Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah right, I should quote someone that hates you without taking responsibility for it.
Quote who ever you please. But if you wish to lay claim to the intellectual high ground, just do us all the favor of proof reading a bit
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Only in terms of a tax assessment. However there is a much easier way. Simply nationalize the mortgage industry and turn mortgage interest into the main tax base. Then the rent flows back to the very thing that created it, and its seamless....except people might notice not paying income and sales taxes. However the only problem I have with it is that its the ground rents that we should be after not the value added capital improvements.
Ah yes... nationalizing it. Well, never going to fly here. The political fallout from the mere quarter nationalization of the health insurance industry will likely set politicos of your fellow feeling back about 20 years. I hear they might be looking for some ideas down in Venezuela though, that could be the perfect place for you to peddle this claptrap non-sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
The owner is assigned by another owner, and both merely act as agents of the state, "Eminent Domain" is the real boss. Thus in the model I use a land owner is a sub municipal government. An apartment complex can even have some of its own by-laws like kids, pets and landscaping. The power over land is essentially an instrument of government.
To assume that the land owner is a sub municipal government, or an agent of the state, is to assume that the land owner will act in the best interests of that state. Experience in the US has shown me that most people here act in their own best interests first, rather than those of the state. Perhaps it is different in the UK. In the US, home owners's associations are indeed the closest to this theoretical entity you describe. Participation in them is voluntary, and the limiting factor on their authority is the willingness of dissenting home owners to legally challenge them - most find it in their own best interests to simply learn to get along instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Well I suppose you have some merits if we can agree that the British have been an American curse since the revolution.
Not what I said at all, but nice try at putting a positive spin on it.
Burden would be a more accurate description than curse, between putting them down in two early wars and bailing them out in two more recent ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
BF skinner should be considered the last classical economist who simply suggested that good things should be rewarded, and bad things should be punished. If taxes were based on ground rents then it is the one who allows the home to become a wreck that is primarily punished while those that build it up are primarily rewarded.
This presumes that all agree on good vs bad and that a government is the final and infallible authority in enforcing the punishment/reward. Most often that is the case, but not always. Perhaps your government is more infallible than is ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
However in a land of fat slugs, I can certainly see the appeal of making others suffer the consequences.
My my, insults again? Its pathetic really. Your arguments would work a lot better if you didn't resort to petty little digs They make you seem like a particularly well educated child, whatever your age in years may be. I don't mind them myself, they are amusing.
What is the difference between Land Value tax and the current property tax we pay? And how do you eliminate speculation on land and resources without nationalizing both? And who would the economic Lessors be in the first place?
You clearly did not understand. Clear your mind of the tax systems we currently have. The poverty trap is because we have a trickle up effect.
Ok, so you are at once admitting that local ad valorem taxes on real property lead to trickling up, and simultaneously saying your proposal wouldn't do that.
Why should anyone buy that argument, unless you can show (based on empirical evidence, not speculation!!) that the trickle up effect doesn't occur in cases like the one you're proposing?
It's fine and dandy to make theoretical arguments, but quite often reforms with plausible-sounding beneficial consequences don't turn out the way the pushers intended, even when the theoretical arguments sound compelling (or at least, sounded compelling until one had the benefit of hindsight to see why they didn't work as hoped...). As a simple example, consider the (failed) home Affordable Modification Program, but keep in mind I'm only intending to make a loose analogy with that one.
Also consider the fact that although you would expect home prices to correlate tightly with interest rates, they don't actually do so when you look at long term data. (Source: http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2010/0...g-home-prices/ ). Again this is not confusing your proposal with monetary policy, only making an analogy to show that even compelling arguments don't always line up with reality, hence the need for real evidence rather than arguments. No, I'm not confusing the real world with the case you propose. What I'm saying is, you need data to back your case, not just arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Commonly created wealth (economic rent) is appropriated by individuals and organizations. Income and Sales tax is stealing from the wealthy producers.
I'm not going to spend over an hour watching a video which I suspect isn't going to address the point I made. If you want, you can tell me which part I should watch, but I'm busy so don't make me take a whole hour.
