This is a good debate to have, so I hope you are willing to have it with an open mind. > Bonds backed [by] what? The train has already left the station on tha

This is a good debate to have, so I hope you are willing to have it with an open mind. > Bonds backed [by] what? The train has already left the station on that. It is not now and never will be backed by revenues. It’s backed by all the protections and encumbrances of legal tender. Supply and demand. Legal stability and efficiency of governance is a massive demand multiplier for dollar investment. The inefficiencies of taxation reduce demand by far more than the revenues received. > violence … not aggression I think you mean that it is justified and necessary. All aggressors believe this about their own actions. It is factual aggression by a neutral viewpoint. But my point is not moral. Land tax is ill-defined, inefficient, and fails dramatically to capture the sum of scarce resources and externalities. We know this because it already exists. If your goal is redistribution, property tax may be appropriate; I’m not sure. If your goal is efficient capital reallocation, property tax is a maybe, but definitely eliminate any tax on transfer or gains. There are mechanisms to make property tax fair and easy, with zero aggression in enforcement. The key is that the government does not seize property, it only defends property. So, if you hold title by agreement of all parties, former owner, new owner, and jurisdiction, then the government would defend your property rights. Otherwise, it would not. The government may set the price for this service, open to any party. If someone does not pay, they would not be evicted, nor would they lose ownership, but they would lose the legal and physical protection afforded by the government for those assets. Presumably this is valuable enough that most would much rather pay. This would be merely an accessory to the central fund raising mechanism, which is now and always will be bond sales.