Armacing

Freedom protected at the federal level, everything else determined at the state level. What don't you understand? Edit: Let me clarify: Do I think states should have the right to restrict freedom beyond those restrictions imposed at the federal level? Yes because people have the freedom to move, and therefore the ability to avoid that law. A law that restricts freedom at the federal level is way worse. And since I know state-level restrictions that disrupt the free market will result in obvious negative economic outcomes, I feel confident in the long run those restrictive states will have no choice but to change their laws. That exact thing would have happened here in the US during the pandemic if it hadn't been for Federal hand-outs given to bankrupt states & cities. There is no better guarantor of long-term freedom than letting a few states destroy their economies for everyone else to see.

If somebody wants to throw away their property that is their prerogative as property owners. You seem to be arguing for the complete elimination of private property rights and free will, right? No they are not. If I want to receive food stamps they tell me my income is too high, which coincidentally is the same reason I was target for taxation. By design, those who contribute the most taxes are excluded from receiving most welfare services. Contrast that with taxes paid for national defense where everyone benefits equally. Example? Not as bleak as the current reality of socialism we live in with declining standards of living and a hopelessly ignorant public who can't figure out how their own actions caused the very thing they are complaining about. But how come the services you receive in return for paying more taxes do not also ramp up in years of high income to match the amount of money taken? A person who pays a higher % in taxes should receive more services, otherwise everyone should be taxed the same. Equality is the name of the game when it comes to government. There is no state that has made laws restricting immediate treatment for rape victims, but let's assume there could be. Let's assume that some crazy state says once conception has occurred, then *nothing* can be done to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. If I were a woman in that state, I would move to another state. Heck, even as a man I would consider moving to another state because it's just a matter of time before they pass some idiotic law targeting other freedoms. That's the whole point behind states having different laws and competing economically and culturally against each other. Eventually the pain of population loss and economic stagnation makes the consequences of stupid laws obvious and unavoidable such that the most offensive state laws are repealed as a matter of survival. Voting with your feet is the highest form of democracy because instead of making everyone suffer through one particular law, a variety of laws are available to live under and we get to find out which ones actually work best in real life. Agreed. Great answer, I like what you did with the "willing acceptance of duty" concept... It preserves the element of free association, and essentially turns it into a contract. Of course, the law will have to decide when (at which state of pregnancy) this acceptance is implied... so we're right back where we started with the government establishing some red line during the pregnancy beyond which abortion is prohibited because that would breach the previously accepted duty. ... Unless you are thinking that all pregnancy duties must be explicitly accepted by registering pregnancies with the government? Assuming you did intend implicit acceptance in your scenario, how is that different from the current status quo? The Libertarian perspective is that the mother cannot be charged with any crimes for activities related to her own body, therefore she could not be charged with child abuse. Mandating standards for acceptable behavior by the mother during pregnancy is a slippery slope that leads to rules about avoiding 2nd hand smoke and taking prenatal vitamins and undergoing mandatory doctor visits and the codification of legal birthing practices, etc. In a Libertarian world view, the mother is completely in charge of the pregnancy regardless of the opinions of others, including the right to end the pregnancy by C-section or chemical inducement at any stage of pregnancy. The only nuance, as I outlined before, is that her rights do not extend to the ability to end the child's life. If premature separation results in death, so be it, but if not, then the child lives regardless of her feelings about the matter. It's situations dealing with life and death that demand the most rigorous application of ideological purity, in my view. I could just as easily characterize your philosophy of "let's do whatever is easiest and most convenient" as absurd considering the morally weighty nature of the question at hand. However, instead I would rather focus on your characterization of abortion as "humane", or in this case, more humane than my proposed system. Let's do an experiment: Let's let those babies who can survive (some can at even 23 weeks) grow up to age 18 and then take a poll among them to see if they think my method or your method is more humane. It only makes sense to let those experiencing the "humane" treatment you are concerned with to give some customer feedback, don't you think? Yep, I'm just like the Sheriff of Nottingham: "No more merciful beheadings". They are black because they are regulated by government. Every black market (with all of it's negative features) used to be a free market that was self-regulated to perfection until the government stepped in. Engaging in risky activities is the right of every free individual, but if someone get's killed, then a crime has been committed... could be manslaughter or murder depending on the circumstances. If it's just an injury and not death, then I guess it depends on whether or not anyone wants to press charges. Nope, a libertarian society is a great idea... maybe the greatest idea ever! The phrase "Live Free or Die" is the perfect example of ostensibly flippant libertarian concepts that seem to be unnecessarily simplistic and short-sighted. However, the truth is that freedom is not easily established nor maintained, and it is characterized by a bunch of people who love their own freedoms but are unhappy about the way everyone else is exercising their freedoms. So statements like that serve as a reminder that freedom is an ideal unto itself regardless of the real world consequences of the pursuit of freedom. Now, let's go back to California: In a Libertarian society a person's insurance company would have something to say about reckless behavior and losing your insurance and being labeled "uninsurable" carries certain weighty consequences in a Libertarian society that will cause most people to think twice. Then there's criminal arson. Plus the threat of civil court proceedings and the loss of assets, including the loss of the very land that the offender loves to exercise freedom on so much. It seems to me there would be ample disincentive in a Libertarian society to discourage people from behaving recklessly. And if a person is hell-bent on starting a forest fire, then no amount of laws will stop them, as we see today in CA.

