And while jumping up and down and waving the my-home-is-my-castle flag is easy to do, there is also a reason why (some) zoning laws exist.

Yes. I see two possibilities here: 1)The city is sure she is lying. The picture indicates the room has at least been remodeled. 2) There was an existing California or Riverside County code at the time she bought the house. 3) The inspectors are just being assholes. I’d probably assume this one if the case hadn’t already been reviewed by a judge.

If the LA Times, like every other MSM, wasn’t completely devoid of competent reporters, we’d know the answer.

Peace out.

Turn over your internetz licenses and leave the building at once.

hmmmmm…..maybe he did cause it.

“Not to nitpick, but that’s not true. However, point taken.”

Touche.

I have For a New Liberty somewhere. I’ll try to find and re-read it (it’s been awhile). I assume that’s my best bet with Rothbard; if it’s not, please let me know.

“since every one of your comments is about anarchy”

Not to nitpick, but that’s not true. However, point taken. :)

“I was hoping you could answer this or point me to someone who can.”

Please read Murray Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, John Hasnas, Sheldon Richman, Roy A. Childs, Ronn Neff, and Charles Johnson (RadGeek) from the modern era, and Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Herbert Spencer and Emma Goldmann and others from the classic era.

“I haven’t read much political philosophy in a decade, but I would be very interested in a coherent explanation of how an anarchist area wouldn’t eventually create a government.”

In statism, the State and government are unified, so the nature of government as oppressor takes root. Anarchism differentiates between State and government. Under individual sovereignty, the government as it might exist would be administered by each individual (actively defending his/her rights) and would not be oppressive. In fact, any spontaneous order could be termed a government. Government can be neutral as long as power is devolved to the smallest possible unit — it is the State (centralization) that introduces force to government.

I believe these are the ideas that Jefferson was after, equality before the law, government existing to secure natural rights, right of revolution, perpetual “jealousy” of government, separation of powers, etc. Turned out that he was only interested in serving his class, too bad.

“Basically, I can see the merits very easily but I’m at a loss on how such a set-up would be sustainable.”

Rothbard is your man here. Essentially, it’s central planning (statism) that is unsustainable, as past, recent and future events will demonstrate. In a very small population, individual sovereignty might thrive. Contracts and non-violent methods of moral suasion like shunning and ostracism might be enough to perpetuate anarchy. Grow the population, and it gets more unsustainable over time — entropy applies to society as well as physics. Once a population exceeds a certain threshold, the State becomes inevitable in my opinion, as it appears that large populations can only be administered by force.

“Also, I assume you’re not coming from wherever Chomsky is. If so, nevermind.”

I respect Chomsky’s views on the nature of power and his work in language, but he is a socialist, so we part company there.

I understand the difficulty of anarchism, but it is the only rational alternative to statism. Every complaint on this site is derived from state control over individuals. Restoring control to individuals is the only real solution, as risky as that might be. Everything else is just navel gazing.

#20 | Alex | October 20th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. She bought the house in 1978. Make of that what you will.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Alex. Since there were no building codes that La Quinta could enforce when the property was purchased, any codes thereafter don’t apply and she should be grandfathered (or grandmothered) in. This, of course, if the bedroom was already a bedroom when she purchased it.

However, I, too, am torn on this issue. I can see both sides and it’s hard to argue against a little old lady. But the city has a point because if some carpet salesman or house painter goes into that “bedroom” and something happens to them due to the room being out of code, the city will likely face a lawsuit for not enforcing the code (if it’s not to be grandfathered in, of couse).

The point is this: private property. This means if people want to make a dad decision they should be allowed to do so. For example back when I used to live at home with my parents I lived in the basement, in a windowless room, an obvious fire trap. Yet, I understood this risk and so did my parents. The government has no business telling me, or anyone, that it’s not allowed. It’s the exact same thing with this case. If this woman wants to have a room which is less safe than standards dictate, then that’s her prerogative, not yours.

My friend’s father worked for the county and took considerable ribbing from his co-workers over the matter… that is, until the landlord threatened to sue the county for approving his purchase of three nonpermitted houses, none of which were up to code.

The county backed down immediately and granted retroactive permits and variances on all three dwellings.

I’m not sure what the situation is for Camargo, but if the county took it on themselves to approve the sale of a house with a bedroom instead of a garage, I’d think that’s exactly what she bought. If she’s being hit with a loss, I hope she has the means to recover. (I would also wonder how a jury in a civil case would view the county’s imposing that loss on her some 30 years after they cleared the sale.)

Maybe the law is different there, but it seems that due diligence should work both ways.

Even if she tries to sell it, the buyer should get a home inspection (only idiots buy houses without them), and these things will be pointed out. But to burst in and jail and go to these lengths is just thuggish behavior.

Houses are built to different earthquake codes than garages, as we have seen recently in China buildings not up to code are a significant danger to people. The average person doesn’t have the knowledge or expertise to judge whether a particular building is safe. Thankfully due to building codes we don’t need to.

Also, I assume you’re not coming from wherever Chomsky is. If so, nevermind.

Anar … oh, nevermind.