What a Town Without Pity Karaoke Can Do

Liburn, Georgia is making a strong bid for Fun City, USA.

Earlier, the city outlawed pool — the game that spelled trouble in the musical "The Music Man" — in its watering holes. Now it's also barring karaoke and just about any other party game from places that serve alcohol.

…

Karaoke can bring more than bad voices, Lilburn Mayor Jack Bolton said. It can bring bars.

"Our intention was always to just have alcohol in restaurants," Bolton said. "We don't want to have dance clubs, party clubs or bars. If it means being made fun of because we don't allow karaoke, that's fine, too."

That's an important caveat.

Comments

[Akira MacKenzie]

I'll just chalk this up as reason #4539 of why the Bible Belt states should be nuked from orbit....

"...it's the only way to be sure."

[sr2]

Every day it's gets more and more sad to live in Georgia.

Is it possible the entire state is moving backwards? I think it is...to wit: "We are Devo"...

ugh.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Is it possible the entire state is moving backwards? I think it is...to wit: "We are Devo"...

Ironic language considering the recent shenanigans from creationists in Cobb county.

[joe]

I'm sorry, sir, but you can't do that in here. Local ordinance. If you want to sing, you'll have to step outside.

[Abdul]

You all act like banning karaoke is bad thing. I, for one, look foward to getting my drunk on in silent surliness.

[MP]

Everybody cut loose, Footloose!

[ralphus]

A town where you can't get a BJ after a hard drinking night of 9 Ball and Karaoke is a town that should not be allowed to wave Old Glory outside the courthouse.

[Warren]

This is where I lose my libertarian bona fides. I'm much more forgiving of local tyranny than at the state or federal level. If people in Liburn want to live this way, more power to em. If not, they can vote with their feet. I bet there's even a little place just outside of town with a bar, a pool table, and a jukebox.

Can I keep my decoder ring?

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Yes, Warren, you get to keep your decoder ring. But you have to leave it on the shelf until you finish reading Grassroots Tyranny

And, my friends, just exactly what is the downside of banning Karaoke?

[MP]

And, my friends, just exactly what is the downside of banning Karaoke?

It'll cut into their Japanese tourist trade, for one.

[former resident]

for just a little clarification...

Lilburn is not really a "town" in the way one normally understands it. Used to be. Just isn't now. It's part of the Atlanta suburbs, indistinguishable from any of its neighbors. You can't actually tell when you're at "the edge of town", and, um, nobody parties in Lilburn; it's pretty much just residential.

But chalk me up with the "if you're gonna have silly laws, at least make them as localized as possible" crowd.

[Rimfax]

Heh, I still recall, from about 20 years ago, when Bedford, Virginia, the rural conservative outskirt of the uberconservative hometown of Jerry "I didn't fuck my mother" Falwell, legalized dancing in bars. (Sorry for the run on.)

Just when the "familiarity breeds contempt" factor convinces me that Virginia is the home of the most backward places in the US, along comes South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, or Louisiana to reset my perspective.

[dhex]

i'm more than happy to pick on 'merica and all - that part of the world where bagels is pronounced "BAG-els" and you call soda "pop" - but nyc's cabaret laws are equally retarded.

ok maybe not as retarded as the karaoke thing, but close.

[Dee]

Having lived in the bible belt for a year (it was all I could take, seriously it was that boring) I was always amused at their thought process. As though having the booze stores for your towns citizens located across the line in the other Parish was keeping you alcohol free. Who do they think is going to the 4 stores located 100 yards past the parish sign and buying the products? Certainly not any of the good bible thumpin god fearin folk from their parish.

What a crock, its the same way with video poker any parish that has it outlawed can be assured that any ajoining parish that does not will have a minimum of 4 video poker parlors right across the parish line.

[Warren]

It's part of the Atlanta suburbs

Well then I'm completely on board. I don't even think it's silly. The people there want restaurants around the corner, but not bars. If they want to go to a bar, there are plenty withing 20 minutes drive.

It's got nothing to do with a 'Footloose' mentality, they just don't want rowdy drunk people walking the streets where they live.

[Graphite]

Clearly a case can be made that it damages the hearing of the waitresses and children in the establishment, who after all have no choice but to be there.

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE WAITRESSES AND CHILDREN?!

[Kevin K.]