Money is just a means of trade... a medium of exchange, so you are correct to point out that people want money so they can obtain assets. But that nice little observation does not invalidate the crux of my point about there being no ambiguity about who is committing violence and who is the victim of violence and what the motive for violence is. There is a clear aggressor and a clear victim and a clear motive. My point of contrast was that your other two issues dealt more with determining whether or not violence has been committed - a fundamentally different question. Because in all cases we agree that violence against peaceful, innocent individuals is wrong and should be punished by law. The example of socialism however shows how democracy twisted that concept and sanctioned violence against innocent, peaceful individuals... And those who supported such an immoral application of government power are now compelled to construct elaborate contradictory philosophies to try to justify it. Now here is an interesting comment. If I understand you correctly, you're characterizing the fact that people must endlessly pursue money just to survive as "extortion" and "lack of choice", and that by utilizing the government to take money from rich people they can achieve a society of free and voluntary association, is that correct? You think that needing money to survive is some kind of wrong that has been inflicted upon them by the structure of pseudo-capitalist society, is that right? If so, then I would say you are wrong because the scarcity of resources is a burden placed upon humans by the universe itself, chiefly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I'm not opposed to taxes, per se. I'm opposed to discriminatory taxes where the money is taken with the express intent of not providing a government service to the taxed person in return. Taxes that fund legitimate government functions must be backed by violence, as you correctly pointed out, but re-distribution of wealth is not a legitimate function of government. There is already a 100% voluntary system for distributing wealth in a free society and it's called the free market. Well, first of all I think it's more likely they would destroy their assets rather than give them away in such a scenario, but let's overlook that point and focus on the crux of your argument. Are you saying that it's OK for a government to discriminate against certain peaceful citizens so long as they are capable of changing the criteria used for discrimination? Again, you're looking at this backwards. Everyone is a fetus at some point, so the rule applies to 100% of the population during the course of their lives. Rape represents an incredibly small % of abortions and in such cases action could be taken immediately to prevent an unwanted pregnancy long before the fetus reached an age that anyone cared to argue about. Yeah, that's how age of consent works. Wait, so are you opposed to the concept of age of consent? Good to hear you say that about no person having the right to demand the use of another person's body - totally agree. Does that mean you think an unborn fetus is a person? Let's flip the script: Let's say a mother wants to have a baby but she also really loves alcohol, cocaine, and heroin (which should be 100% legal, by the way). If the child is born deformed and drug dependent, does the mother face child abuse charges, or is she in the clear since the damage from her drug usage occurred before the baby was born? Personally, I think the mother has the right to have an early C-section or chemically induced birth at any stage of pregnancy. If the baby lives, great, if not, well, [insert your god here] has reclaimed their own. But that's not what happens during abortion, is it? It's not merely between two people parting ways (free association), but the doctor actively kills the fetus. Now you may say "Even if the mother never has to lift a finger to raise the child, she would still be burdened with emotional anguish knowing she is a mother when she didn't want to be. To that I respond: I am unsympathetic to the emotional anguish of individuals who propose violence as a means of alleviating that anguish [*cough* Socialists! *cough*]. Ha, I don't think I would ever give up on defending myself or my property. How many bears are willing to sacrifice themselves to my rifle before they change their tune? Bears are not as dumb as you think. Any number of much less intelligent animals have learned to associate humans with danger. I could even argue that since those bears were not exposed to the threat of death from human encounters at an early age, they have been falsely lulled into a sense of safety around humans - - and for that unfortunate state of affairs, I blame the NH state law. But once freedom (human freedom, that is) is returned to NH, the bears will be quickly disavowed of their previously mistaken assessment of security around human dwellings. Then the glorious balance of nature will be restored and bears will be motivated (compelled?) to roam free up in the mountains and away from the village. What damage and expense am I trying to reclaim in court? Are you suggesting I would have legal recourse against someone else if a wild bear walks onto my property and does damage? I view that as an act-of-god, unless the bear is owned by someone else. Is it owned by someone else in your scenario? People are free to keep pets, but if their pets do damage to someone else's property, then they are legally liable. I think a court would ultimately have to decide if any animal is owned by another person if damages are going to be sought... As far as creating perfect habitats: Hard to imagine that raises to the level of owning a pet. But in general, someone who lives in the woods is well equipped to deal with snakes and hornets and all manner of creepy-crawlies. Personally, I would very much like to see how the rattle-snake/murder-hornet-lady lives on her own property. If she manages to control the beasts to her satisfaction, then I might employ similar tactics to keep them in check. It's only a "black market" if it's illegal, which it would not be in a free market society. In a Libertarian economy, markets are tasked with regulating themselves. How is it consensual? I thought the goal of each participant in the duel was to kill, not be killed. If the goal was to die, then it would be easier to just commit suicide (which should be legal). Well, first of all I would just like to point out that exact scenario happens with some regularity in California, which I assume has numerous anti-forest fire regulations on the books. However, when someone commits criminal arson (including through negligence), they are imprisoned, and that provides a deterrent against others being so careless. Can the forest be restored? No. Does the threat of jail deter? Probably. If you can start a forest fire and keep it entirely on your property, then you are free to do so within a Libertarian society. As you can tell, in a free society, any number of unusual landscaping practices are permitted. I'm not so sure it's more efficient (or let's say, productive) from a wealth preservation standpoint because you're not weighing the wealth destruction caused by the prohibition on burning. Some burning is beneficial for forest management and agriculture. But regardless of whether or not your economic calculus is correct, the fundamental principle of allowing freedom first and trying court cases when a dispute arises is superior to attempting to remove freedom in order to avoid litigation. Freedom trumps convenience in a Libertarian society.

