|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 12 2013 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 12 2013 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On September 12 2013 05:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 12 2013 05:20 sam!zdat wrote:
jonny you don't deal with the moral 'ambiguity' you just ignore it and stare at your spreadsheet. It's the banality of evil. It's fine for you to say you're okay with it, you're the asshole sitting at his desk half a world away. The arrogance.
I believe in local small busieness and communities. How you think that translates to foregoing technology and wealthier elite (??) is beyond me You want a world where you can point at an individual and say "he's the bad guy". The world is too complex for that, sorry. Not everything is black and white. Modern technology often requires scale. If you think you can build cars in a small business you know nothing of the technology employed. and you want a world where you can BE the bad guy and pretend like you are not, because it is oh so complex fuck cars build me some trains. Yes the gubbamint should do that. No I want a world where I can try to be the good guy and if I end up doing bad I don't find Sam outside with a bible and a bag of rocks ready to exert divine justice. So how is the government going to do away with the moral ambiguity you think arises from collective action? Who will you blame when bad things happen? Just run a bunch of government purges? don't be ridiculous I want a world where people can see what they are doing rather than have the effects of their actions hidden away behind many layers of mediation. Making things simpler and more local would help do that. Your money is doing a lot of bad things, which if you could see would trouble you, but you don't because we live in an economic system whose guiding philosophy is 'ignorance is bliss'.
You still won't see it with smaller businesses or bigger governments. Big corps isn't the reason why humans aren't omnipotent.
Edit: seems like all you've done is grant divine power to the words small, local and government.
|
On September 12 2013 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 12 2013 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On September 12 2013 05:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 12 2013 05:20 sam!zdat wrote:
jonny you don't deal with the moral 'ambiguity' you just ignore it and stare at your spreadsheet. It's the banality of evil. It's fine for you to say you're okay with it, you're the asshole sitting at his desk half a world away. The arrogance.
I believe in local small busieness and communities. How you think that translates to foregoing technology and wealthier elite (??) is beyond me You want a world where you can point at an individual and say "he's the bad guy". The world is too complex for that, sorry. Not everything is black and white. Modern technology often requires scale. If you think you can build cars in a small business you know nothing of the technology employed. and you want a world where you can BE the bad guy and pretend like you are not, because it is oh so complex fuck cars build me some trains. Yes the gubbamint should do that. No I want a world where I can try to be the good guy and if I end up doing bad I don't find Sam outside with a bible and a bag of rocks ready to exert divine justice. So how is the government going to do away with the moral ambiguity you think arises from collective action? Who will you blame when bad things happen? Just run a bunch of government purges? don't be ridiculous I want a world where people can see what they are doing rather than have the effects of their actions hidden away behind many layers of mediation. Making things simpler and more local would help do that. Your money is doing a lot of bad things, which if you could see would trouble you, but you don't because we live in an economic system whose guiding philosophy is 'ignorance is bliss'.
yeah that narcissistic argument hardly works in a place full of better-than-average-intelligence narcissists
why can't you see that
|
On September 12 2013 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:47 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2013 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On September 12 2013 05:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2013 05:31 sam!zdat wrote:
oh yes, this 'lawyer' that all that money you have allows you to afford
lawyering is the privatization of citizenship rights. Can't afford to pay a good enough lawyer? You are sub-citizen Yes, damn the lawyers for helping protect the rights of the citizenry and asking to be paid for it! I'm not blaming lawyers, I'm blaming the society that makes the ability to hire a good lawyer the prerequisite of full citizenship So what's the alternative? make things simpler and smaller so things are less confusing and you don't need as many lawyers (who are essentially freelance bureaucrats). also make access to a good lawyer a basic right. Ie pay public defenders and etc more, to end the class inequality built into our legal system
Well sure. The public defender system needs serious overhauling. That doesn't entail anything against lawyering or that "lawyering is the privatization of citizenship rights." In fact that's more lawyering not less.