In my former residencies in Texas, Virginia and North Carolina I could buy beer and wine in grocery stores. Now that I live in the Maryland suburbs of DC, I have to go to a food establishment to buy a six-pack. You don't have to be in the Bible Belt to have annoying alcohol regulations.

[Dan T.]

General question: shouldn't the free market apply to towns and cities?

If Liburn, Georgia wants to cut back on booze, bars, whatever, then they should be free to do just that. If people like living in this kind of arraingment, they'll move to Liburn and help increase property values, etc.

If people don't like it, they can move to another town - if enough Liburn residents leave, the town will be forced to reconsider their policy.

[Number 6]

Hmm...can we take a moment out from sneering at people who aren't enlightened enough to live on the coasts? Good.
Here in flyover country, (where bagel has a long A and soda is called soda, unless its called coke)the package stores are open on Sundays, and sell you whatever you want. When I lived in Chicago, they would even deliver.

When I lived in the progressive, enlightened DC, (Yes, that was said with irony)you couldn't buy alcohol on Sundays. When I visited the Mecca of higher civilization, New York, I was stunned to find that I couldn't buy liquor and wine in the same store.

Yeah, those gap-toothed yokels sure are backwards..

[Number 6]

Dan T- Several commenters have already made that point.

[Chuck]

It's got nothing to do with a 'Footloose' mentality, they just don't want rowdy drunk people walking the streets where they live.

Apparently, they'd rather have the rowdy drunks driving.

And Dan T., they are free to make such laws, and we are free to ridicule them mercilessly for it. I don't hear anyone saying that some higher level of government should step in and overturn the new rules.

[Timon19]

What's this "soda" I keep hearing about?

In MY part of flyover country, we have something called "pop". It's yummy (though it does have HFCS, and thus is deadly deadly deadly).

[Lamar]

Reminds me of Nick Cave's "God Is In The House."

[Number 6]

Apparently, they'd rather have the rowdy drunks driving.
It's the suburbs, so they'd bee driving anyway.

[Pat]

General question: shouldn't the free market apply to towns and cities?

If Liburn, Georgia wants to cut back on booze, bars, whatever, then they should be free to do just that. If people like living in this kind of arraingment, they'll move to Liburn and help increase property values, etc.

The free market and the use of force are mutually exclusive.

[Rhywun]

When I visited the Mecca of higher civilization, New York, I was stunned to find that I couldn't buy liquor and wine in the same store.

I would be stunned too. I've lived all over New York State for almost 40 years and liquor and wine are always sold in the same store.

[Number 6]

Rywun- Perhaps it was liquor and beer. This was several years ago, but I distinctly remember having to visit two stores to get my hooch.

[Dan T.]

The free market and the use of force are mutually exclusive.

No, the use of force goes hand-in-hand with the free market. Otherwise the government could not enforce contracts, protect property rights, etc.

[dhex]

"Hmm...can we take a moment out from sneering at people who aren't enlightened enough to live on the coasts? Good."

not really, no.

and dude, i've heard bag-EL (as opposed to BAY-gel) myself, in ohio. to which we can only ask "wtf, ohio?"

[insert joke about ohio here. all i know about the place is fuckers put gravy on breakfast, which is fucking depraved and gross to watch, like a baby hamster being eaten by its mother.]

[Benjamin Darrington]

With private roads, more powerful and prominent neighborhood covenants, and local common law courts I imagine this sort of thing would be just as common. In my opinion, law at this level is just about as legitimate from a libertarian viewpoint as state created "market" outcomes like having a Starbucks on every corner. I think radically decentralized democracy is just as libertarian as state-created oligopolistic corporate capitalism.

[Warren]

It's been ten years since I lived in NY state, but as I recall, beer was sold in grocery stores all else in liquor stores. I think there was a magic proof number, as "wine coolers" were big when I came of age and they were next to the beer.

[VM]

dhex: WTF ohio, indeed - where were you when you heard that? Youngstown (evil laughter)?

Smacky can attest that your breakfast description is incorrect for Cleveland. There you put on your formal bowlingwear and enjoy corned beef on raisin bread...

[Rhywun]

Perhaps it was liquor and beer.

True, beer and liquor/wine are sold in different stores. At least I can buy liquor on Sundays now.

[Thomas Paine\'s Goiter]

The people there want restaurants around the corner, but not bars.

