5 ms·

Property taxes are unconstitutional and immoral. They are an implicit nationalization of all property because there is no way to own property unencumbered. Imp

by dmfdmf 4y ago

Property taxes are unconstitutional and immoral. They are an implicit nationalization of all property because there is no way to own property unencumbered. Implicitly the govt owns all the land and charges you rent. The level, high or low, is irrelevant to the principle.

EddieDante 4y ago
I'm gonna blow your mind right now: the foundation of all law is the government's monopoly on violence. Might makes right. The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die."
- danans 4y ago
  > The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die." That same contract is also in force in the absence of a government monopoly on violence, with the difference that the "and die" part gets implemented far more frequently. That's why anarchists (of any stripe - left or right) shouldn't be trusted, since what they are really aiming for is to destroy democratic institutions and replace them with an authoritarianism that enforces only their preferences.
  - EddieDante 4y ago
    Corollary: the difference between a government and a warlord/organized crime syndicate is the time/money/effort spent on propaganda.
    - danans 4y ago
      > Corollary: the difference between a government and a warlord/organized crime syndicate is the time/money/effort spent on propaganda. Only when the government is authoritarian. You can't vote out a dictator, king, warlord, or mob boss.
      - EddieDante 4y ago
        I can't vote out the people who decide who gets on the ballot, either.
        danans 4y ago
        Maybe not at the presidential level, but you can definitely do so at the local and legislative level if you get involved in your party's local nominating committees. The alternative is running every presidential election like a California recall election, which is a famously dysfunctional process.
  - dmfdmf 4y ago
    Yes, I agree anarchy is a dead end. The original idea was govt has monopoly on force to avoid anarchy (and the violence and injustices it entails) but the Constitution was originally designed to limit when the govt can validly use force. We have obviously drifter far away from that ideal.
- dmfdmf 4y ago
  Mind not blown. I agree with that and argue the point with people all the time. At the bottom of all the govt regs and laws is a gun. It seems like an obvious point to me but some people struggle with it. In my view the govt necessarily has a monopoly on the use of force which is unavoidable. The important part of the "social contract" is when is it valid for the govt to use that force. The US Constitution originally laid out when the use of that force was moral. Using force to extract tax payment from property owners is not on that list and turns the govt into criminals operating under the color of the law which is terrible situation.
imtringued 4y ago
That argument is easily debunked by introducing a citizen's dividend. With a citizen's dividend the opposite is true, private land ownership is forcing people into homelessness and taking away their contributions to their local community.

by dmfdmf 4y ago

EddieDante 4y ago

I'm gonna blow your mind right now: the foundation of all law is the government's monopoly on violence. Might makes right. The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die."

danans 4y ago
> The only "social contract" in force is, "Obey and be protected. Defy us and die." That same contract is also in force in the absence of a government monopoly on violence, with the difference that the "and die" part gets implemented far more frequently. That's why anarchists (of any stripe - left or right) shouldn't be trusted, since what they are really aiming for is to destroy democratic institutions and replace them with an authoritarianism that enforces only their preferences.
- EddieDante 4y ago
  Corollary: the difference between a government and a warlord/organized crime syndicate is the time/money/effort spent on propaganda.
  - danans 4y ago
    > Corollary: the difference between a government and a warlord/organized crime syndicate is the time/money/effort spent on propaganda. Only when the government is authoritarian. You can't vote out a dictator, king, warlord, or mob boss.
    - EddieDante 4y ago
      I can't vote out the people who decide who gets on the ballot, either.
      - danans 4y ago
        Maybe not at the presidential level, but you can definitely do so at the local and legislative level if you get involved in your party's local nominating committees. The alternative is running every presidential election like a California recall election, which is a famously dysfunctional process.
- dmfdmf 4y ago
  Yes, I agree anarchy is a dead end. The original idea was govt has monopoly on force to avoid anarchy (and the violence and injustices it entails) but the Constitution was originally designed to limit when the govt can validly use force. We have obviously drifter far away from that ideal.
dmfdmf 4y ago
Mind not blown. I agree with that and argue the point with people all the time. At the bottom of all the govt regs and laws is a gun. It seems like an obvious point to me but some people struggle with it. In my view the govt necessarily has a monopoly on the use of force which is unavoidable. The important part of the "social contract" is when is it valid for the govt to use that force. The US Constitution originally laid out when the use of that force was moral. Using force to extract tax payment from property owners is not on that list and turns the govt into criminals operating under the color of the law which is terrible situation.

imtringued 4y ago

That argument is easily debunked by introducing a citizen's dividend. With a citizen's dividend the opposite is true, private land ownership is forcing people into homelessness and taking away their contributions to their local community.