There's a huge difference between saying "This whole idea is fundamentally flawed" and "This idea is implemented terribly." You keep fluctuating between the two statements, which makes you sound far more extreme than you are.
Although I do kind of like the extreme sounding one because it has more PASSION!
|
I won't apologize for my hyperbole. I'll let jonny try to sound reasonable, he likes that and it makes him feel sophisticated (<3). I'm an angry angry young man
happy bday btw
|
On September 12 2013 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I won't apologize for my hyperbole. I'll let jonny try to sound reasonable, he likes that and it makes him feel sophisticated (<3). I'm an angry angry young man
happy bday btw
Yea I guess I can't really criticize you on hyperbole when I say that pro-lifers are a bunch of misogynistic psychopaths and rich people have been stealing all the middle class wages for the last 30 years.
Yay birthday! I'm no longer square. Which I guess makes me hip.
|
On September 12 2013 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I won't apologize for my hyperbole. I'll let jonny try to sound reasonable, he likes that and it makes him feel sophisticated (<3). I'm an angry angry young man
happy bday btw
I'm glad you weren't alleging anything like corporations are stalinist! It's like ... if you can see through sam's hyperbole and uncover a legitimate point, step aside Indiana Jones we've found the next finder of hidden artifacts!
Or as Jonny says,
What you are saying is inane, though I don't think you know it (which is pitiful).
Strike comparisons between dissimilar things, and continue in this manner with responses, until everybody is left laughing at how silly the whole point is.
|
Actually, I take that back. I don't think my examples are really hyperbole. They're just a bit simplified. You can say strong, angry, shocking statements without being hyperbolic.
It's way too fun to have people go like "Oh come on that's ridiculous" and then you show them evidence after evidence showing that, yes, in fact pro-lifers are actually misogynistic psychopaths. You don't even have to back down to a weaker statement.
To each his own. 
|
On September 12 2013 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I won't apologize for my hyperbole. I'll let jonny try to sound reasonable, he likes that and it makes him feel sophisticated (<3). I'm an angry angry young man
happy bday btw
I'm am sophisticated, I'm a yankee 
|
On September 11 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 15:34 Wegandi wrote:
xDaunt I would definitely say that there is no private property in this country. It seems nothing is off limits to Government and the principle property of property is title, ownership, sovereignship. Let's talk homes for a moment. You do not own your home because of property taxes re: liens. Government owns your home and if you fail to pay them their extortion then they will revoke their allowance of your so-called private property. It can be as little as 44$, but that's not the point, the point is, you don't and cannot by definition own your home because you're a serf to the Government (re: indentured via property taxation). Let's not even talk about the simple fact that the Government claims ownership of our own bodies and regulates thereof. The Drug War and Laws for instance are the Governments writs against our self-ownership, and so forth for any Nanny-Statism. Ditto for Income Tax which Government claims to own our labor.
You're mistaking possession for private property. Perhaps you may want to read some Charles Dunoyer, Rothbard, Chodorov, Molinari, or Benjamin Tucker? So what's your point? Fundamentally, there's no difference between a government's tax lien or any other kind of lien/security interest that can be attained by a private person other than that the government lien is given a statutory priority in the event of foreclosure (ie, the government gets paid first in the sale). If someone doesn't pay their debts, then creditors, including the government, can attach and foreclose upon assets of the debtor to satisfy the debts. I don't think any sane person would argue that it is good policy to give debtors leave to never pay their debts in timely fashion. As for debts to the government specifically (like taxes), what your beef should be (and probably is) is that less taxes should be paid, which is a whole another topic. Ditto for the drug laws and property seizure provisions thereunder; that's a whole different issue than debtor/creditor relations.
My point is that you cannot have private property while at the same time living in a feudal arrangement (E.g., Government - Master, You-Serf), where the property tax is equivalent to medieval definition of serfs (pay 25% tax on your 'holdings' to the land master "Government in this case"). The point of private property is sovereignship, or your own kingdom (not involuntary subjection to 'higher authority' in order to live on said land). Beyond the fact that property tax are in toto or until death, there is no such thing as paying them off, and they're involuntary in the first place. Where is this contract I signed? PRODUCE IT.
