Your comment, I believe, had to do with “the concept of private property.” Whether it is a cheap property or a very expensive one, he does not get to do whatever he wants with that property in most places.
He wasn't rich, he was simply not keeping his house up. So your apparent hatred of wealthy homeowners has little relevance to this argument.
Rich or not rich, as the property owner he has an obligation to maintain that property in accordance with community standards in most places. That’s just the way it is. If my apparent hatred of wealthy homeowners has little relevance, would my apparent hatred of scofflaws be relevant?
Second, the fact that property rights in this country have, as a matter of fact, been greatly eroded by creeping socialism doesn't mean that, in theory, this creeping socialism is a good thing.
And aren’t necessarily bad either. For instance, the “family” that lives in an apartment across the street is actually about three families from what I can see. They run (ran, actually) a taxi service from that apartment and had at least seven taxi cabs that they parked all over the place. It sort of puts a kink in the works when each apartment has a single parking space but the residents have many more (commercial) vehicles than they can park - and there are community regulations against running a business out of a residence without a permit here anyway. I don’t particularly mind that.
The main issues are these: why do Mr. Wolk's neighbors get to decide how he deals with his own property? Why do their personal preferences outweigh his own preferences with regard to his property? Do the terms of his deed impose upon him a condition to repair his property? If not, why is he compelled to do so? Why is this a criminal and not a civil offence? What is the standard, and who decides, which house is in an acceptable and which house in an unacceptable state of repair? Was it necessary to smash down his door?
Typically, the neighbors do not “get to decide.” The community standards are in place and a neighbor may call and report a violation, which the city will investigate and pursue or not. Personal preferences don’t have much to do with it – you are in compliance or not. He is compelled to do so, generally, because of past legal action. Generally, someone will file a suit that will result in the city passing an ordinance – or they will do it under the guise of public safety, whatever. As to why this was a criminal offence – it wasn’t. At least not at first. He ignored repeated attempts to resolve the situation. There is no point in having a regulation, law or ordinance that cannot or will not be enforced. So ultimately, yes, they had to go drag him out.
Keep that in mind the next time you get a parking or speeding ticket. You may pay it or contest it, but if you decide to ignore the first one, and ignore the second and third ones, don’t be surprised when you end up getting arrested due to outstanding warrants for failure to appear regarding something that could have been taken care of quickly and easily. You probably won’t like it, just don’t be surprised.
So socialism - i.e. the expropriation by the state of private property - is a neutral thing. A tool, which can be used as a weapon against people you don't like or as a means of favoring people you do like.
An interesting argument, but at base immoral.
For instance, the “family” that lives in an apartment across the street is actually about three families from what I can see.
Hmmm . . . do they rent or own? If they rent, are they violating the terms of the lease? If they own, are they violating the terms of the deed they agreed to?
They run (ran, actually) a taxi service from that apartment and had at least seven taxi cabs that they parked all over the place.
I don't see why you have a say in what kind of business they run.
It sort of puts a kink in the works when each apartment has a single parking space but the residents have many more (commercial) vehicles than they can park
Does each apartment owner/renter have a right to one space? Are these people violating the property rights of others when they monopolize these spaces?
- and there are community regulations against running a business out of a residence without a permit here anyway. I don’t particularly mind that.
What if you brought home some paperwork from the office, hypothetically, and worked from home over the weekend. Is that running a business out of your home? What are the limits, exactly?
Typically, the neighbors do not “get to decide.” The community standards are in place
How did they get "in place"? They started somewhere. The man had lived in the community for 75 years. At what point did he cross over into violating these "community standards"? Who sets the "standards"? The State? If so, they're not community standards.
and a neighbor may call and report a violation, which the city will investigate and pursue or not. Personal preferences don’t have much to do with it – you are in compliance or not.
Oh, is it just that simple? There are no other neighbors in the community who are in violation of these nebulous codes? Every property in that neighborhood is in impeccable shape? (BTW, I know this is not the case - I used to live nearby). Are there people perhaps in that community who own a number of properties in varying stages of disrepair, but because they have money and know an alderman they go unharassed?
He is compelled to do so, generally, because of past legal action. Generally, someone will file a suit that will result in the city passing an ordinance – or they will do it under the guise of public safety, whatever.
So the city can move to erode individual property rights without altering the Constitution. Interesting.
As to why this was a criminal offence – it wasn’t. At least not at first. He ignored repeated attempts to resolve the situation. There is no point in having a regulation, law or ordinance that cannot or will not be enforced. So ultimately, yes, they had to go drag him out.
Ah, they were compelled to make an example of him. They had no choice but to smash an old man's door down in the middle of the night for the crime of not fixing his porch. There simply was no other option conceivable to man. It was fated by the gods.
There is a concept in common law (the tradition on which our Constitution is grounded) which provides for equity - i.e. not using a bazooka to kill a fly.
Because some functionary refused to view a case with a human eye, two men are dead. If that is the system of law we live under, anarchy would be preferable.
People should always remember that EVERY LAW carries a MINIMUM sentence of death if you refuse to comply with those trying to enforce it. Remember that the next time you get a parking ticket. Remember it the next time you say "there ought to be a law", because what you're actually saying is the state should legally be able to KILL people who refuse to comply.