Let's jail owners of abandon property

If it has never happen to you and your neighbors, imagine for a moment.  You have a great house in what you thought was a good neighborhood.  Then, the owners of two houses on the block stop making repairs to their homes.  Maybe there were rental properties that went vacant because of the leaky roof or the electrical problems that haven’t been repaired.  Brush piles up, the pool in the back yard fills with swampy water creating a hazard for kids in the area, not to mention the mosquitoes.

After many violation tickets and years of issues, the property still doesn’t get fixed. 

According to a study by the University of Michigan, in Flint and other areas around the state, the value of a home in a neighborhood drops by 10% for every blighted house.  Not just on your block, but in a two block radius. 

A law proposed by Senator Virgil Smith that is getting some attention in Lansing would help with that problem.  Property owners that don’t care of their property could be jailed for a second offense.  It could be a year in the slammer for a third offense.   It would also speed up the process of placing liens on properties and prevent land owners with liens of obtaining building permits on other property.

People have the right to own property.  But, with any right, there comes responsibility.  When any right is exercised, as in purchasing property, the responsibility takes effect.  Property owners that don’t take care of their property, endanger the safety of people in the community and have a detrimental effect on the value of other property need to eventually lose their right to own property. 

This is a bigger problem than someone losing their job and not being able to take care of their property.  There are solutions to issues like that.  This issue is focused on properties owners that own multi properties and are abusing their right.  This is focused on banks that take over foreclosed property and don’t maintain them.

These bills in Lansing need the support of the community.  If we are to maintain our living environment, everyone needs to live up to their responsibility.  If not, they lose their rights. 
-----

Rights are not absolute

A continuing debate with a couple of readers about absolute rights grew out of posts on gun rights.  The readers all say in no uncertain terms all rights are absolute.  This reply may be deeper than most would like to read, but there are some very basic reasons why rights are not absolute.

Let’s first define the meaning of absolute and a right.  Absolute means that something is always the same under all conditions.  A right is an action that can be taken by someone.  So an absolute right is something that you can do under all circumstances.

Anytime there is a social contract, which could be as simple as two people living together, a family or a community, rights are limited and not absolute.  The only way people can live together is to give up at least the full measure of some rights and others all together.  Even those rights that we retained under the United States social contract, the Constitution, can have limitations placed on them to help build a safe and secure environment.

The original Constitution had no guarantee of rights.  What the Constitution did, was established a frame work for electing a government that would write a set of laws.  With some limitations on what laws the federal government could establish, it was left to the elected officials with support of the people to write laws.  If there was a compelling reason, the elected officials supported by the people, could limit the actions that people took for the common good.

Not that the authors of the Constitution and those that supported it in the various states at the time, didn’t think that rights were important.  Many supported the Constitution with a condition.  They wanted amendments added to guarantee individual rights.  After all they had just tossed out the foreign occupation by a tyrannical government (a government not elected by a free and open election).  But, they also wanted both security and a working frame work that they could depend on for their personal and professional lives.  The forerunner of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a disaster.  The unrestraint rights that the individual states had under that charter worked against all the other states.  Without the ability to limit the rights of individuals, institutions and states for the common good, the union was nearly torn apart.

Even some libertarians (which generally describe the political beliefs of those that I am addressing this response) believe that rights can be curtailed and are not absolute.  Morris and Linda Tannehill, in the book The Market for Liberty, write, "Rights are not inalienable.”  Their theory is that an individual gives up their right if force is used against another that causes detriment.  This is the point from above and the formation of a social contract.  The only difference between libertarians in this case and federalist at the time of the Constitution was who would require the individual that committed a crime to be punished.

Communities are in near continuous debate on the limits of individual rights.  If we are to find the balance between freedom and the protection of others, the debate must be robust and flourish.  But, to assume that individual rights are absolute and can’t be restricted based on a compelling reason to prevent harm to another living in the community is false.

-----

Don't follow the leader

Lori Klein, an Arizona State Senate Republican, pointed her “cute” pink pistol at a reporter that was interviewing her and demonstrated how the laser aiming device works by pointing it at the reporter’s chest.  Klein did this while the .380 Ruger, that has no safety, was loaded. 

Let’s follow the leader.  All of us should pull out our guns and start pointing them at people just to show how fun it is.  After all, the leading proponent of the Second Amendment in Arizona did so it must be the right thing to do.