The most audacious display of Tony's confidence was the fact that whenever you went to a Predators game during that era, the opening video on the Jumbotron featured the mascot saber-tooth cat scaling the Signature tower and roaring triumphantly from its serrated crown (like King Kong on the empire state building). I remember seeing that graphic and telling the co-worker next to me about Tony's plan to build the new tallest tower in Nashville. Between that graphic and the self-confident description of the project that Tony verbally delivered at the forum meet-up one Saturday in the Belmont neighborhood, I got the impression it was a done deal. I really do think the economic collapse was the only thing that stopped it, and that debacle still makes me nervous any time a major project is announced with a long time gap until ground-breaking.

When it comes to economic issues there is no disagreement between rich & poor: They both agree that money is good and they both want it. The question is whether or not the majority will be permitted to use the government as a proxy to inflict violence upon the otherwise peaceful minority. But there is no disagreement or philosophical gray area here: Both sides agree taxes are backed by violence, and both sides admit the socialist transfer of wealth from rich to poor is not voluntary. In contrast, I would say abortion and consent issues boil down to a determination about what is violence, and even when a person is determined to be a victim or non-victim of violence based on their age. Almost two sides of the same coin, but essentially the question is different. It's not about justifying violence with some delusional philosophies, but rather a question of whether or not violence has been committed. I see them as distinct. Furthermore, the abortion/consent laws apply to everyone, not just a select few based on income, so it's not discriminatory like socialist-style re-distribution of wealth is. A non-discriminatory law is morally superior to a discriminatory law. Abortion is not about free, voluntary actions though, is it? The essential question is when the unborn child has rights... specifically the right to life. You could only claim abortion is voluntary if the fetus also consents to be aborted, but that would run afoul of the age of consent law anyway, so we're back to square one. Well, that law was at least the cause of the bear problem, which constituted an outsized portion of the article. But you do go off the rails when you characterize it as a "utopia". I think it was intended to be a libertarian refuge, but I doubt anyone claimed it was a utopia. There were so many different interpretations among the townsfolk about what constituted an acceptable exercise of freedom that nobody was happy with anybody. To you that sounds like a flaw, but it's actually a feature. Free societies are characterized by people having the ability to do what makes them happy regardless of other people's opinions about it and unencumbered by government regulation. The only restriction is that you cannot deprive others of their life/liberty/property, but as long as you don't then the sky's the limit. I would say remove the state law against shooting bears on your property. If an errant bear enters your yard, then its life is forfeit. You've heard of the castle doctrine, right? If a human comes into your yard and threatens you with violence and destroys your property, then you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself, your family, and in most cases, your property. Surely a violent bear has fewer protections under the law than a violent human does. If doughnut lady wants to keep bears on her property, that's her right, but she's gonna need a fence to keep them in. You know the old saying about how good fences make good neighbors? Definitely true in a libertarian world. Organ sales.... Libertarian says: No restrictions on trade Duels... Libertarian says: Murder is illegal Pay for fight... Libertarian says: People are free to chose any profession they want People can start fires on their land, but big mistakes come with big lawsuits.