Quote who ever you please. But if you wish to lay claim to the intellectual high ground, just do us all the favor of proof reading a bit
Ah yes... nationalizing it. Well, never going to fly here. The political fallout from the mere quarter nationalization of the health insurance industry will likely set politicos of your fellow feeling back about 20 years. I hear they might be looking for some ideas down in Venezuela though, that could be the perfect place for you to peddle this claptrap non-sense.
I often see those in their last desperate throes use the word claptrap, or some other dismissive tone since they cannot engage in a real argument. Oh my dear prosopis, it is public already and has been for quite some time. The entire banking system is da guberment. The only difference is I expect the proceeds to defray the public expense, not to be used on hookers and super cars. And your comparison to Venezuela exposes you again. The capital industry is to remain private in the discussion at hand of classical economics ,aka the division of labor, capital and rent. Only the rent, entirely a product of government is to be used to defray the public expense. It exactly the proposal of Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. This is why the likes of you are a peril to us all. Take it from the other fellow who called debt and finance largely, a rent.
So again you know nothing of the subject, just as I first surmised.
Quote:
To assume that the land owner is a sub municipal government, or an agent of the state, is to assume that the land owner will act in the best interests of that state. Experience in the US has shown me that most people here act in their own best interests first, rather than those of the state. Perhaps it is different in the UK. In the US, home owners's associations are indeed the closest to this theoretical entity you describe. Participation in them is voluntary, and the limiting factor on their authority is the willingness of dissenting home owners to legally challenge them - most find it in their own best interests to simply learn to get along instead.
To that I say duh, thats the point. Private land use is in the best interest of the state so long as it obtains the rents it creates to defray the public expense. Another observation of Smith was that small estates with the object of industry faired better than royal lands, effectively untaxed.
Why not just read a book for once?
Secondly, the wealth acquired by the inhabitants of cities was frequently employed in purchasing such lands as were to be sold, of which a great part would frequently be uncultivated. Merchants are commonly ambitious of becoming country gentlemen, and when they do, they are generally the best of all improvers. A merchant is accustomed to employ his money chiefly in profitable projects, whereas a mere country gentleman is accustomed to employ it chiefly in expense. The one often sees his money go from him and return to him again with a profit; the other, when once he parts with it, very seldom expects to see any more of it. Those different habits naturally affect their temper and disposition in every sort of business. A merchant is commonly a bold, a country gentleman a timid undertaker. The one is not afraid to lay out at once a large capital upon the improvement of his land when he has a probable prospect of raising the value of it in proportion to the expense. The other, if he has any capital, which is not always the case, seldom ventures to employ it in this manner. If he improves at all, it is commonly not with a capital, but with what he can save out of his annual revenue. Whoever has had the fortune to live in a mercantile town situated in an unimproved country must have frequently observed how much more spirited the operations of merchants were in this way than those of mere country gentlemen. The habits, besides, of order, economy, and attention, to which mercantile business naturally forms a merchant, render him much fitter to execute, with profit and success, any project of improvement.
-Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
Quote:
Not what I said at all, but nice try at putting a positive spin on it.
Burden would be a more accurate description than curse, between putting them down in two early wars and bailing them out in two more recent ones.
This presumes that all agree on good vs bad and that a government is the final and infallible authority in enforcing the punishment/reward. Most often that is the case, but not always. Perhaps your government is more infallible than is ours.
My my, insults again? Its pathetic really. Your arguments would work a lot better if you didn't resort to petty little digs They make you seem like a particularly well educated child, whatever your age in years may be. I don't mind them myself, they are amusing.
Its amazing, one who begins with insults does not see it fit for another to end with them. Do you think I am trying to be the hero? I am merely the herald of a destroying angel. I have long since abandoned the idea the average American could ever be informed. You are proof of that.
As for me , I would be so enraged at the humiliation that I might take up arms to understand the subject, in this case classical economics, and reenter the arena. I would do so enough to make the dispatch of my enemy a ceremonial formality. But thats me, and you are you. So you will face east or west and say "clap trap", and call it a day.
What is the difference between Land Value tax and the current property tax we pay? And how do you eliminate speculation on land and resources without nationalizing both? And who would the economic Lessors be in the first place?
Property taxes often have square-footage of the house as to what primarily dictates the tax. Some of this is justified as a user fee for fire and police. However the aim is not to tax capital improvements since it punishes capital improvements.
