Zoning restrictions have their place, but it’s easy to see how things get carried away.

And is anyone in Britain considering the environmental impact on all of this? Tearing down a house is a huge waste of resources.

Scott McKenzie: “Permits are not hard to get (in most cases) and they are not expensive either. They protect society from irresponsible owners/builders. This guy should get with the program and get a permit.”

Scott, the “program” amounts to some subset of people claiming authority over the lives of others, which may or may not be as reasonable as you suggest. If it were reasonable, then there wouldn’t be any need to callously suggest that someone “get with the program” (i.e., obey the dictates of the subset, under threat of force). Instead, the interested parties could work things out through reason, without resorting to force.

Whenever you initiate the use or threat of force, you’ve lost the moral high ground.

You should allow individuals to exercise their rights to live their lives on their own terms (including dispensing with their property as they see fit). So long as they are hurting no one else, it’s their business and you and the petty commissioners and judges should keep your noses out of their business.

So, assuming you’re an American (alter suitably for wherever you are), you have no problem if they pass laws by whatever legal requirements necessary to enslave you and your family, and to take away any assets you possess? “Hey, just so long as they do it legally…” Right?

You were responding to my post on Homeowner Associations. Those are voluntary associations – don’t buy the property, and you won’t have a problem with them. They also do not make laws, and the rules they can make are limited by laws and the constitution (not that they still can’t be a royal pain).

So, assuming you’re an American (alter suitably for wherever you are), you have no problem if they pass laws by whatever legal requirements necessary to enslave you and your family, and to take away any assets you possess? “Hey, just so long as they do it legally…” Right?

The lawmaking (rule making) process can always be hijacked by self-serving charlatans and idiots, and sometimes, if not often, the actual correction of that abuse of process can be so disruptive of your life that it’s even worse than the abuse itself.

Just as an example — It’s blatantly self-evident that the Bono Copyright Extension act, by altering the state of “things already in play”, is an ex-post facto bill of attainder, and thus overtly unconstitutional. However — challenging this in court and winning (or, for that matter, changing it through legislative action), given that one of your chief opponents will be all the lawyers working for (and/or the lobbying resources of) Disney, Inc., is hardly likely to be a constructive use of your limited time on earth. This does not alter either the Constitutionality or the wrongness of the bill in question. It only speaks to the various opportunity costs of ignoring it, changing it, or fighting it.

Txjim, where I’m from in farming country here in the US, we have basically the same things as your friends from Holland, except for the tree stumps. The only barn I know for sure that didn’t need a permit was a little shed 20 x 10 ft, with a dirt floor. Even then, the assessors were out snooping with a few days.

I also find it hard to trust zoning when the biggest supporter locally was the county commissioner/land developer throwing up quick and ugly houses out on former farm ground. You know it’s about responsibility when those guys are in charge! With people like that ‘protecting’ society, I’d prefer not having permits so they can have real competition.

Unfortunately, not always, as new boards can add rules, and new members can take it on themselves to enforce gray areas in both rule and law which violate the spirit/intent of such arrangements while creating enough personal havoc that it ruins your quality of life for an extended time. It’s usually a matter of some tin-pot dictator wanting others to be as miserable as they are.

When you buy, you get a copy of the rules, which includes the rules on how rules are changed. If you agree to them, and are not under duress (see below), then hey, it’s your problem if they change things.

Duress: if every home of a particular category is covered by the same rules, then you are essentially under duress if you need to buy a home of that category. One could make a legal argument of this, but good luck selling it. Morally, though, it’s pretty strong.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

Unfortunately, not always, as new boards can add rules, and new members can take it on themselves to enforce gray areas in both rule and law which violate the spirit/intent of such arrangements while creating enough personal havoc that it ruins your quality of life for an extended time. It’s usually a matter of some tin-pot dictator wanting others to be as miserable as they are.

The world is either a better place for your presence, or it’s not, and some people seem to think that it’s better to add to the misery to “even it out” than to work to lessen their own.

Some people don’t get the idea of kharma, and, regardless of whether you believe its religious elements, you ought to run your life as though you did.