Does anyone else get tired of freepers forcing us to look at everything

through a prism of "private property rights".

Is it just me?

that they are nutts and go on about your day. Nothing pisses a freeper off more than not arguing.

:)

What's wrong with private property rights?

why don't you try to answer it yourself?

Rather than indignation--please give example

freeps put a superior role to individual personal ambitions and hold the idea of personal achievement/competition winner takes all above securing the general welfare and public resources. Repugs are basically anti sharing,anti new deal,let the poor suffer.anti public property,anti commons.

who don't empathize with ANYTHING that does not directly affect them - or until it DOES affect them. So what's new ?????

what does that have to do with private property rights?

what is your argument to begin with? All I did was ask you a question!

But I think what you're asking is akin to asking someone to spell a word they're trying to look up in a dictionary. If they knew that, they wouldn't have to look it up, you know?

I think at the least, we'd like some context. I too think the OP is being cryptic.

What is wrong with private property rights, that was my question.

I think that's the confusion as to why you ask the question. They think you're refuting the OP when you're trying to understand why the OP even brings it up.

Correct?

just "private property."

You missed the point of the post.

The point was that there is an apparent contradiction when peoples' privacy and authonomy rights are deemed to hold superior to the need for them to evacuate for their own health reasons, but inferior when it comes to the issue of whether houses should be broken into by the NOLA law enforcement- for health reasons.

And your calling me a freeper is pretty fucking offensive. You're reading that one wrong, as well.

Look to the OP for that. I tend to agree tha there may be limits, and you have explained some in your post--I am still puzzled however over the OP statement.

not you.

I'm personally leaning toward the view that health concerns trump all of those rights.

I'm just looking for a little consistency, because it seems to be the same people who are steadfastly against a forced evacuation that are just as cavalier about breaking into everyone's houses, whether people need help or not.

Personally, I don't want people with guns breaking into my house. When the circumstances deem it necessary, such as those in NOLA, I can certainly understand it. But, when things get to that point, it also seems pretty justified to go ahead and tell people that they have to leave- for their own good.

And I would leave. Lest the police have to break into my house again a week later.

I propose a F* free month with no reference to them at all - nothing.

like arguing if fuchsia is redder than crimson---The OP is cryptic, and I am still puzzled by whatever the hell it means and there seems to be a pile-on effect at work.

I don't know if it makes me a bad democrat or what, but I am pro-private property rights. Pro-land stewardship, pro-get-out of my bedroom rights, pro-choice rights, etc. etc. and most of these boil down to privacy.

continuation of another little "discussion" and the snark factor is a bit too high.