Also, I can't believe you're arguing there is no difference between Government arrangements and private arrangements, considering the definition of Government is its involuntary, authoritative, and authoritarian nature (read: compulsory), whereas private arrangements are based off the PRINCIPLE of property (self-propriety), of consent, of contract, derived based on Lockean principles.
You also seem to be mistaken, that I am arguing for the restriction of said rights, whereas I am merely stating our current predicament. I am a voluntaryist, in the proud tradition of Thoreau, Tucker, Nock, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. I am arguing FOR private property, and against Government fiefdoms and feudal arrangements. What I am surprised is that maybe 'Marxists' finally see property tax for what it is - truly rent-seeking.
Please, tell me how property taxation is my debt. I didn't agree or consent to it, nor did I run the debt up myself, and don't give me shit about representation. I deny their representation of me, and no one else can force it upon me. They represent their own damn selves and the special interests whom they work on behalf of. NOT ME. Repudiate the damn debt.
|
nah, if you guys really thought I was full of shit you wouldn't spend so much energy trying to discredit me
edit: @above yes, a main part of the function of property tax/ground rent is to make it impossible for you to escape from the monetized economy, because you always have to be producing some commodity to get money to pay your taxes. You should check out 'debt: the first 5000 years' by graeber, really interesting and thought provoking text
|
On September 12 2013 08:02 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2013 15:34 Wegandi wrote:
xDaunt I would definitely say that there is no private property in this country. It seems nothing is off limits to Government and the principle property of property is title, ownership, sovereignship. Let's talk homes for a moment. You do not own your home because of property taxes re: liens. Government owns your home and if you fail to pay them their extortion then they will revoke their allowance of your so-called private property. It can be as little as 44$, but that's not the point, the point is, you don't and cannot by definition own your home because you're a serf to the Government (re: indentured via property taxation). Let's not even talk about the simple fact that the Government claims ownership of our own bodies and regulates thereof. The Drug War and Laws for instance are the Governments writs against our self-ownership, and so forth for any Nanny-Statism. Ditto for Income Tax which Government claims to own our labor.
You're mistaking possession for private property. Perhaps you may want to read some Charles Dunoyer, Rothbard, Chodorov, Molinari, or Benjamin Tucker? So what's your point? Fundamentally, there's no difference between a government's tax lien or any other kind of lien/security interest that can be attained by a private person other than that the government lien is given a statutory priority in the event of foreclosure (ie, the government gets paid first in the sale). If someone doesn't pay their debts, then creditors, including the government, can attach and foreclose upon assets of the debtor to satisfy the debts. I don't think any sane person would argue that it is good policy to give debtors leave to never pay their debts in timely fashion. As for debts to the government specifically (like taxes), what your beef should be (and probably is) is that less taxes should be paid, which is a whole another topic. Ditto for the drug laws and property seizure provisions thereunder; that's a whole different issue than debtor/creditor relations. My point is that you cannot have private property while at the same time living in a feudal arrangement (E.g., Government - Master, You-Serf), where the property tax is equivalent to medieval definition of serfs (pay 25% tax on your 'holdings' to the land master "Government in this case"). The point of private property is sovereignship, or your own kingdom (not involuntary subjection to 'higher authority' in order to live on said land). Beyond the fact that property tax are in toto or until death, there is no such thing as paying them off, and they're involuntary in the first place. Where is this contract I signed? PRODUCE IT. Also, I can't believe you're arguing there is no difference between Government arrangements and private arrangements, considering the definition of Government is its involuntary, authoritative, and authoritarian nature (read: compulsory), whereas private arrangements are based off the PRINCIPLE of property (self-propriety), of consent, of contract, derived based on Lockean principles. You also seem to be mistaken, that I am arguing for the restriction of said rights, whereas I am merely stating our current predicament. I am a voluntaryist, in the proud tradition of Thoreau, Tucker, Nock, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. I am arguing FOR private property, and against Government fiefdoms and feudal arrangements. What I am surprised is that maybe 'Marxists' finally see property tax for what it is - truly rent-seeking. Please, tell me how property taxation is my debt. I didn't agree or consent to it, nor did I run the debt up myself, and don't give me shit about representation. I deny their representation of me, and no one else can force it upon me. They represent their own damn selves and the special interests whom they work on behalf of. NOT ME. Repudiate the damn debt.
