Romenesko's Obscure Store linked to this story on Wednesday. In Lauderhill, Florida, a homeowner had their house painted purple and gold, much to the displeasure of their neighbors. The city, after many complaints, passed a new ordinance that will control the colors a homeowner is allowed to use for the exterior of their homes. The ordinance gives the homeowner three years to comply by repainting if they do not use an approved shade, and two more years if they can prove a financial hardship. Lauderhill Commissioner Wally Elfers had this to say about the new law:

I almost jumped out of bed when I read we'd have to wait five years for someone to repaint a purple house... My God, that's a lifetime.

You know what makes me jump out of bed? The government telling people what colors they can paint their homes! I suppose my Libertarian streak has been steadily growing over the last year, but this just caused a major growth spurt. There's a house on Tennessee Ave. here in St. Elmo that was recently painted purple, with burgundy trim. I think it's hideous, and I wouldn't mind if the owners had a change of heart and repainted it a color that didn't hurt my eyes. That said, I would never petition the government to force them into repainting their home.

I read a similar story out of Atlanta earlier this year. A homeowner wanted to add a set of rounded stairs to his front porch, and was denied the request because rounded steps weren't historically accurate for that neighborhood as a whole, even though they were appropriate for that specific house's architecture. Another example of power run amuck. The homeowner had a great sense of humor and civil disobedience, though, and painted his house green with purple polka dots as a protest.

Last night, Genia and I were watching a West Wing rerun on Bravo, and one of the issues they were discussing was a national seat belt law. Obviously, wearing a seat belt is a good thing. They can be invaluable if you are involved in a wreck, and save a lot of lives. I think it's irresponsible not to wear one. If I died because I didn't wear one, I would have done a great injustice to my wife and child. However, does that mean the government should force you to wear a seat belt? I don't think it does.

Did our founding fathers really envision the government meddling in these types of affairs? I'll refer back to The West Wing. A character named Ainsley Hayes, a Republican lawyer, said this about why she's a Republican:

I believe that every time the federal government hands down a new law it leaves for the rest of us a little less freedom.

And I agree with that. Unfortunately, it is arguable that the current Republican party leadership (Bush, specifically) no longer truly supports small government and traditional political conservatism. See No Party by Josh Claybourn for some good examples of this.