This will of course be purchased with a mortgage, converting the untaxed land value into a financial rent, meaning the buyer will have the same cost since lower taxes just become converted into equity for the seller. Also keep in mind 175k of credit will now flow in the economy with no product ... money = zero widgets = inflation....
So all its doing is printing money with finance collecting revenue by doing nothing. Why let them print the money?
This constitutes the majority of our money supply , aka our money is largely a token of pure rent to banks, created by da guberment property laws....A FIRE sector wet dream.
However at the level of the small estate , middle class land owners are good. So I am only too happy to let them have some of the rent at their disposal. The rent is still created by the collective effort. A good tax system simply creates a defense against parasites. However only under the conditions of 20% down and strict credit. The problem is the easy credit and large estates. Every property tax relief event just causes credit to flow into it, and it becomes a bank tax.
However as I have said, this is a note in a bottle since the wealth and power behind the FIRE sector regime is basically unstoppable at this point.
I often see those in their last desperate throes use the word claptrap, or some other dismissive tone since they cannot engage in a real argument. Oh my dear prosopis, it is public already and has been for quite some time. The entire banking system is da guberment. The only difference is I expect the proceeds to defray the public expense, not to be used on hookers and super cars. And your comparison to Venezuela exposes you again. The capital industry is to remain private in the discussion at hand of classical economics ,aka the division of labor, capital and rent. Only the rent, entirely a product of government is to be used to defray the public expense. It exactly the proposal of Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. This is why the likes of you are a peril to us all. Take it from the other fellow who called debt and finance largely, a rent.
So again you know nothing of the subject, just as I first surmised.
I'll grant you, the digs do tend to get mixed in with the discussion. That is for my amusement, I find your haughtiness highly entertaining The use of words like "claptrap" and suggesting migration to Venezuela is entirely facetious.
I will agree with you that banking and government are quite intermingled. I suspect you do not mind that (I hypothesize though). I do mind it. I mind it very much, because in the US, a lot of politicians are benefiting from it at the expense of the taxpayer.
Only a few are spending it on hookers, or perhaps only a few get caught at it. No supercars that I am aware of. I find no desire for either, myself. Most average Americans do not (you've been mistaking Hollywood for the entire country I think, much as many of the women here think that the British Isles are all one big Downton Abbey set Ooops, being facetious again, sorry )
If the likes of me are a peril to you, it is more that we believe we should be free to make up our own minds. The challenge to you and your ilk is to convince those who you consider so unworthy by rational argument rather than dictation. Go back a page or two and look at my reaction to another poster who worked in that direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
To that I say duh, thats the point. Private land use is in the best interest of the state so long as it obtains the rents it creates to defray the public expense. Another observation of Smith was that small estates with the object of industry faired better than royal lands, effectively untaxed.
Why not just read a book for once?
Secondly, the wealth acquired by the inhabitants of cities was frequently employed in purchasing such lands as were to be sold, of which a great part would frequently be uncultivated. Merchants are commonly ambitious of becoming country gentlemen, and when they do, they are generally the best of all improvers. A merchant is accustomed to employ his money chiefly in profitable projects, whereas a mere country gentleman is accustomed to employ it chiefly in expense. The one often sees his money go from him and return to him again with a profit; the other, when once he parts with it, very seldom expects to see any more of it. Those different habits naturally affect their temper and disposition in every sort of business. A merchant is commonly a bold, a country gentleman a timid undertaker. The one is not afraid to lay out at once a large capital upon the improvement of his land when he has a probable prospect of raising the value of it in proportion to the expense. The other, if he has any capital, which is not always the case, seldom ventures to employ it in this manner. If he improves at all, it is commonly not with a capital, but with what he can save out of his annual revenue. Whoever has had the fortune to live in a mercantile town situated in an unimproved country must have frequently observed how much more spirited the operations of merchants were in this way than those of mere country gentlemen. The habits, besides, of order, economy, and attention, to which mercantile business naturally forms a merchant, render him much fitter to execute, with profit and success, any project of improvement.
-Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
Much of the reason I tend to disagree with you is that your notion of how land is used seems fairly antiquated - and you provide me a nice example here. Country estates are long gone (plantations they were called here), as are country gentlemen. Farming in the US is now done on a larger scale, most often with corporate ownership. Given that you and the OP kept alluding to decrepit buildings and the like, the casual reader would have no idea if you were actually talking about taxation of company farms.