It's actually quite the opposite. Government is the only thing standing to protect property rights. Without government, there are no property rights. There are no contracts, except what can be coerced from you. Government is only thing facilitating consent. Unless you think giving your money to a guy pointing a gun at you is consent.
There is no feudal arrangement, because we have a representative democracy. Government is elected by-for the people. We have things like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, rights to privacy and rights to due process, that is simply not feudal. Even if we have issues with corruption and NSA spying or whatever, there are no fiefdoms, there no lords, and there are no feudal contracts.
You are making the fallacy that all libertarians make: The Noncentral Fallacy. You want people to feel as emotional about property tax as they are about Feudalism, despite the fact that the part that people don't like about Feudalism is not present in property taxes. You draw a single similarity and extrapolate to equivalency.
You are perfectly allowed to buy a house without a mortgage. It's just that most people cannot afford to, and so we developed the financial idea of mortgages. It's really that simple.
|
On September 12 2013 05:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:20 Sub40APM wrote:On September 11 2013 22:57 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord. Are we actually going to demonize the very financial instruments that allow people get into homes or easily purchase other high-value assets in the first place? The concept of divisible property rights (the "bundle of sticks") is one of the most important economic developments in history, and one that greatly benefits those without capital. It enables those without capital to do things that they otherwise could not do. Focusing on the debt and the consequences of not paying it is ass-backwards, if not disingenuous. No, obviously different people have different preferences on temporal disposal of their income. The issue that I have is that sometimes financial 'innovation' ends up innovating a property holders right straight into thin air. Not because they abolish it but because they make it almost impossible for an average American to pursue the 'legal owner' of his mortgage. And if that requires that people who get mortgages pay higher interest rates or have a higher down payment, whats wrong with that? Too many people are buying houses who shouldnt -- isnt that the Republican refrain? Who whose fault is it if the borrower goes bankrupt? The lender for offering the loan or the borrower for agreeing to take the loan in the first place? It takes two people to form a contract. What exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that the lender should be prohibited from making the offer in the first place? Stated another way, are you saying that borrowers should have a harder time getting access to capital when they need it? What you're describing isn't a structural problem with the system. It's an intended consequence of taking a risky loan or otherwise failing to sufficiently save income. Put another way, it is the result of the American public becoming financially illiterate over the past couple generations.
That would be the case, if we lived in a market society, but we don't. We live in a oligarchic authoritarian monstrosity, whereby our 'savings' are eroded and devalued due to the financial structure of the country (Read: Federal Reserve, Legal Tender laws, etc.). Certainly people are free and should be to make whatever contractual arrangements they like, but what you're missing is the broader picture, of the interactions between the system itself to its players. When you rig the game, you can't place the blame on the victims. If only we could go back in time and deal with Woodrow Wilson and the banking cartel who foisted this system upon the country through Government.
It's the same case whenever and wherever else Government intervenes. When Government legislates morality, morality declines, when Government wages a War on Poverty, more people become impoverished, when Government says We're Here to Help, you get 'helped' mafia style. That's not the problem of the people, but of the people in Government, who most often act on their own accords. I mean, it's staring people right in the face if you would go back and read War Between the States letters to their wives and family - these men, often young, were much more literate and articulate, than College grads of today. Another problem and symptom of Government 'helping'.