O RLY?

Was this put to a vote?

[Thomas Paine\'s Goiter]

Hmm...can we take a moment out from sneering at people who aren't enlightened enough to live on the coasts? Good.

No. They are backwards fucks that didn't learn their lesson in the civil war.

[Timon19]

dhex,

"and dude, i've heard bag-EL (as opposed to BAY-gel) myself, in ohio. to which we can only ask "wtf, ohio?""

Well shit, I've lived in Ohio all my life save for part of college and I've never EVER heard "bag-EL". Like, ever. You must be thinking about P*ttsb*rgh or something.

"[insert joke about ohio here. all i know about the place is fuckers put gravy on breakfast, which is fucking depraved and gross to watch, like a baby hamster being eaten by its mother.]"

Mmmmmm....sausage gravy over biscuits. Heaven (and it might put you there, via massive MI).

And no makin' fun of bowling, you bastards! It's the National Sport of Northeast Ohio.

[Pat]

No, the use of force goes hand-in-hand with the free market. Otherwise the government could not enforce contracts, protect property rights, etc.

Voluntary contracts do not require force. Property ownership does not require force. If the Government's role in the free-market is to protect property rights then what are they doing in this case where they are denying the property rights of the bar owners? That's not free-market capitalism, it's authoritarianism. They're using force, not to protect rights, but to dissolve them.

[David]

and dude, i've heard bag-EL (as opposed to BAY-gel)

That's the Kryptonian pronunciation.

[FinFangFoom]

As to the free market, since this is a small area, the ban on alcohol may cause a shift in business that may or may not be negative for the area. Since restaurants can serve alcohol, I doubt that there will be a problem for land values.

I am speaking from experience of living (formerly) in a town that used to be dry, had crappy restaurants, changed, and now has much better restaurants.

[FinFangFoom]

Who doesn't pronounce bagel with a long a? Maybe those Socialist Montrealers. Though their bagels are actually pretty good.

[Dan T.]

Voluntary contracts do not require force. Property ownership does not require force.

Both contracts and property rights require force. Otherwise I could violate a contract or steal your stuff and nothing would happen to me.

If the Government's role in the free-market is to protect property rights then what are they doing in this case where they are denying the property rights of the bar owners? That's not free-market capitalism, it's authoritarianism. They're using force, not to protect rights, but to dissolve them.

What you do with your property affects others so government has at least some power to limit it.

What I'm suggesting is that there is a free market not within towns but among them. If you don't like the rules in town A, move to a different town where you do like them.

Everybody's happy.

[dhex]

"Who doesn't pronounce bagel with a long a?"

more people than i'd care to believe.

montreal-style bagels are pretty good indeed.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I understand the desire to control the environs and to keep the riff raff out. Whether or not banning bars, video poker, or karaoke is a libertarian wet dream is something else. Y'all were throwing rocks at Texas or some place down south, for banning vibrators but banning bars and karaoke is okay?

Yes I know it wasn't all the same folks but there was some crossover I bet.

OTOH, if you have a completely private city like Canyon Lake Ca, and you want to say, ban riding Harleys within the community (which they do), then I'm okay with that. Everybody knows the rules going in. But some crackpot city council dorks with a private agenda that doesn't include karaoke just doesn't work for me.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Who doesn't pronounce bagel with a long a

My kids.

It's a BegL.

[D.A. Ridgely]

Of course, from a libertarian purist's perspective such restrictions are objectionable, but I agree with Warren that local tyranny is preferable to state or national tyranny. If we must have tyranny, the smaller scale the tyranny, the better. If the good citizens of Liburn decide some day that they want karaoke, they'll change the laws or the elected officials who mandated the prohibitions. Yes, that's still the tyranny of the majority, but it's a damned smaller majority and much easier to flee.

[val]

Dan. T, Warren, you feel that we should be praising this decission because Karaoke was not banned at the Federal level but at the Municipal?

Intrusive legislation is instrusive no matter where it's passed.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

...move to a different town where you do like them...

A lot of my libertarian friends used to make that argument about smog control devices on automobiles. Don't like the smog in LA? Then move.

I will agree that it gets a little tricky. Hard for me to argue with the county yanking a bar's conditional use permit because the patrons keep pissing on the neighbors front porch. But in the strictest sense, it isn't the bar, it is the patrons that are violating the rights of the porch owner.