Before anyone thinks that I am a liberal that wants to take away all guns, leaving only criminals with guns, think again.  My father was a police officer and hunter.  He had guns in the house for his profession and his hobby.  I was taught gun safety just like being taught to say please and thank you.  When I was 14 years old I went through the NRA’s gun safety program.  For many years I was a hunter.  I am personally in support of gun ownership, if that is something people want to do.

There is also a little thing called the Constitution.  Regardless of the debate about a militia, it does, in some form, guarantee the right to own guns.  Citizens of any Responsible Community should not be required to give up the right to own guns. 

None of the above means that the right to “bear arms” is absolute.  When the authors of the Constitution wrote in a few of our rights, it was never intended to mean that communities could not place reasonable restrictions on those rights.  The reason we live in a community is to come to terms on the laws that provide for a safe environment.  To allow just any crazy person to have a gun because it is a right is wrong. 

Speaking of crazy people, Senate Klein from Arizona is not only out of line by pointing her gun at the reporter, she should be arrested.  While it is not illegal apparently to point a gun at someone in Arizona (I can’t find where it is anywhere in the country) it could be considered an assault.  The reporter was not acting threatening and was not carry a weapon.  Yet, a loaded gun was pointed at him for no cause other than to allow the Senator to have a little fun with her “cute” pink pistol.  By the way, “cute” is her term.

People follow leaders.  That is just the way humans work.  While some leaders shouldn’t be followed, like Senator Klein, it is certain that someone will do the same thing because the senator did it.  Next time, there may be an unintended firing of the weapon and someone will be dead.  That is why the senator needs to face the consequences of her action.

-----

Violent video games should be restricted

The community received a punch from the Supreme Court this week. The court ruled that the citizens of the California community can’t ban the sale of violent video games to children under 18 years of age without an adult in tow. Therefore all other communities that have or are considering such restrictions must abandon their positions.

The people of California working through their legislature enacted a law that bans the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18 years of age. Research has demonstrated a relationship between children interacting with the violence in video games and aggressive, antisocial behavior. It was enacted to support the rights of parents that may not want their children to engage with the games.

The court ruled, with Justice Anthony Scalia writing the majority opinion, that video games are protected free speech, therefore they can’t be banned. The Supreme Court clearly identified three areas of speech that historically have been restricted, that which is obscene, inciting and fighting words. Scalia said the state of California did not prove that violent video games harm children therefore the court could not carve out another form of restricted speech.

The suit against the people of California was brought by the video game association whose only roll according to its function is to sell product not protect speech. The association for that reason should have no standing to bring the suit. In addition, the self imposed rules that the association encourages its retail members to follow are the same as the law codified. If the law is unconstitutional on free speech grounds, then the rules of the association is also wrong.

This ruling takes a long step away from any practical understanding of the First Amendment. It doesn’t separate commercial and political, educational or religious speech. The videos that California is attempting to restrict are videos that have entertainment value only. It states in the law that if any reasonable person can see no value other than entertainment, the sale of the game can be restricted. It avoids any attempt to restrict those that take a political stand on issues, institutions or politicians. It also states that games can’t be restricted that have educational or religious value. Certainly the founders’ intent was to protect political speech and was not an absolute right to say or express anything. As evidence of that, even Scalia in the majority opinion said that there are at least three restrictions.

On another point, the law doesn’t ban the videos entirely. Those that are 18 years of age or older may purchase the videos. The law recognizes that when an individual reaches the age of majority the individual can act with greater maturity. Full freedom therefore is granted at that age including the right to purchase video games that are violent in nature.

The purchase of violent videos is not a life or death situation. Neither is it a case where the child will be burden with a great weight for a long period of time if the purchase isn’t made. There is no reason the community shouldn’t restrict the purchase of the videos unless allowed by a parent.

At the end of the argument, parental control is what it is all about. The law did not ban the videos but stated that a parent or guardian must approve if purchased by someone under 18.

Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and often a political soul mate with Scalia, did not support the majority opinion. It was clear to him that rights are not absolute and that the founders’ never intended for children to have rights beyond what their parents grant. The California law supported those rights by reserving for parents and guardians the right to make the decision to purchase the games for their children.

The Supreme Court made a bad decision in this case. While the research about violent videos causing harm to children may not be as strong as it could, the court didn’t consider the practical aspects of the rights reserved for individuals in the Constitution. No right is absolute and as long as legislatures are not choosing sides in a debate about those rights but applying rules to all equally, there is no reason a community can’t act to protect their children, even if the threat is small.

-----