For most people the effects produced by the Federal Reserve are devastating, enough so now that often raising a family requires dual income homes, large loans to afford purchasing an inflated house, etc. Read up on the Cantillon effect. The average person gets absolutely destroyed, while the receivers of newly made Government-money become ultra rich. All you have to do is point to some of the richest people in the country and you can trace them straight back to the Government. Goldman Sachs? Northropp Grumann? etc. etc. It's even worse when you take a look at the larger picture and see a lot of smaller entities suck the tit of Government .... err the lifeblood of the average person. It's this parasitism, this cronyism, that has produced the problems we face today. Not 'poor' decisions made by average people.
|
On September 12 2013 08:14 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 08:02 Wegandi wrote:On September 11 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2013 15:34 Wegandi wrote:
xDaunt I would definitely say that there is no private property in this country. It seems nothing is off limits to Government and the principle property of property is title, ownership, sovereignship. Let's talk homes for a moment. You do not own your home because of property taxes re: liens. Government owns your home and if you fail to pay them their extortion then they will revoke their allowance of your so-called private property. It can be as little as 44$, but that's not the point, the point is, you don't and cannot by definition own your home because you're a serf to the Government (re: indentured via property taxation). Let's not even talk about the simple fact that the Government claims ownership of our own bodies and regulates thereof. The Drug War and Laws for instance are the Governments writs against our self-ownership, and so forth for any Nanny-Statism. Ditto for Income Tax which Government claims to own our labor.
You're mistaking possession for private property. Perhaps you may want to read some Charles Dunoyer, Rothbard, Chodorov, Molinari, or Benjamin Tucker? So what's your point? Fundamentally, there's no difference between a government's tax lien or any other kind of lien/security interest that can be attained by a private person other than that the government lien is given a statutory priority in the event of foreclosure (ie, the government gets paid first in the sale). If someone doesn't pay their debts, then creditors, including the government, can attach and foreclose upon assets of the debtor to satisfy the debts. I don't think any sane person would argue that it is good policy to give debtors leave to never pay their debts in timely fashion. As for debts to the government specifically (like taxes), what your beef should be (and probably is) is that less taxes should be paid, which is a whole another topic. Ditto for the drug laws and property seizure provisions thereunder; that's a whole different issue than debtor/creditor relations. My point is that you cannot have private property while at the same time living in a feudal arrangement (E.g., Government - Master, You-Serf), where the property tax is equivalent to medieval definition of serfs (pay 25% tax on your 'holdings' to the land master "Government in this case"). The point of private property is sovereignship, or your own kingdom (not involuntary subjection to 'higher authority' in order to live on said land). Beyond the fact that property tax are in toto or until death, there is no such thing as paying them off, and they're involuntary in the first place. Where is this contract I signed? PRODUCE IT. Also, I can't believe you're arguing there is no difference between Government arrangements and private arrangements, considering the definition of Government is its involuntary, authoritative, and authoritarian nature (read: compulsory), whereas private arrangements are based off the PRINCIPLE of property (self-propriety), of consent, of contract, derived based on Lockean principles. You also seem to be mistaken, that I am arguing for the restriction of said rights, whereas I am merely stating our current predicament. I am a voluntaryist, in the proud tradition of Thoreau, Tucker, Nock, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. I am arguing FOR private property, and against Government fiefdoms and feudal arrangements. What I am surprised is that maybe 'Marxists' finally see property tax for what it is - truly rent-seeking. Please, tell me how property taxation is my debt. I didn't agree or consent to it, nor did I run the debt up myself, and don't give me shit about representation. I deny their representation of me, and no one else can force it upon me. They represent their own damn selves and the special interests whom they work on behalf of. NOT ME. Repudiate the damn debt. It's actually quite the opposite. Government is the only thing standing to protect property rights. Without government, there are no property rights. There are no contracts, except what can be coerced from you. Government is only thing facilitating consent. Unless you think giving your money to a guy pointing a gun at you is consent. There is no feudal arrangement, because we have a representative democracy. Government is elected by-for the people. We have things like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, rights to privacy and rights to due process, that is simply not feudal. Even if we have issues with corruption and NSA spying or whatever, there are no fiefdoms, there no lords, and there are no feudal contracts. You are making the fallacy that all libertarians make: The Noncentral Fallacy. You want people to feel as emotional about property tax as they are about Feudalism, despite the fact that the part that people don't like about Feudalism is not present in property taxes. You draw a single similarity and extrapolate to equivalency. You are perfectly allowed to buy a house without a mortgage. It's just that most people cannot afford to, and so we developed the financial idea of mortgages. It's really that simple.