If you wish to apply classical conclusions to modern problems, I have no problem with that. I call you a fool, though, because you do not do so. You instead claim that any thinking person will come to your conclusions if they just read what you read.
I will requote you here -
"To that I say duh, thats the point. Private land use is in the best interest of the state so long as it obtains the rents it creates to defray the public expense."
Granted, but that is not what I questioned. My point was not whether private land use is or is not in the interest of the state - it was the opposite, whether state interests coincided with the private land owner - and often they are not one in the same. We have continual disagreement here between the EPA and private land owners, as just one example. I make no assertion that one side or the other is correct - just that each sees their own interests differently.
Perhaps the disconnection lies in your thinking that the state is the only true landowner? It is not a case you have made, and not one with which I agree, but I can see how if you assumed as much you would conclude that I'm talking non-sense.
For a smart guy you don't pay much attention to what is actually said vs. what you think is said. I suspect that all dissenters are abstractions to you - convenient men of straw who dissent only to demonstrate your brilliance Darn it! There I go again with the facetious claptrap! Well, at least I'm amusing myself
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Its amazing, one who begins with insults does not see it fit for another to end with them. Do you think I am trying to be the hero? I am merely the herald of a destroying angel. I have long since abandoned the idea the average American could ever be informed. You are proof of that.
I love it. When your argument is so obtuse that people do not get it, it's their fault not yours. You really are comical. This is why the average American loves needling you fella's so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
As for me , I would be so enraged at the humiliation that I might take up arms to understand the subject, in this case classical economics, and reenter the arena. I would do so enough to make the dispatch of my enemy a ceremonial formality. But thats me, and you are you. So you will face east or west and say "clap trap", and call it a day.
No no, you will have to stop being so silly and entertaining before you can enrage me Oh, but that is you. I forgot. You do seem to be easily enraged. You should see some of the stuff I deleted instead of posting It has been vastly entertaining though. The forum moderator has my apologies in advance, should they not find it so amusing as do I.
Property taxes often have square-footage of the house as to what primarily dictates the tax. Some of this is justified as a user fee for fire and police. However the aim is not to tax capital improvements since it punishes capital improvements.
This will of course be purchased with a mortgage, converting the untaxed land value into a financial rent, meaning the buyer will have the same cost since lower taxes just become converted into equity for the seller.
The structure is taxed on the assumption that if adds value to the property as a whole. Taxing the structure does not mean the land itself is untaxed. The same structure on a smaller or less desirable plot would be taxed less - having less perceived value. The house itself raises the tax considerably because it is taken as a valuable portion of the property, not because it is the sole means of figuring the tax.
You may disagree with the wisdom of that assumption, but that does not change the assumption itself.
Do I mistake your words here?
I think you mistake the intent of taxation, at least in the US. Taxes here are not solely to encourage or punish behavior. They do get used in that way - take alcohol and tobacco taxation - but the intent with property taxes is to raise revenue based on behavior which people will engage in anyway, regardless of the taxation. I improve my property because I desire the benefit of the improvements, not because I'm playing carrot and stick with the tax man.
I'll grant you, the digs do tend to get mixed in with the discussion. That is for my amusement, I find your haughtiness highly entertaining The use of words like "claptrap" and suggesting migration to Venezuela is entirely facetious.
You liken yourself to a cool cat playing with a toy? From my persecutive more like a baboon that has discovered its gentiles.
Quote:
I will agree with you that banking and government are quite intermingled. I suspect you do not mind that (I hypothesize though). I do mind it. I mind it very much, because in the US, a lot of politicians are benefiting from it at the expense of the taxpayer.
Mingled like blood and pus....However if any actual state wanted to resist, real estate taxes return sovereignty in lieu of excise or income taxes.
Quote:
Only a few are spending it on hookers, or perhaps only a few get caught at it. No supercars that I am aware of. I find no desire for either, myself. Most average Americans do not (you've been mistaking Hollywood for the entire country I think, much as many of the women here think that the British Isles are all one big Downton Abbey set Ooops, being facetious again, sorry )
Wall Street and bankers are a parsimonious and modest lot you say? Really?
