Replies

You wrote:

"Everyone bought in knowing that this could be changed by a vote. Granted, it seems unreasonable to restrict what goes on in side that is not detectable by others (smoking with the windows closed.)

But if these smokers had confined themselves to that, the restriction would never have passed.

And a ruling by a government judge that the homeowners did not have this power to set their own rules would be the REAL "ruling against personal freedom and property rights."

I can certainly understand how patio tobacco smoke smell could easily be a nuisance to other homeowners."

________________________________________________________

Sir, if you even dare make an attempt to rationalize or defend this assault on freedom, you are on the wrong forum. If you believe that Americans should not have the right to engage in LEGAL activities on their own PRIVATE property, you are not a true Conservative or even a Republican.

Nothing personal. It doesn't make you a bad person. There were many other very intelligent people like you named Marx and Engels who share your view that there should be no such thing as private property. The State should control everything for the common good.

You are in the wrong place. Here is the correct url you were looking for:

http://www.cpusa.org/

Sorry that you got lost and ended up here by accident. I wish you much luck in your future endeavors.

If you believe that Americans should not have the right to engage in LEGAL activities on their own PRIVATE property, you are not a true Conservative or even a Republican.

As a rule, yes, but the important exception that has long been recognized is NUISANCE.

My right to swing my fist ends at your nose, and your right to smoke what you want ends when the smoke drifts, and becomes a nuisance on my property.

Oh, the other exception is CONTRACT, such as when you (or your predecessor promises not to do certain things on your property, in exchange for me not doing certain things on my property.

Ain't freedom a bitch?

You called names and did not respond to his point which is the people of the condo had the right, collectively, to make rules about their environment. It was part of their buying in, paying dues.

How is that different from the people of a state deciding to make rules about their environment.

The person who bought in had the right not to buy in. You would infringe on everyone in the condo complex's right to have their contract honored.

Individualism doesn't alway trump a community's rules. Why on earth would we have lawmakers if we didn't intend to have the individual do what the community decided what lawful.

The condo owners have the right as an association to make their rules and in this case to make new rules. Your owner did not have to buy in.

ANd telling people to leave is mighty high handed and a tactic used by those who have been bested in the argument.