No apology needed, but I also apologize if it offended you. I thought it was funny, but I wanted to see what would happen if I used it against you since maybe it had some significance to you. FYI... I'm also married with kids, so I got your meaning on the second half of your comment Yes, I do take that position. The struggle to maintain freedom and the rights of minorities is a central feature of all democracies given the tendency of the majority to wield their democratic power to oppress the minority. Understanding the essential concepts of economics are beyond the mental capacity of most people (present company excluded, of course), so democratic voters often fall into the trap of believing they can improve their economic plight by targeting one particular minority that (at least superficially) appears to hold the key to their poverty problem: rich people. Even before the words socialism and communism were developed in the 19th century, the underlying principles were at work since the dawn of civilization... which is logical when you consider how they arise spontaneously in human populations that are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the complex natural laws of trade. I should also mention here one of the key principles of Austrian Economics that informs my commentary above: That the fundamental principles of economics are "natural laws" akin to gravity and inertia. They are essential truths of human motivation/interaction/planning/decision-making/survival that are necessarily derived from the reality of humankind's plight (i.e., they must find a way to survive on a planet with scarce resources). In this way, the principles of economics are not a policy to be set by governmental decree, but rather a fundamental set of truths that underlie all peaceful human interaction and they must be discovered by observation and the development of theories and hypotheses similar to other sciences. Oh sure, laws can be made that control economic activities, but they are unable to alter the fundamental principles of reality, therefore they almost uniformly worsen the plight of humans, at least in the long run. At their core, such laws are basically decrees that essentially consist of "go create wealth" (which is of course impossible to decree because wealth is created through voluntary interaction, not by coercion) or "go transfer wealth" (which rather amusingly includes the implicit assumption that an inexhaustible source of wealth exists to be transferred). Indeed, most educated people seem to comprehend at some intuitive level that such laws actually destroy wealth over the long term, but they are willing to overlook that unpleasant fact for the sake of political expediency. In my opinion, the only Libertarian angle on this question would be to say it should be the same age where one obtains adulthood and full agency including the ability to enter contracts. As for what age that is, I think that's a cultural question that will be decided based on the religions and traditions of a given culture and a worthy question to be decided by democracy. From a Libertarian perspective, any age chosen will be arbitrary, but that arbitrariness does not run afoul of the principles of freedom and private property so long as everyone obtains full emancipation at that age. Another case where determining the boundary between tissue sample and viable human will involve a democratic process that will be influenced by culture and religion. However, in the particular case of Roe v. Wade, I will say that I support the concept of letting states decide their own laws on as many issues as possible, so yes, I support its repeal. That doesn't mean I necessarily support limiting abortion, but rather that I'm just a huge proponent of state's rights. It would be awesome if we could have enough variation in laws within the US to provide a homeland for everyone on the political spectrum that exactly matches their values. First of all, I would say it's hard to take the article seriously considering the publication, but I will humor it with a response: What is the complaint? Potholes? They exist even in the most socialist of cities. What else? Bears? The article itself states this problem arises from the New Hampshire prohibition on shooting bears on your property....So that is clearly not libertarian and the author chose to make a big stink about the bears without acknowledging the obviously governmental origins of the problem... very disingenuous if you ask me... perhaps intentionally deceptive? The article could be more truthfully be titled "How state and federal laws ruined a Libertarian experiment". But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative that The New Republic wants to promote. They are pro-government to the extreme, but this particular article is actually sad in that it displays just how desperate they are to try to find something wrong with freedom - - even to the extent of blatant omission of the obvious.