If the likes of me are a peril to you, it is more that we believe we should be free to make up our own minds. The challenge to you and your ilk is to convince those who you consider so unworthy by rational argument rather than dictation. Go back a page or two and look at my reaction to another poster who worked in that direction.
You think you are the only one amusing themselves? As I said ,the struggle has long been over, and it is merely an operation of accounting for who is to blame. What I am saying can only be exhumed in a thousand years, a gift to a future anthropologist on the cause of the decline . But I would rather have in my service a mute simpleton, from a lowest cast of Bangladesh, reliably catch me a bandicoot than to choose among the vast stores of worthless opinions.
Quote:
Much of the reason I tend to disagree with you is that your notion of how land is used seems fairly antiquated - and you provide me a nice example here. Country estates are long gone (plantations they were called here), as are country gentlemen. Farming in the US is now done on a larger scale, most often with corporate ownership. Given that you and the OP kept alluding to decrepit buildings and the like, the casual reader would have no idea if you were actually talking about taxation of company farms.
I provided a nice example of one of the principle founders of classical economics. Of course its antiquated. However in the modern sense economic rents are alive and well.
The domain name containing the word sex is a valuable asset. Its not a product of human labor, but merely a valuable name space. The name alone was selling for $13 million.
Same thing goes for broadcast band width, rail rights of way, the center of town, the view of Central Park etc etc.
Quote:
If you wish to apply classical conclusions to modern problems, I have no problem with that. I call you a fool, though, because you do not do so. You instead claim that any thinking person will come to your conclusions if they just read what you read.
I merely suggest that anyone who wants to comment on a complex subject should have some back ground before opening their pie holes. I saw you comment and have verified you have no idea what its all about. However its all just so simple....
Quote:
I will requote you here -
"To that I say duh, thats the point. Private land use is in the best interest of the state so long as it obtains the rents it creates to defray the public expense."
Granted, but that is not what I questioned. My point was not whether private land use is or is not in the interest of the state - it was the opposite, whether state interests coincided with the private land owner - and often they are not one in the same. We have continual disagreement here between the EPA and private land owners, as just one example. I make no assertion that one side or the other is correct - just that each sees their own interests differently.
A conflict of interest and the negotiated benefits of the land owner does not change the basic premise. Nor does it change the net benefit. Without yours or the force of the state to hold the land , its up for grabs. There is no such thing as a private land owner without force. . All rights come from the state. And for all those mountain folk up in the hills, the land you have is either by the association you have with the state or your ability to hold it in a state of war, which is an attempt at becoming a sovereign. Its not so easy as, recalling "The War of Northern Aggression" .
Quote:
Perhaps the disconnection lies in your thinking that the state is the only true landowner? It is not a case you have made, and not one with which I agree, but I can see how if you assumed as much you would conclude that I'm talking non-sense.
Let me know when you decide to renounce the protection of the state for your land. Myself and some friends of mine will be glad to do a little prospecting.
Quote:
For a smart guy you don't pay much attention to what is actually said vs. what you think is said. I suspect that all dissenters are abstractions to you - convenient men of straw who dissent only to demonstrate your brilliance Darn it! There I go again with the facetious claptrap! Well, at least I'm amusing myself
I love it. When your argument is so obtuse that people do not get it, it's their fault not yours. You really are comical. This is why the average American loves needling you fella's so much.
Right, why can't they just make Swiss watch making simple. I guess the problem is not with you who spent 5 minutes on it. People who have only heard of Snoopy might find it obtuse.
I am an American, the last of the remaining rebels since the City of London reconquered its abused mistress in the name of King George. The only fellow citizens I have any use for are mostly dead already.
Quote:
No no, you will have to stop being so silly and entertaining before you can enrage me Oh, but that is you. I forgot. You do seem to be easily enraged. You should see some of the stuff I deleted instead of posting It has been vastly entertaining though. The forum moderator has my apologies in advance, should they not find it so amusing as do I.
Angry? No not so much. More like a mild disgust and bemusement up close, but comical at a safe distance... similar to the experience I had when observing the beauties on Table Rock beach in Branson..like fat cigarette butts in a sand ash try...American as 3 apple pies, baby.
