Replies

Now it seems you admit that a gun used in a crime, even though it be private property, can be seized. In this case, the car is being used as the weapon in the crime.

Again, that is ridiculous. You act as if there is no difference between a murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and playing music too loud. That is a fallacious argument.

We allow government to seize a weapon used in commission of a crime therefore we must allow government to seize the car of a guy whose music is too loud. You purposefully ignore the difference between the two crimes and the differing level of government interest.

I think local communities have a right to enforce laws against disturbance of the peace.

Who has said that they don't? "You don't want them to seize private property therefore you must think communities don't have the power to enforce laws against disturbance of the peace." Fallacious. Nobody said that.

If the only practical way to enforce the peace is to seize the vehicles, then it is the drivers of such vehicles, and not the local government, that has made it so. They have no cause to complain if the law is clear and equitably enforced.

Ah....who said that seizing a persons car for this crime is the only practical way to enforce the peace? That is the whole argument. Its NOT the only practical way, in fact its a very extreme way. Its a way that impacts one of the primary foundations of the country, private property rights. Its a way that sets a terrible precedent for your property and mine. That is why we limit government to doing the minimum necessary to accomplish necessary goals.....you know.....Conservatism.

I don't buy the argument that this is an infringement of liberty when the activity engaged in has nothing to do with liberty and the persons engaging in it do not take responsibility for their actions.

Your sense of liberty is rather narrow. People have many rights. People have a right to buy and own a 50-gallon drum of perfume if they want. The problem comes if they dump it in their neighbors yard. You have the right to own a shotgun bigger than you need. The problem comes if you blow your neighbors head off. These guys have a right to own a boombox. They have a right to have it in their car. They even have a right to play it where it doesn't disturb the peace. The question is, what are the remedies that can be applied that solve the problem yet are the least damaging to liberties....car seizure for loud noise is not that minimum remedy.

The other folks, the ones whose sleep is shattered by rhythmic din late at night, have to be taken into consideration as well. Who has said otherwise? We are talking about the level of the remedy, not whether there should be one or not. Fallacy. It is not a zero sum game and nobody said the sleeping folks should not be considered.

Apparently your attitude towards those who, on their own private property, are trespassed upon by these omnidirectional sound cannons, is that they have no rights at all.

Fallacy. I have said no such thing and nobody else did either.

I don't agree with that conception. One man's liberty to swing his fist ends at the tip of his neighbor's nose. In such a case as this, the fact that the car is private property is mooted by the equal property rights of the far more numerous people who are disturbed in their own homes by it, and the wishes of the people as expressed by a government elected by them.

Thats sounds lovely. Look at the current issue of cities seizing private property if they think the property could be better used economically by someone else. Elected officials did that. Conservatives scream bloody murder about it here on Free Republic. You seem to be saying that anything government decides to do is ok because they are elected by the majority. Thats great if you are the majority and not the individual property owner. The Constitution protects us FROM the majority.

Your argument about the swing and the nose is standard. But giving government the power to prevent someone from swinging at your nose is different than giving government the power to cut his arm off, seize his house, and kill his dog.

Your whole argument is disingenuous. You act as if those who don't support seizing these guys cars therefore support government doing nothing about the problem. Thats a fallacy, its incorrect, nobody said it, and I think you know it.

Conservatives support property rights. Conservatives support limited government power. The minimum government power necessary to perform the limited duties assigned it. The minimum disturbance to the rights of individuals necessary to accomplish the necessary tasks of society.

You can't seem to realize, that once you give government the power to seize your neighbors car because his stereo is too loud, you give them the power to seize your car because its emissions don't meet their standard. You give them the power to seize your house because your neighbors don't like the color you paint it if they consider it a nuisance.

Perhaps when they seize your car because its an emitter, or because it had a gun in it, or because you parked over the yellow line and bothered people by taking up two spaces....perhaps you might understand the concepts of property rights and giving government too much power.

If the car is the instrument of the crime, then why cannot it be seized as evidence? You have yet to articulate a standard... it seems that you agree with seizure only for certain types of crime, but you have not come out and said so. Since the car itself is the instrument of the crime this is perfectly reasonable. You say that there is a differing level of government interest but give no details on how you quantify it. I'd say there's about the same level of interest as in stopping grafitti spray-painting... would you at least concede that seizing the spray cans in acceptable?

The effect of these carstereos in many cases is that of an assault, something you are not acknowledging at all. You seem to provide no possibility of remedy to the homeowners. What would you do if you owned a home and your sleep was disturbed regularly with these vehicles?

If you cannot provide an alternate remedy then you are saying to the homeowner "live with it". There is no justice whatsoever in that position.