"Don't know what your point is, but some of us wish that the concept of central planning had died along with the old Soviet Union."
You're right about that, you don't know what my point is.
And the way I see it, you don't care to try to find out.
It is enough for you and your pals that since I don't like what urban sprawl has been doing to our land that therefore I must be a liberal or worse.
I don't think that at all.
I think you are either an architect, a city planner, or simply someone that has bought into this propaganda.
In the interest of full disclosure, I make a living giving people what they want by paving paradise and putting up parking lots.
I also hunt, fish, and there is a family farm in the picture.
These interests are not mutually-exclusive.
"It is enough for you and your pals that since I don't like what urban sprawl has been doing to our land that therefore I must be a liberal or worse."
No, it's not about your dislike of urban sprawl, it's your exagerration of sprawl.
I insure that "sprawl" doesn't affect me because I buy property around me; thus, I have no sprawl.
My point is that you can save forests and farmland with buying it. That's what I do. I own forestland that nobody will ever build on as long as I'm alive.
I don't want government passing laws that says you can't use your private property. I prefer that individuals, using the marketplace, stop "sprawl."
Then again, I would never stop an individual property owner from building on his property. Government, through regulation, would. That's wrong.
Your responses have been too moribund for me to take you as a serious defender of private property rights. I could be wrong; maybe you beat up Fish & Wildlife bureaucrats as a hobby on Friday nights.
Naw, I don't think so.
Anyway, my offer stands - when you get your farm let me know - I'll buy your first chicken.