[Clemsonuee]

I used to think that at least my hometown of Greenville, SC was less crazy than these guys but we recently banned smoking in downtown. Though I guess that is progressive and not backwards since it's PC to ban smoking.

While I can't buy my beer in the grocery store on a Sunday I can go to a restaurant and drink a beer on Sunday's now.

[Dan T.]

Of course, from a libertarian purist's perspective such restrictions are objectionable, but I agree with Warren that local tyranny is preferable to state or national tyranny. If we must have tyranny, the smaller scale the tyranny, the better. If the good citizens of Liburn decide some day that they want karaoke, they'll change the laws or the elected officials who mandated the prohibitions. Yes, that's still the tyranny of the majority, but it's a damned smaller majority and much easier to flee.

I think that you're really watering down the meaning of "tyranny" if you apply it to this situation.

Living in a civilization does require adherance to rules that limit what an individual can do in exchange for a greater benefit for the common good.

[Dan T.]

A lot of my libertarian friends used to make that argument about smog control devices on automobiles. Don't like the smog in LA? Then move.

A fair point, although if people can't agree that the very air we breathe belongs to everybody then we aren't going to be able to agree on much of anything.

[daniel k]

This is a very, very complicated issue, with competing rights versus responsibilities. For example, say the Karaoke bar has Helen Reddy's "I am Woman, Hear me Roar." In that instance, the death penalty would be appropriate. The song William "Capt Kirk" did would be death with torture. Bruce Springsteen songs would entail a small fine. As can be seen, calibrating the penalty to be commensurate with the crime is no simple task.
Not to mention the appearance of the Karaokeists - there should definitely be weight limits.

[Pat]

What you do with your property affects others so government has at least some power to limit it.

This isn't someone polluting a river that flows downstream. This is someone who wants to let people sing songs while serving them drinks. Nobody is affected by it.

What I'm suggesting is that there is a free market not within towns but among them. If you don't like the rules in town A, move to a different town where you do like them.

Everybody's happy.

I'm not happy. Some of us understand that the use of force to accomplish political ends is wrong regardless of whether or not the next town over adopts the same policy. If one county said that rape was legal would your response to critics be "If you don't like it, move"?

[FinFangFoom]

Should we be allowed to summarily execute young women who sing "I Will Survive?" I vote yes.

[Pat]

A fair point, although if people can't agree that the very air we breathe belongs to everybody then we aren't going to be able to agree on much of anything.

There's no way for something to belong to "everybody". If there was, then I simultaneously have and do not have the right to do what I want with it. That contradicts the meaning of ownership.

[FinFangFoom]

Pat, no it doesn't. You don't individually have the right to decide what to do with your property in partnerships, corporations, and several forms of common law property ownership. You only have the right to do what you want with it if enough people agree, however "enough" is defined.

[Pat]

Should we be allowed to summarily execute young women who sing "I Will Survive?" I vote yes.

I remember the first time I saw a woman do this. At first I was afraid. Hell, I was petrified.

[Pat]

Pat, no it doesn't. You don't individually have the right to decide what to do with your property in partnerships, corporations, and several forms of common law property ownership. You only have the right to do what you want with it if enough people agree, however "enough" is defined.

I own a share of the partnership, corporation, etc and I have a say in the operation of said entity that is equal to that size of the shares. I have a document that says I have legal ownership of those shares. Where is the document detailing my ownership of air? Where's yours?

[brotherben]

I heard a fellow preaching in south Alabama in a large baptist church sunday that suggested the term bible belt should now be replaced with the term "church belt"

[FinFangFoom]

Oh, you have a document that says you own it? Wow. I guess that means that you don't own anything but a car and house and partnership shares or what not. Receipts don't count, since they just say that you bought something, and unless it is specific as to item, that doesn't really work.

[Pirate Jo]

I think this is wonderful! Maybe some of the losers from my city/state will move there.

[Pat]

Oh, you have a document that says you own it?

Yes, it's called a stock certificate.

Receipts don't count, since they just say that you bought something, and unless it is specific as to item, that doesn't really work.

Um, the fact that I bought it makes it mine. See, the retailer and I entered into an agreement where I agreed to transfer ownership of a pre-determined amount of money to him in exchange for him transfering the title of a good to me. The receipt is proof of this agreement. In addition to the receipt I have my canceled checks as well as bank and credit card statements. I also have possession of the good.