Agree with most everything you said, except the part about that being "business as usual". Actually, that's "government as usual". I think Melrose did a good job of reminding the group that this entire process is not about improving the city at large or economic development, but rather enriching politicians and the corporations that bribe them. Some people are fine with it and some are outraged by it, but either way there's no point in denying the reality of the situation.

Man, that dude fieldmarshaldj hated freedom, didn't he? Wrong! Americans should have the freedom to practice their traditional medicine and engage in agricultural pursuits without harassment from the government. That is the essence of freedom: The ability to do something that doesn't affect other people, but that other people also don't want you to do because they don't like the fact that you are doing it. All traditional medicine should be legal and totally unregulated, not to mention the abolishment of "patents" on medicines that merely represent government-sponsored monopolies. Some people just have an innate desire to control the actions of others... by force, if necessary.

I stand by my characterization of regulations that involve government control of capital allocation as "socialism", and you can be as outraged or disinterested as you want. You didn't accomplish anything by claiming that socialism must involve government ownership of the means of production because this is obviously not true based on numerous socialist regimes throughout history and today that feature private ownership of property and businesses. I don't really know what you were trying to accomplish with your mindless rant about definitions, which to me seemed like some kind of incel manifesto, but good job I guess?

Great point. I would add Charlotte, Austin, Houston, Calgary, Edmonton, and Brisbane to the list of cities with very tall buildings but also plenty of lots of undeveloped land even within the center city. I can't help but think that if Nashville hadn't created the conditions that allowed Williamson county to siphon off so many corporate headquarters it could have had much greater density and height in the downtown core. Imagine if all of Maryland Farms and Cool Springs was crammed into the inner loop!

If your commonly understood meaning has no utility other than to prop up the current regime in power and sustain the promotion of its authoritarian world view, then I would say according to *your* understanding you are correct. However, if you want to achieve a deeper level of understanding and escape the oppressive paradigm promoted by the government and its supporters, then you should consider the essential concepts that I have generously provided for you in my other post. As it stands currently, your adherence to the "official" definition promoted by authoritarian academics has forced you into arguing the untenable position that regulation does not equal control. Just think about that for a second. When was the last time you heard about a regulation that gave the government zero control over the actions of individuals?