I'm going to agree with you birthday boy 
On September 12 2013 08:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2013 05:20 Sub40APM wrote:On September 11 2013 22:57 xDaunt wrote:
Good lord. Are we actually going to demonize the very financial instruments that allow people get into homes or easily purchase other high-value assets in the first place? The concept of divisible property rights (the "bundle of sticks") is one of the most important economic developments in history, and one that greatly benefits those without capital. It enables those without capital to do things that they otherwise could not do. Focusing on the debt and the consequences of not paying it is ass-backwards, if not disingenuous. No, obviously different people have different preferences on temporal disposal of their income. The issue that I have is that sometimes financial 'innovation' ends up innovating a property holders right straight into thin air. Not because they abolish it but because they make it almost impossible for an average American to pursue the 'legal owner' of his mortgage. And if that requires that people who get mortgages pay higher interest rates or have a higher down payment, whats wrong with that? Too many people are buying houses who shouldnt -- isnt that the Republican refrain? Who whose fault is it if the borrower goes bankrupt? The lender for offering the loan or the borrower for agreeing to take the loan in the first place? It takes two people to form a contract. What exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that the lender should be prohibited from making the offer in the first place? Stated another way, are you saying that borrowers should have a harder time getting access to capital when they need it? What you're describing isn't a structural problem with the system. It's an intended consequence of taking a risky loan or otherwise failing to sufficiently save income. Put another way, it is the result of the American public becoming financially illiterate over the past couple generations. That would be the case, if we lived in a market society, but we don't. We live in a oligarchic authoritarian monstrosity, whereby our 'savings' are eroded and devalued due to the financial structure of the country (Read: Federal Reserve, Legal Tender laws, etc.).
What financial structure would you suppose would not allow 'savings' to be devalued?
Money is a complicated thing. Don't go assuming that flaws are the result of malfeasance.
Edit:On September 12 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
nah, if you guys really thought I was full of shit you wouldn't spend so much energy trying to discredit me
edit: @above yes, a main part of the function of property tax/ground rent is to make it impossible for you to escape from the monetized economy, because you always have to be producing some commodity to get money to pay your taxes. You should check out 'debt: the first 5000 years' by graeber, really interesting and thought provoking text
Government can demand non monetary contributions if it wants. Ex. show up for jury duty, serve in the army, etc.
|
On September 12 2013 08:02 Wegandi wrote:
My point is that you cannot have private property while at the same time living in a feudal arrangement (E.g., Government - Master, You-Serf), where the property tax is equivalent to medieval definition of serfs (pay 25% tax on your 'holdings' to the land master "Government in this case"). The point of private property is sovereignship, or your own kingdom (not involuntary subjection to 'higher authority' in order to live on said land). Beyond the fact that property tax are in toto or until death, there is no such thing as paying them off, and they're involuntary in the first place. Where is this contract I signed? PRODUCE IT.
I'm no fan of high taxes, and I hate paying the stupid amount of money that I pay in taxes every year. However, forking over 25% -- or even 60%+ -- does not foreclose ownership of private property. This is an empirical truth.
Also, I can't believe you're arguing there is no difference between Government arrangements and private arrangements, considering the definition of Government is its involuntary, authoritative, and authoritarian nature (read: compulsory), whereas private arrangements are based off the PRINCIPLE of property (self-propriety), of consent, of contract, derived based on Lockean principles.