[Lamar]

If people didn't want bars across the street, there wouldn't be any bars. No, this law reflects the fact that your neighbors don't want YOU to do to a bar.

[grumpy realist]

All right, all right. This above discussion leads back to the theme I continuously harp on:

"What is it that Libertarians believe?"

I mean, isn't self-regulation one of the major tenents of Libertarianism? In that case, why does the regulation on a municipal level bother you?

And second, if even a municipal method of self-organizing frosts your shorts, at what level DO you believe a majority of votes have the right to determine things? Street by street? House by house?

Methinks quite a few libertarians don't want any regulations /laws at all, no matter who is voting on them.....

[FinFangFoom]

Pat, the fact that you bought something makes it yours? So you can only own something if you buy it? You can't make it? You can't get in a bequest from a will? You can't capture it (as in wild animals)?

A receipt, unlike a document of title, just proves that you paid for something. It doesn't prove that you still own it or ever owned it in fact.

[FinFangFoom]

Also, who actually gets stock certificates anymore? The owner of record is usually a custodian bank.

[grumpy realist]

And is there something about Ohio that says anything over a certain proof has to be sold in a specialized liquor store? I remember being in Columbus and noticing in the supermarket anything that was labeled "whisky", "vodka", "gin" or similar had on it in fine print the admission that the drink had been considerably diluted. Very weird. The highest proof stuff I ran across was a bottle of vermouth. Dunno how anyone in Columbus makes martinis....

[Timon19]

Realist,

For supermarkets that don't also have a State Store inside (quite a few do), the max. proof for liquor is (I believe) 42.

Otherwise, go to a liquor store for the full-strength stuff. It's not like they're rare.

[Timon19]

And everyone knows that REAL martinis are dry. Especially in Columbus.

[de stijl]

Right here in Liburn, GA.
Trouble with a capital "K"
And that rhymes with "A" and that stands for alcohol!

[sr2]

Methinks quite a few libertarians don't want any regulations /laws at all, no matter who is voting on them.....

Yes, we usually refer to ourselves as "anarcho-capitalists" b/c we like compound naming structures.

There are millions of people who believe that Elvis is still alive and never did drugs. Tell me again why mob-rule via majority voting is a good thing??

A receipt, unlike a document of title, just proves that you paid for something. It doesn't prove that you still own it or ever owned it in fact.

Actually, a reciept, while not a document of title, is a document showing transfer of title from one owner to another. It shows that the title belonged to you at one point should anyone question whether or not you obtained it via fair contract or via theft. The Mitch Hedberg line "Don't even tell me I didn't eat that donut, I've got the reciept right here" comes to mind.

Pat, the fact that you bought something makes it yours? So you can only own something if you buy it? You can't make it? You can't get in a bequest from a will? You can't capture it (as in wild animals)?

Nice strawman. Too bad Pat was referencing shares of [insert items Pat stated here] and the documentation that proves such. He/she/it (damn abiguous names!) never said that ownership is only done via purchase.

And to that end, you still have yet to provide any documentation or proof of your/their/my ownership of air that would justify our forced submission to your whims under the auspices of "common good."

[Pat]

Pat, the fact that you bought something makes it yours? So you can only own something if you buy it? You can't make it? You can't get in a bequest from a will? You can't capture it (as in wild animals)?

I never said it was the ONLY way to acquire ownership of something.

A receipt, unlike a document of title, just proves that you paid for something. It doesn't prove that you still own it or ever owned it in fact.

The only proof I need to demonstrate that I own something is to possess it. What you're referring to is whether or not I rightfully own it. That is, that the good became mine through legal means. A receipt bearing my name demonstrates that the item was rightfully and legally transferred to me at some point. It will remain mine until someone can demonstrate that what I have was legally transferred to them in some manner.

[FinFangFoom]

The point is that air like many other things would not need to have documents of title to have it be owned by someone/some group/all society.

If air were collectively owned, then you would be engaging in misuse of everyone's property if you used in a way that benefitted yourself to the detriment of everyone else. It would be akin to embezzlement.

If air is collectively owned, you would have to pay rent to use it in a way that was considered detrimental to the other owners.