Well the Britannica definition said "or ownership", but you are getting really derailed on these dumb definitions and missing the essential concept here: Decisions about capital allocation are either made by free individuals based on their knowledge of the market and according to their own profit-seeking motivations, or capital allocation decisions are made by governmental entities that do not realize their goals through voluntary interaction at the individual level, but rather through violence or the threat of violence that is supported by a majority of citizens that are contented to see violence meted out upon the minority because it serves their interest and they have no way of bringing about that state of affairs through voluntary peaceful interaction. I know that was the mother of all run-on sentences, but let's look at a real world example. Take AirBNB, a topic that was discussed at length in another thread. Let's say there is a private investor who wants to buy a historical SFH in East Nashville, demolish it, and build 3 tall & skinnies, then operate them all as STR. In a free market, the only limitation on that investor's ability to pursue their business model is the current home owner's willingness to sell (voluntary), the bank's willingness to loan (voluntary), the builder's willingness to work on the project (voluntary), and the tourist's willingness to rent the house (voluntary). Now enter government: It turns out the neighbors adjacent to the project were too poor to buy the SFH and turn it into an extension of their back yard or a pocket park shared by the surrounding neighbors, but they still want to control what happens to that land. They hate AirBNB. A classic case of someone wanting to take the freedom of someone else for their own benefit. In theory, maleficent actors such as they should not be able to oppress the minority because minority rights should be protected, yet if those rights are insufficiently protected, democracy provides a way for the majority to codify oppression of the minority into law. In this case, they will get the government to enforce a prohibition on the investor (involuntary) and enforce that prohibition by the use or threat of violence. Thus, the opportunity cost of not allowing the free market to function is all the profit the investor would have made, and society as a whole is comparatively poorer than it would have been in the absence of government regulation/control/etc. The collectivist nature of decision making actually restricted decision making about capital allocation to a *smaller* number of people (contrary to what the name would suggest), resulting in the destruction of wealth, or more precisely: prevention of the creation of wealth. If you take that same phenomenon and expand it to all the millions of capital allocation decisions that diverge from what the free market would demand, you can start to see how government regulation at the national level can prevent economies from growing and reaching their full potential. And this has been supported by studies that correlate economic freedom to prosperity... I think you might agree with this basic concept. For some reason you've chosen to take issue with my use of the word "socialism", but that's just a different flavor of collectivism, which at it's core is based on majority-rule/top-down/central-planning. The opposite of that is individualism/classical-liberalism/laissez faire/anarcho-capitalism that emphasizes individual liberty. Actually, now that I'm thinking about this more, I think the ultimate choice is between two different systems: 1) The majority is happy, the minority is unhappy, and nobody is free, or 2) The majority is unhappy, the minority is happy, and everyone is free. Bringing it back to the AirBNB example, in a free market economy, the neighbor's only way to prevent the SFH from falling into the hands of the STR developer would be to use their own capital to control it through direct ownership. This forces them to make capital allocation decisions *within* the framework of the market, therefore ensuring that they deploy their capital in the way that provides the most utility to them. If they ultimately decide "hey, I don't like the STR, but at the end of the day I want to spend my money on a boat and a new car and a trip to France", then the neighbor will have successfully integrated all of the various potential uses for their money into an actionable buy/sell decision that maximizes utility, while also not preventing the creation of wealth by others. That's why capitalism creates wealth and socialism destroys it.

I think you just proved my point for me... look at what you posted: "collective administration of the means of production", and the quick reference "means of production are controlled by the state". That's exactly what we have in the US today. The web of regulations guarantee that important business decisions are dictated by the state and not free market forces. The online Britannica definition says "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." The key here is that socialism doesn't always involve government ownership, but is in fact a larger concept that includes public control of property (even if the property is not outright owned by the government) where economic decisions are not strictly the domain of free individuals acting voluntarily, but rather involve government regulation that is backed up by police or military violence. Just think about the converse: What are you calling a system where the means of production are privately owned but all decisions about how to utilize those assets are dictated by the government? Are you calling that free-market capitalism? Because I'm calling that socialism... Which falls under the broader umbrella of collectivism... But the truth is those are all just labels and it doesn't matter what you call it or how you package it: Using violence against peaceful individuals is wrong and we should all strive to create a society where everyone must interact peacefully and voluntarily to survive.

Well that confirms it: It would look better covered in ivy!

Because the crew members were not unconditionally committed to personal liberty. Next question!! You're confusing socialism with communism. Socialism skews more towards government controlling the allocation of capital, creating monopolies, and subsidizing private businesses, but still allowing private ownership to exist. So when things go wrong they still have a "private sector" to blame things on, but the distortions in the market caused by government interference are still more than enough to dramatically lower the standard of living. That's pretty much the concept promoted by both Democrats and Republicans in America today. Neither side wants to substantially reduce the government's influence over the economy, although they both have slightly different ideas about just how that influence should be wielded.

I don't know why people are distressed about strip clubs and the like in this neighborhood. You are in the middle of the city and there will be businesses that cater to all types of clients. Does it offend people's delicate moral sensibilities or what? The NIMBY's must be looking for Brentwood, because in my mind, this is the central city and that's probably the perfect place for a business like this because it's close to customers who demand that service. Just what kind of sterilized urban experience are these people looking for? Thank goodness they own the property! I hope they never leave, and even expand. Of course, I have no use for their services whatsoever, but let me be the first to say: They have a right to be there and do business.

