7 ms·

I also like to inject into any discusion of home buying the point that nobody truly buys a home, it's just a different variant on renting and serfdom to the sta

I also like to inject into any discusion of home buying the point that nobody truly buys a home, it's just a different variant on renting and serfdom to the state. When I own a ball, it's mine, and absent me using it to hurt someone with it, it will not and cannot legally be taken away from me. Additionally, since I own the ball, and am not merely renting the ball, I do not have to make any monthly or yearly payments to any other party in order to keep ownership and possession of the ball. Where when you "buy" and "own" a home (assuming current US, etc), you are required in 99.99% of typical situations to pay taxes at periodic intervals. If you do not, eventually men with guns will come use violence if necessary to force you out of that home and take "ownership" away from you. If you squint your eyes a bit that should look like renting. Rather, the government entities which claim dominance over the area containing your home have a set of rules which allows you to acquire the illusion of ownership over a home in exchange for paying rent/tax to that government periodically. Whether you call that money transfer rent or tax does not matter as much as the physical event that occurs and it's net effects and consequences. Now I understand there are some ownership qualities to so-called home ownership, not denying that. There are shades of gray between pure renting and pure owning. But what most people talk about is something clearly in the middle of that spectrum, not on one end. Thus, I think the better description is different variants on renting. Different lease permutations.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
In this sense, all work is slavery since you can't take home all you earn. It is good libertarian hyperbolic, but probably not a useful comment in this context.
georgieporgie 15y ago
Since I don't like to downvote without replying, here you go: If you don't want to support existing infrastructure, I suggest that you become very wealthy, buy an island, and live there by yourself. The difference between buying and renting is enormously larger than the difference between buying and your theoretical-complete-ownership-of-land. Additionally, in your theoretical ownership world, you would have zero infrastructure to support you and, indeed, would never have had the economic engine to build your wealth in the first place.
- JeffL 15y ago
  To be fair, infrastructure could be paid for entirely by use taxes and not by general taxation. Water, electricity, and gas infrastructure can be paid for by taxes on those services, and people who don't want them can not purchase water, electricity, or gas from the "grid". Roads can be paid for with gas taxes, and that way are paid for proportionally by those who use them. And to add to the GP's post, government can choose to seize your land at any time using eminent domain laws are are more and more abused every day. So, whether or not you agree with Libertarianism, I do think he has a point that there are a lot of similarities between buying and renting that a lot of people maybe don't realize. I think that the choice of paying property tax and living on an island is a false dichotomy. We could theoretically live in a society without paying property tax, where the government can't seize your land.
  - ericd 15y ago
    How would the govt. make infrastructure improvements like high speed trains if it couldn't use eminent domain, though? It's an intractable problem to negotiate with everyone along a path simultaneously, and if they hit a block of people unwilling to sell, and the train couldn't be made to turn fast enough to avoid it at speed, you'd either have a very slow train, or they'd have to waste another x months negotiating a different path. We trade absolute liberty for pragmatism.
  - mturmon 15y ago
    I tire of catch phrases like "...eventually men with guns will come use violence if necessary to force you out of that home...." Pointless hyperbole.
    - Symmetry 15y ago
      I don't think its pointless. I'm all for taxation, but we should do well to remember that all power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and to be aware of the consequences of how we vote and so be corresponding humble with our power.
      - 15y ago
onedognight 15y ago
As you said, you not allowed to just sit on the land and not provide a good to the rest of the country (in one way or another). As much as I empathize with your reaction, it seems to me that the use it or lose it philosophy brought on by the property tax policy is actually an efficient way to allocate land in a country.
forkandwait 15y ago
While some of my best friends are libertarians ... they tend to oversimplify very complex dynamics that aren't really understood by anybody -- not Bernanke, Marx, Milton, or Keynes, much less Ayn Rand. Flip comments aside: "ownership" of anything -- a ball, a company, a piece of property -- should be seen as a bundle of rights and responsibilities, and as a (overall) benign socially sanctioned fiction like streetlights. Then you can see that it is only in the trivial cases, like a ball that nobody cares about, that ownership is straightforward and implies "It's mine I can do anything with it I like". So, duh, you pay taxes and have to conform to zoning codes. Get over it. EDIT: Also, "government entities" aren't some weird uncontrollable force like the weather or an invading army -- you live in a democracy, so get involved.
- specialist 15y ago
  Love it. Both the analysis and "get involved" concluding advice.
- forkandwait 15y ago
  Just noticed that I cited "streetlights" as a social fiction -- I meant "traffic rules".

