An example of the political lie:
Obama, in endless campaign mode: 'What is wrong with asking the wealthy to pay a little more to carry the load?"
The answer: "Nothing wrong with asking, so indeed, ask away."
The lie: Obama wasn't politically advocating anything like the act of 'asking.' He was justifying an act of telling by dressing up his act with a lie, the lie being, that telling is asking.
We've just seen the source of such lies exposed; when folks start out politically advocating vague 'rules' they aren't actually advocating the free expression of harmless 'opinions' by all, they are actually advocating for arbitrary rule over others-- without identifying the basis of those rules, or restricting them in any way other than populism/pure democracy.. Robert, your justification for 'rules' is that it allowed for 'planning.' By whom, if not the property owner? By you? At your 'discretion?' Under what rule for that discretion? God's will? "S"ociety's will? The Common Good? The Social Contract? To appease the Thunder God who lives under the Volcano? To accede to the will of those denizens of perfect non-bias who live behind the semi-permiable Veil of Ignorance that only Rawls can penetrate, from where to return with his rigged polls? No Sport, not buying any of that totally equivalent nonsense. Tell me the principles by which you advocate your rule over my property.
I've identified my own principles for such 'rules over discretion' many times -- defined a basis for rules among peers, and reasons to accede to the use of state force to enforce those rules: that being, to inhibit acts of forced association and to promote acts of free association. (Forced association: murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud, extortion, fouling of the air of water.) That is, completely analogous to the concept of the Paradox of Violence/Superior Violence (just force used in repsonse to the unjust first use of force as the ultimate defense of civil life in a free nation), the concept of forced association justified only to prohibit the unjkust initiation of forced association -- including and especially by the state itself-- as necessary for the defense of a free state.
If I ever act in such a manner, with or without my property, to force my association with you, then I ethically and morally accede to your rushing to either your own or the guns of a free state and remedying my boorish behavior and responding with whatever force is necessary to remedy that But that, for sure, does not include the simple fact of our shared existence on this earth, as peers living in freedom.
That is not an opinion or advocacy of a nation without laws or rules.
It is also not an opinion or advocacy of anything resembling the initiation of forced association, such as, the ACA, or any of the other nonsense dreamed up by the Cass Sunstein's of the world when their eyes are rolled up into the back of their head devining their messages from the consciousness of all conscsiousness, etc.