In any event, I can force you not to use air in a certain way through a nuisance claim. That is if your use of your property is such that it makes it impossible for me to enjoy the use of my property, then a court can order you to stop using your property in that way or to compensate me for the loss of enjoyment of my property. Things like air, sound, and water don't respect property lines.

Let's say, that you use the air in a way that is worth $10,000 to you. You stink it up and otherwise pollute it. Now let's say that this air goes over someone else's property and damages it in a way that is costing them $20,000.

You and the other owner should be able to bargain, presumably to have him pay $15,000 to you to not use the air in that way. If you aren't willing to accept payment, then you would be engaging in conversion (tort of misuse of another persons property). Indeed you should be required to accept any amount over $10,000.

Now that is easy enough between two individuals who can bargain with one another relatively easily. However if instead of one individual, you have ten, two whom the aggregate value of not polluting is still $20k, but individually to each is worth $2000, then you may have some problems.

First, despite the fact that the optimal solution of payment of $15k is still economic, without organization amongst the individuals, any given owner won't be willing to pay that cost.

Second, now, since $15k still leaves $5k of value, individuals will have the incentive to hold back and free ride on others. This will decrease the chances of an optimaal settlement since everyone will want to not pay.

This is why the state steps in and regulates air, sound, water, and other stuff. It is able to reduce the transaction costs for the ten property owners.

Now unfortunately, the state currently just forbids, rather than requiring compensation to the owners, but if the state were to require the individuals whose property was damaged to compensate the damager, then the damager has no right to continue using his property in a way that damages others property.

[Pat]

If air were collectively owned, then you would be engaging in misuse of everyone's property if you used in a way that benefitted yourself to the detriment of everyone else. It would be akin to embezzlement.

If air is collectively owned, you would have to pay rent to use it in a way that was considered detrimental to the other owners.

Like breathing in perfectly good oxygen and exhaling global warming causing CO2? 😉

Now unfortunately, the state currently just forbids, rather than requiring compensation to the owners, but if the state were to require the individuals whose property was damaged to compensate the damager, then the damager has no right to continue using his property in a way that damages others property.

I can get behind that. I just don't like the idea of "public property". I think it contradicts the very idea of property and is detrimental to the future of private property rights.

[Dan T.]

Like I said, if we can't agree that the very air we breathe belongs to everybody, what exactly do we have to discuss?

[jimmy smith]

When I bought my house in Liburn I thought my karaoke singing was grandfathered in. Can a law be retroactively applied? Can I have a few friends over, put on some Mitch Miller LPs and have a sing-along in my front yard? What's next? No more choirs in Catholic churches if the communion wine bottle is open? Seems like if the sign outside says "Karaoke Tonight" that should allow other folks the opportunity to go somewhere else. Next thing will be banning smoking in private restaurants. Slippery slope, indeed.

[Pat Bajingo]

Like I said, if we can't agree that the very air we breathe belongs to everybody, what exactly do we have to discuss?

Then I'm going to sue you for converting my breathable air to global warming causing CO2.

Air belongs to nobody. There is no such thing as "public property". Like I said before, I can't simultaneously have the right and not have the right to do with my property as I please. It's mine so I can do what I want with it. At the same time, it's yours so I can't do what I want with it.

[Isaac Bartram]

Where is the document detailing my ownership of air?

Maybe the lad's thinking of the Social Contract.

I find people whipping that one out all the time, although none of them actually ever have a hard copy available for me to read. And I don't actually recall ever signing the thing.

My more tolerant and open friends seem to find it a somewhat compact document outlining the most basic rules of reasonable intercourse (which I rarely have a problem observing) while the much more numerous self-righteous busybodies of my acquaintance seem to find in it a prohibition on everything that they disapprove of. Needless to say I am left somewhat confused.

Funny that, huh?

[Dave2]

Yeah, I don't think you can defend the view that air belongs to everybody, at least not in any strict sense. If it belonged to everybody, then you would need everybody's permission before using any air. But that's absurd.

[Dan T.]

There is no such thing as "public property".

That's clearly not true. Plenty of things are public property - roads, parks, schools, etc.

Like I said before, I can't simultaneously have the right and not have the right to do with my property as I please. It's mine so I can do what I want with it. At the same time, it's yours so I can't do what I want with it.

Wrong - property can be owned collectively. Both my wife and I own our house.

Also, ownership of property does not mean that you can do anything you want with it.