The Happy Slave

This is my surrender to the Powers that Be, who wish we all were just happy little slaves, tooling along without a care in the world, doing what our better-educated masters tell us to do, not daring to step out of line. I'm so bad at surrender...

Name:
Location: Indianapolis, United States

I'm an old-fashioned Get-out-of-my-face-atarian. So long as the gubmint left me alone, I had no problems with it. Gubmint wants to run my life, so I'm doing something about it. (Not just blogging, either.)

Friday, December 09, 2005

"Thou shalt not remonstrate"

Off the bat, I'm in agreement that forced annexation into Fishers is something that's flat-out wrong in our political tradition. Yes, it's been done a lot, but Jim Crow and slavery used to be done a lot, too. However, that being said, I do have to put up a question: What is the history of the non-remonstrance clauses in the covenants for properties around Geist? Were they actively concealed from the current owners, or were the current owners merely too lazy or stupid to read the full covenants before purchase? When I bought my house, I went over all the documents with a flea comb. It's a little thing called "due diligence". If the current residents in the area threatened with annexation didn't bother to check for covenant restrictions upon purchase, then they really just dug their own hole--they merely reap what they sow. Opposing forced annexation on solid political philosophy grounds is one thing, but the selfsame political philosophy that would oppose forced annexation likewise invariably says that poor people have to "stand on their own feet" and should not look to the governanny to keep them safe from themselves. Now that it's rich people who might have voluntarily bought a pig in a poke, there's a hue and cry over "thou shalt not remonstrate" covenants. If these covenants were concealed from the current owners or the owners were told that these covenants had no enforceability, then a valid argument could be made that they are inherently invalid. However, if the current owners had every reasonable opportunity to discover covenants, there was no concealment, then the covenants should stand--or does "self-reliance" and "take the consequences of your actions" not apply to Geist residents? Are morality and American social virtues only to be practiced by the poor?