jamesaguilar 15y ago

In this sense, all work is slavery since you can't take home all you earn. It is good libertarian hyperbolic, but probably not a useful comment in this context.

georgieporgie 15y ago

Since I don't like to downvote without replying, here you go: If you don't want to support existing infrastructure, I suggest that you become very wealthy, buy an island, and live there by yourself. The difference between buying and renting is enormously larger than the difference between buying and your theoretical-complete-ownership-of-land. Additionally, in your theoretical ownership world, you would have zero infrastructure to support you and, indeed, would never have had the economic engine to build your wealth in the first place.

JeffL 15y ago
To be fair, infrastructure could be paid for entirely by use taxes and not by general taxation. Water, electricity, and gas infrastructure can be paid for by taxes on those services, and people who don't want them can not purchase water, electricity, or gas from the "grid". Roads can be paid for with gas taxes, and that way are paid for proportionally by those who use them. And to add to the GP's post, government can choose to seize your land at any time using eminent domain laws are are more and more abused every day. So, whether or not you agree with Libertarianism, I do think he has a point that there are a lot of similarities between buying and renting that a lot of people maybe don't realize. I think that the choice of paying property tax and living on an island is a false dichotomy. We could theoretically live in a society without paying property tax, where the government can't seize your land.
- ericd 15y ago
  How would the govt. make infrastructure improvements like high speed trains if it couldn't use eminent domain, though? It's an intractable problem to negotiate with everyone along a path simultaneously, and if they hit a block of people unwilling to sell, and the train couldn't be made to turn fast enough to avoid it at speed, you'd either have a very slow train, or they'd have to waste another x months negotiating a different path. We trade absolute liberty for pragmatism.
- mturmon 15y ago
  I tire of catch phrases like "...eventually men with guns will come use violence if necessary to force you out of that home...." Pointless hyperbole.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    I don't think its pointless. I'm all for taxation, but we should do well to remember that all power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and to be aware of the consequences of how we vote and so be corresponding humble with our power.
    - 15y ago

onedognight 15y ago

As you said, you not allowed to just sit on the land and not provide a good to the rest of the country (in one way or another). As much as I empathize with your reaction, it seems to me that the use it or lose it philosophy brought on by the property tax policy is actually an efficient way to allocate land in a country.

forkandwait 15y ago

While some of my best friends are libertarians ... they tend to oversimplify very complex dynamics that aren't really understood by anybody -- not Bernanke, Marx, Milton, or Keynes, much less Ayn Rand. Flip comments aside: "ownership" of anything -- a ball, a company, a piece of property -- should be seen as a bundle of rights and responsibilities, and as a (overall) benign socially sanctioned fiction like streetlights. Then you can see that it is only in the trivial cases, like a ball that nobody cares about, that ownership is straightforward and implies "It's mine I can do anything with it I like". So, duh, you pay taxes and have to conform to zoning codes. Get over it. EDIT: Also, "government entities" aren't some weird uncontrollable force like the weather or an invading army -- you live in a democracy, so get involved.

specialist 15y ago
Love it. Both the analysis and "get involved" concluding advice.
forkandwait 15y ago
Just noticed that I cited "streetlights" as a social fiction -- I meant "traffic rules".