why vote against property rights Jack? you can't be that much of a communist?
lars

Communist? Property rights, like most broad rights emenating from societal consensus, simply cannot be absolute unless your baseline is anarchy. Of course, if we reduce the discussion to the price the majority must secure to prevail over the minority position on, e.g., livability standards (just pick an issue), I can see a role for the capitalists. After we balance the ledger by requiring payment to the corpus by those whose properties benefit from societal decisions, perhaps we can look into differential valuation of intellectual property . . .

I believe in property rights, but not as much as I believe in human rights.

Ban same-sex marriage: no

Reinstate term limits on state legislators: YES!

Restrict logging in the Tillamook and Clatsop forests: no

Require state and local governments to compensate property owners when land-use regulations reduce property value: hell, yes!

Abolish SAIF Corp: don't know yet.

Jack, a communist?

Really, Lars [if that really is you]. Is that any better or worse than the "Bush is Hitler" meme?

...not than anyone expects more of you.

Restrict logging in the Tillamook and Clatsop forests: no

Why no?

Oh, dear. It looks like my honey and I are going to cancel each others' votes on at least one issue.

No term limits! Why restrict the right of the voters to send the person they desire to the leg?

Because I want citizen-legislators, not professional legislators. If it were in my power, I'd do the same for every state and the federal legislature as well. It isn't, but it may be possible here in Oregon.