The structure is taxed on the assumption that if adds value to the property as a whole. Taxing the structure does not mean the land itself is untaxed. The same structure on a smaller or less desirable plot would be taxed less - having less perceived value. The house itself raises the tax considerably because it is taken as a valuable portion of the property, not because it is the sole means of figuring the tax.
prosopis,
The tax system by your own admission smacks the industrious hand with a ruler. That is the result and therefore it is mistaken.
Quote:
You may disagree with the wisdom of that assumption, but that does not change the assumption itself.
Do I mistake your words here?
I think you mistake the intent of taxation, at least in the US. Taxes here are not solely to encourage or punish behavior. They do get used in that way - take alcohol and tobacco taxation - but the intent with property taxes is to raise revenue based on behavior which people will engage in anyway, regardless of the taxation. I improve my property because I desire the benefit of the improvements, not because I'm playing carrot and stick with the tax man.
You swing golf clubs at shot puts, not knowing the distance from the hole.
The founders of the country, like Madison, Jefferson et al. were inspired by Lockean natural law. One of these was the labor theory of ownership. Taxing labor in lieu of the alternatives is anathema to the foundations.
Taxes as a fundamental principle are to be based on user fees. Those raise plenty of revenue when there is a market for it. if it stands the test of user fee, and real estate tax is a user fee, then its not a Marxist -from each according to his means - or jack booted Trotsky state of central planning. However if your pamphlet from the Politbureau says otherwise then I guess ya got go with it.
You liken yourself to a cool cat playing with a toy? From my persecutive more like a baboon that has discovered its gentiles.
Neither. I play the idiot court jester you paint me as. I encourage your vast intellect to debate the jester for the amusement of myself and anyone else who is following along. I will leave off doing so though, it is getting to be too much like trolling you, and I wouldn't want to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Wall Street and bankers are a parsimonious and modest lot you say? Really?
No, I was referring to politicians. How sloppy of me, I see now that I separated that sentence into an new paragraph without specifying the subject. Originally it was just one paragraph. Sloppy grammar, I admit, but it would have passed unnoticed, being similar to the way many people speak. I guess I will have to leave your many typos alone now, in the interests of fairness (there's one above, by the way )
The point is that voters have little control over the behavior of other voters, be they bankers with an affinity for hookers and fast cars, or farmers with an affinity for solitude. In theory at least, voters do have some control over politicians. Should voters wish to make the effort to separate banking and government, they must do so from the government end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I provided a nice example of one of the principle founders of classical economics. Of course its antiquated. However in the modern sense economic rents are alive and well.
The domain name containing the word sex is a valuable asset. Its not a product of human labor, but merely a valuable name space. The name alone was selling for $13 million.
Same thing goes for broadcast band width, rail rights of way, the center of town, the view of Central Park etc etc.
Now see, that is much better.
Does the seller of that fine view not pay tax on the proceeds of the sale? How is casting it as a rent preferable?
Is the domain name not the product of human thought? Interesting that thought is not labor by which one can profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I merely suggest that anyone who wants to comment on a complex subject should have some back ground before opening their pie holes. I saw you comment and have verified you have no idea what its all about. However its all just so simple....
How amusing that you keep arguing with the jester though, isn't it? I did suggest in a very early reply that the wise course was to ignore me
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
A conflict of interest and the negotiated benefits of the land owner does not change the basic premise.
It does if the basic premise is that the land owner is an agent of the state in claiming those benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
All rights come from the state. And for all those mountain folk up in the hills, the land you have is either by the association you have with the state or your ability to hold it in a state of war, which is an attempt at becoming a sovereign.
Does the right to believe as I please come from the state as well?
Is the hermit who holds his own little patch on the mountain (or Caruso if you prefer) actually a sovereign? - how can someone be a sovereign in complete solitude? Doesn't authority require at least a single subject to exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Let me know when you decide to renounce the protection of the state for your land. Myself and some friends of mine will be glad to do a little prospecting.
You would find it rather difficult. The state is not the sole purveyor of force.
But where did I suggest renouncing the protection of the state? I recognize that the state protects private ownership because it is in the best interest of the state to have an orderly economy - part of which is attempting to protect rights of ownership. This does not imply to me that I am an agent of the state, merely that the state and I have some interests in common.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