I didn't argue that there is no philosophical difference between debts to the government and debts to private persons. There clearly is. However, when we are talking about the functional realities of payment, default, and collection, there really isn't any functional difference between the two. Again, we're talking about the existence of "private property."
You also seem to be mistaken, that I am arguing for the restriction of said rights, whereas I am merely stating our current predicament. I am a voluntaryist, in the proud tradition of Thoreau, Tucker, Nock, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. I am arguing FOR private property, and against Government fiefdoms and feudal arrangements. What I am surprised is that maybe 'Marxists' finally see property tax for what it is - truly rent-seeking.
Please, tell me how property taxation is my debt. I didn't agree or consent to it, nor did I run the debt up myself, and don't give me shit about representation. I deny their representation of me, and no one else can force it upon me. They represent their own damn selves and the special interests whom they work on behalf of. NOT ME. Repudiate the damn debt.
Once more, these are all concerns that relate to the relationship between the state and the individual. I'm not trying to argue whether the "debt" to the government is justified. I'm just taking it as a given reality in explaining why taxation does not foreclose the idea of private property ownership.
|
On September 12 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
nah, if you guys really thought I was full of shit you wouldn't spend so much energy trying to discredit me
edit: @above yes, a main part of the function of property tax/ground rent is to make it impossible for you to escape from the monetized economy, because you always have to be producing some commodity to get money to pay your taxes. You should check out 'debt: the first 5000 years' by graeber, really interesting and thought provoking text
"Escape the monetized economy" is a strange concept in itself. It can't mean anything other than reverting to small communities based around subsistence farming. You're right that property tax does not allow small, self-sustained communities to exist period, but that's the least of modern problems. Well, I might even call it a solution, since I believe property (in this case, land) should serve a social function (in this case, food production) and self-sustained communities by definition don't generate food surplus.
|
right. The purpose of ground rent is to create debt pressure for the extraction of surplus value. You just approve of this. I'm not sure whether I do or not, I'm just pointing out that this is what it does.
a major part of the liberal ideology goes back to contract theory ideas about how you 'chose' in some primordial always-already way to be a part of the liberal social order, and that you can opt out if you so desire. You'll hear people on this board say things like 'we are always free to go back and live off the land.' ground rent gives the lie to this, because you are always forced to be producing some commodity in order to pay your taxes.
|
On September 12 2013 08:57 sam!zdat wrote:
right. The purpose of ground rent is to create debt pressure for the extraction of surplus value. You just approve of this. I'm not sure whether I do or not, I'm just pointing out that this is what it does.
a major part of the liberal ideology goes back to contract theory ideas about how you 'chose' in some primordial always-already way to be a part of the liberal social order, and that you can opt out if you so desire. You'll hear people on this board say things like 'we are always free to go back and live off the land.' ground rent gives the lie to this, because you are always forced to be producing some commodity in order to pay your taxes.
I'm confused. Are you talking about ground rent (which is a term I'm not used to but I assume means a private land lease agreement) or property tax (which is between land owner and government)?
|
either way. It amounts to the same thing, whether your landlord is a private entity whose landlord is then the territorial power, or just the territorial power directly. Maybe there's a distinction and my language is imprecise
|
On September 12 2013 08:57 sam!zdat wrote:
right. The purpose of ground rent is to create debt pressure for the extraction of surplus value. You just approve of this. I'm not sure whether I do or not, I'm just pointing out that this is what it does.
a major part of the liberal ideology goes back to contract theory ideas about how you 'chose' in some primordial always-already way to be a part of the liberal social order, and that you can opt out if you so desire. You'll hear people on this board say things like 'we are always free to go back and live off the land.' ground rent gives the lie to this, because you are always forced to be producing some commodity in order to pay your taxes.
Go someplace remote where property taxes aren't collected. Otherwise you're part of society and society wants you to uphold your end of the bargain.
|
^case in point
notice the part where I said I was just offering an analysis of the way things are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
