Yes.
Yes. Even if you had a valid argument against nudity, keep in mind we are talking about all billboards being banned in a city.
Oh you are insane.
Never mind.
I’m insane because I think people should be allowed to be comfortable with their clothing options on their own property?
big deal
Nothing but semantics.
How should we decide what is proper to do on your property and what is not? What if your neighbor doesn’t like the fact that you have a big, ugly tree on your front lawn, because it devalues his property? You no longer have a right to have a tree on your property? Your argument is non-sensical; of course the man has a right to walk naked on his property. If his neighbors dislike him doing this, they can appeal by offering something in return for him promising to avoid walking around naked, or they can use their property to do something to provide a disincentive him from walking around naked - for example, in rural Spain a farmer can close the part of the road which goes through his parcel of land if a neighboring farmer does something he dislikes, and the act is completely within his right since he owns that part of the road.
What semantics? He made a statement about what is deemed private property and what is deemed public areas and then E.R. talked about the visibility between these two areas. What word is it that you don’t know the meaning to, or find to be semantically interpreted differently than E.R.'s. I suggest explanations in your posts.
I just want to be clear here.
Let’s say your neighbor colors his house pink, you think you have the right to coerce him into painting it a different color because you have to look at it?
Edit:
Damn Catalan already posted what I was thinking.
Based on established property agreements.
According to Olovetto this is a criminal act. Yet if the City of Sao Paolo can block off the road going to any property, then it has the right to declare that all outdoor advertising is a condition of not having the road cut off.
How does an illegitimate local government have rights to do anything?
Unfortunately, most property agreements cannot predict every possible actions that an owner might make. I am willing to bet that the original contracts for these buildings in Sao Paolo did not mention advertising.
Not if we believe that the city’s ownership of the road is illegitimate, and that their actions are not actually based on any contractual law.
This is not an argument for anything other than paralysis and the total destruction of all public property.
What is your theory based on? Again. Explanations would help but based on past experience, it is possible for you to simply assert “Immaterial” and think it is so.
good day
How do you expect me to communicate with you, if you fail to provide an actual argument?
Okay, letting you get an MVP badge was a huge mistake. Mistake rectified.
I suppose today is the first day you have heard of anarcho-capitalism and a fully private voluntary society?
That is cold. and unfair. The Mvp is not for future performance, cause in that case I would get it.
You can’t have a ‘valuable poster’ make outright personal attacks. Mises.org is about attracting new people and keeping good people.