As milquetoast boxy infill - A triumph!

It is so refreshing to see a skyline view without the AT&T building!

Just ask yourself who is getting rich off of this deal and you will know why many people in power have a vested interest in promoting the dubious "economic impact" angle of this story to the uninformed masses.

Regardless of how they come up with the height limits, it's obvious that they serve no purpose for consumers. The only purpose of the height limits is to provide jobs for the bozos who came up with the limits, and a reason for politicians to receive bribes/kick-backs/favors from developers when the limits need to be bypassed. Just look at how often the limits are exceeded in Nashville after a political process has played out... clearly the limits are completely arbitrary. If there were a compelling existential reason for the limits there would be no exceptions. Ask yourself this question: If there is no demand for a 50-story tower, will a developer build one? And if there *is* a demand for a 50-story tower, who has a good reason why one should not be built to satisfy the demand for high-rise office/residential space? I can't think of a single reason why anyone other than the developers should have a say in how they build out the Reed district because they have a vested interest in making sure their project satisfies consumer demand. No other party cares as much about satisfying the consumer as the developer (if other parties even care about consumers at all). Everyone else besides the developers just has opinions that are worth about as much as the amount of money they have invested in the Reed District, which is zero.

Serious question here: What happens on those party buses when it starts raining? Does the party just get wilder?

Awesome, thanks for sharing that with the group! As investors in renovation and construction you are providing a vital service to the Mid-Tenn economy, and I commend you for your continued efforts in the face of unprecedented risks and uncertainty.

How did you re-deploy your capital after selling the cabins? Just curious....

So what is the actual problem? Noise? Isn't there already a framework of laws to deal with that? I don't see noise from a neighbor as a reason to ban STR, perhaps a reason to punish noise ordinance violations, but not a reason to ban STR. Especially since LTR or home owner residents can be just as noisy. It's true that I have not lived near an STR, but I currently live near someone who has 3 dogs that bark constantly at all hours. What do I do? Just deal with it because it was my choice to live in a neighborhood. People need to take responsibility for their own situations in life and stop trying to force other people cater to their needs. That's just lazy and selfish, and I find that approach to social interaction especially egregious when it involves using the government to infringe upon people's property rights and small business plans. Good call. I meant to say red herring. Now, back to your red herring... Let's keep the comparison between STR and hotel, because I think that's the only realistic comparison in this scenario. I was pointing out all those things to show that the pattern of coming and going is similar to what "normal" residents would do. There are not a bunch of employees running around like you have at most hotels. It only matters if part of the argument against STR is "there is too much commotion going on next door". My point was that regular residents cause commotion... some more than others. In some ways STR guests are superior to actual home-owner neighbors because they are *indifferent* to you. If you get the wrong neighbor by bad luck, they will take an active role in making your life hell because now they want to control what you are doing on your property because it annoys them and they have to look at it/live with it every day. No STR guest is going to complain about leaves from your tree blowing onto their yard or a dog barking at 4:00AM. They just don't care. Blessing or curse? Probably depends on the situation.

Your argument about converting houses to retail operations is a complete straw-man argument in this case. It doesn't matter if a group of people are sleeping in a house for one night or 365 nights, the concept is the same. They are *living there* and they will come and go throughout the day just like any resident. I don't have to prove why its a good idea to allow retail in a residential area if all I'm advocating for is short term rental. The NIMBY's will say "Oh, but they are partying over there!" Well, there's no guarantee that a long-term renter or home-owner will not be partying every night either. "Oh, they're parking on the street" Well, no guarantee that a long-term renter or home owner will not park on the street or have guests over all the time who park on the street. "Oh, they are playing loud music" Well then do whatever people do when any kind of neighbor is violating whatever noise ordinance exists in Nashville. None of those complaints are valid reasons to not allow STR, and it's not the same as a hotel because there are no maids or concierge or bellhops or whatever. Just residents coming and going and sleeping at night... Same thing that any resident will do regardless of how long they stay in that house.