impacts your rights.

But that slope isn't just slippery, it's greased.

Must have been an eastern diamondback. Those get huge. By our place we have plenty of western diamondbacks. Biggest I've seen so far is 6' and that's exceptionally large for them. Lots of 3-4 footers. Nasty little critters.

Your last paragraph really sums it up well, Rick.
As I see it, the following are options.
a) An overactive government decides that such pets can no longer be pets. That is an overreach.
b) A government or homeowners' association fines them for infringing upon the safety of the neighborhood. There has been some harm done here, simply by people no longer feeling comfortable to let their kids loose in their backyards.
c) Move along. Nothing to see here.
d) Have someone whose family member or pet was killed sue for damages, after a tragic loss. Money can make up for some things, but not life.

This really is a fascinating debate the Gulch will have.

Salty, we are really good at logic -- what's good for me is good
for you. . it overrides your judgment,,, in the color of swingsets
or the nature of pets,,, so that you should adopt MY ideas just 'cuz ........
well, just 'cuz I am ME and you are not. . so there!!!

and it I have the power, watch out -- ME counts over YOU. -- j
.

Don't know if this is an appropriate point to chime in, but here are my two cents, with a prefice that I am as ardent of a supporter of individual rights and freedoms as, I think, there ever was one. I believe in the right of a person to have a tank, but that is because tanks, like guns, do not kill people - it takes a person inside the tank to make it dangerous, and I trust people to be responsible. A venomous snake, however, is deadly automatically the moment it gets out. And they do get out. Kind of like I wouldn't want my tank-owning neighbor to shoot over my house because most of the time the shells will safely pass overhead... I also don't care if someone has a grenade in their home, but if they start tossing it in front of me, I'll have an issue with that, too.

in anarchy we self-defend against any/all intruders; we need the consent of nobody. The axiom of the Non-Aggression Principle - so do not cross that line.

Snake escape is negligence, resulting in a forced contract (like air pollution) with the rest of the community.

Like jbrenner, I don't like excess rules from government. However, if one is negligent and there are consequences, one is responsible.

DITTO

Uh oh. If you've seen Jurassic Park then you know "life finds a way."

Here's a twist to this conversation, and I fully admit that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here: what if the cobra which escaped into the wilds of the US was pregnant?

I ask this because I lived in the northeast US. We had (and might still have) a big problem with Gypsy Moth Caterpillars.

The caterpillar is not native to the area. It was accidentally released (I think in the late 1800s) by a scientist who was trying to find a better silk by researching Asian silk worms and caterpillars. To the researcher's credit, he immediately notified the local and federal authorities. The government ended up doing nothing. One hundred years later, during its peak cycle, millions of acres of forest are destroyed by these little bastards.

So, what to do? It should be the individual's responsibility to clean up their mess. But with living things, a situation can quickly get beyond an individual's ability to responsibility control. And do we want a government which legislates away potential threats (the excuse for much of its current overreach and abuse)?

Your comments are welcome.