6 ms·

Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. From what I can gather most houses of public figures are alre

Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. From what I can gather most houses of public figures are already known.

Terr_ 3y ago
> Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. Imagine that you own and run Acme Critical Publishing, which publishes exposés of crimes and ethical lapses of the sitting President. In speeches, he starts rambling about your company as an example of Horrible Very Bad People, and the next thing you know some supported of his casually looked up your home address online and now there are burning lower-case-t's on your lawn... I'd say the republic and accountability are both suffering in that scenario. It's one of those "tools that can be used for for good or evil" things, and simply prohibiting the tool isn't necessarily the best way to maximize the good while minimizing the evil.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  In your story, there are two failures; firstly, the President's failure to exhibit due care in the content of his speeches (an increased responsibility due to his lofty station), secondly, the lack of a police response to disperse ominous gatherings before they become violent. Neither of these failures have anything to do with the anonymity of company directors. The President could know you personally, and still leak your address. Similarly, there could be a mob vandalising your property even if you didn't run Acme Critical Publishing, because that kind of thing happens in riots sometimes. In some countries there is almost no anonymity on the public record, but this doesn't seem to negatively affect the level of violence in their societies compared to otherwise comparable locations. Therefore I would opine that 'enjoying safety' and 'enjoying privacy' are two very different and mostly orthogonal issues.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    > disperse ominous gatherings [...] a mob [...] riots Hold up, I didn't say anything about a riot, let alone a physical gathering. Just the contents of a speech where your hypothetical publishing company has become fingered as a target. It could very well be a video on a campaign-blog. > the level of violence in their societies The analogy isn't about violence, it's about kinds of damage to you (and to the republic) when the privacy is pierced, and violence just happens to be the most illustratively-obvious form of that.
  - arunabha 3y ago
    > firstly, the President's failure to exhibit due care in the content of his speeches (an increased responsibility due to his lofty station) There is no such legal requirement, right? What's holding the president accountable? > the lack of a police response to disperse ominous gatherings before they become violent. It's really not possible for the police to do this. Regardless, GP's comment was about one or a small number of people showing up to cause trouble. In reality, the police can pretty much do nothing to prevent this. If they could, there really wouldn't be any robberies or murder.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > It's really not possible for the police to do this. You try burning t's on the front lawns of politicians and see how quickly the police do exactly that. You seem to think it's a perfect crime and you could never be caught or held accountable. That's an insane view, but you're welcome to test it for yourself and see what happens. I think you might be surprised. A lone person (or even a small group) could show up and cause trouble on anyone's property at any time. Why don't most people do it? Probably because police exist and there would be consequences. Should everyone have their addresses hidden from all people at all times? Why should a company have that protection and not you? What makes them so special? I think it's far better to understand that transparency is important to our democracy and our freedom and that means accepting a certain amount of risk sometimes. The fact that someone, somewhere, might one day find out where you live is a risk almost all of us face right now. There's no reason for a privileged class of people who want to influence our lives and government while also hiding themselves from the public and accountability.
- xtracto 3y ago
  Something like this just happened in Mexico: the president exposed the personal contact info (phone iirc) of some journalist that wrote a piece critical of his government: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-president-inquiry-times-journalist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-pre... So, imagine if Trump exposed the contact info of people behind one of those groups showing anti-trump ads. His minions could use it as a signal to attack them.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    Ok, so we only allow the government the privilege of knowing who owns what… then we worry about the government abusing this information for political gain?
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Why is public knowledge of who owns what home required for accountability in a republic? A functioning government should have no problem enforcing whatever laws and codes exist regardless of whether the owner is directly known or shielded through some LLC.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  So we should rely on the government being the only party with access to what you would make privileged information? A key aspect of public accountability is tautologically dependent on public information. We are supposed to keep our own elected officials as well as those granted the right to private property in check or else fraud and corruption would reign supreme. We have been operating under these conditions since the advent of the democratic republic and to our good fortune.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Because our system of property, inherited from English common law, has a concept of a beneficial purchaser for value without notice. If someone gives you money for property and they are not on notice that there are conflicting claims, their claim is valid. Such a system requires a way to establish constructive notice. A taker for value should have known that the land he was buying belonged to another if its ownership was properly recorded at the time of the purported sale. Mileage may vary in different jurisdictions. Recording office May vary according to property type under state law; e.g., DMV might record motor vehicle titles while the county recorder in the county of the property probably records real estate.
codexb 3y ago
What about a "republic" (ie. a nation governed by laws) requires public registration of assets?
- williamcotton 3y ago
  A monarchy is also a nation governed by laws. I’ve answered your question in another response.
  - codexb 3y ago
    A monarchy is generally not governed by law. A monarch typically has ultimate authority to govern as they wish. Sometimes, their power is limited, and sometimes they delegate the responsibility of governance, but a monarch is precisely the opposite of a republic governed by law.
- vundercind 3y ago
  It also doesn’t require the government granting the privilege of incorporation.
  - solidsnack9000 3y ago
    No, it doesn't; but it turns out that you end up with a much poorer society without it. The king did not come up with incorporation merely to amuse the incorporators; it was to tax them and take loans from them, and that's because there was enormous economic activity they could undertake once there was a liability shield.

Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. From what I can gather most houses of public figures are already known.

Terr_ 3y ago

> Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the accountability needed for private property. Imagine that you own and run Acme Critical Publishing, which publishes exposés of crimes and ethical lapses of the sitting President. In speeches, he starts rambling about your company as an example of Horrible Very Bad People, and the next thing you know some supported of his casually looked up your home address online and now there are burning lower-case-t's on your lawn... I'd say the republic and accountability are both suffering in that scenario. It's one of those "tools that can be used for for good or evil" things, and simply prohibiting the tool isn't necessarily the best way to maximize the good while minimizing the evil.

seabass-labrax 3y ago
In your story, there are two failures; firstly, the President's failure to exhibit due care in the content of his speeches (an increased responsibility due to his lofty station), secondly, the lack of a police response to disperse ominous gatherings before they become violent. Neither of these failures have anything to do with the anonymity of company directors. The President could know you personally, and still leak your address. Similarly, there could be a mob vandalising your property even if you didn't run Acme Critical Publishing, because that kind of thing happens in riots sometimes. In some countries there is almost no anonymity on the public record, but this doesn't seem to negatively affect the level of violence in their societies compared to otherwise comparable locations. Therefore I would opine that 'enjoying safety' and 'enjoying privacy' are two very different and mostly orthogonal issues.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > disperse ominous gatherings [...] a mob [...] riots Hold up, I didn't say anything about a riot, let alone a physical gathering. Just the contents of a speech where your hypothetical publishing company has become fingered as a target. It could very well be a video on a campaign-blog. > the level of violence in their societies The analogy isn't about violence, it's about kinds of damage to you (and to the republic) when the privacy is pierced, and violence just happens to be the most illustratively-obvious form of that.
- arunabha 3y ago
  > firstly, the President's failure to exhibit due care in the content of his speeches (an increased responsibility due to his lofty station) There is no such legal requirement, right? What's holding the president accountable? > the lack of a police response to disperse ominous gatherings before they become violent. It's really not possible for the police to do this. Regardless, GP's comment was about one or a small number of people showing up to cause trouble. In reality, the police can pretty much do nothing to prevent this. If they could, there really wouldn't be any robberies or murder.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > It's really not possible for the police to do this. You try burning t's on the front lawns of politicians and see how quickly the police do exactly that. You seem to think it's a perfect crime and you could never be caught or held accountable. That's an insane view, but you're welcome to test it for yourself and see what happens. I think you might be surprised. A lone person (or even a small group) could show up and cause trouble on anyone's property at any time. Why don't most people do it? Probably because police exist and there would be consequences. Should everyone have their addresses hidden from all people at all times? Why should a company have that protection and not you? What makes them so special? I think it's far better to understand that transparency is important to our democracy and our freedom and that means accepting a certain amount of risk sometimes. The fact that someone, somewhere, might one day find out where you live is a risk almost all of us face right now. There's no reason for a privileged class of people who want to influence our lives and government while also hiding themselves from the public and accountability.
xtracto 3y ago
Something like this just happened in Mexico: the president exposed the personal contact info (phone iirc) of some journalist that wrote a piece critical of his government: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-president-inquiry-times-journalist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-pre... So, imagine if Trump exposed the contact info of people behind one of those groups showing anti-trump ads. His minions could use it as a signal to attack them.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Ok, so we only allow the government the privilege of knowing who owns what… then we worry about the government abusing this information for political gain?

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Why is public knowledge of who owns what home required for accountability in a republic? A functioning government should have no problem enforcing whatever laws and codes exist regardless of whether the owner is directly known or shielded through some LLC.

williamcotton 3y ago
So we should rely on the government being the only party with access to what you would make privileged information? A key aspect of public accountability is tautologically dependent on public information. We are supposed to keep our own elected officials as well as those granted the right to private property in check or else fraud and corruption would reign supreme. We have been operating under these conditions since the advent of the democratic republic and to our good fortune.
singleshot_ 3y ago
Because our system of property, inherited from English common law, has a concept of a beneficial purchaser for value without notice. If someone gives you money for property and they are not on notice that there are conflicting claims, their claim is valid. Such a system requires a way to establish constructive notice. A taker for value should have known that the land he was buying belonged to another if its ownership was properly recorded at the time of the purported sale. Mileage may vary in different jurisdictions. Recording office May vary according to property type under state law; e.g., DMV might record motor vehicle titles while the county recorder in the county of the property probably records real estate.

codexb 3y ago

What about a "republic" (ie. a nation governed by laws) requires public registration of assets?

williamcotton 3y ago
A monarchy is also a nation governed by laws. I’ve answered your question in another response.
- codexb 3y ago
  A monarchy is generally not governed by law. A monarch typically has ultimate authority to govern as they wish. Sometimes, their power is limited, and sometimes they delegate the responsibility of governance, but a monarch is precisely the opposite of a republic governed by law.
vundercind 3y ago
It also doesn’t require the government granting the privilege of incorporation.
- solidsnack9000 3y ago
  No, it doesn't; but it turns out that you end up with a much poorer society without it. The king did not come up with incorporation merely to amuse the incorporators; it was to tax them and take loans from them, and that's because there was enormous economic activity they could undertake once there was a liability shield.