"the owner"...... [604x775 - 491KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (44).

[–] • 1 pt

That is why it is not useful to think of "owning" as "holding without any responsibilities." Owning is only ever holding through force. Force is projected by the one sitting on the land, but if he is part of a community, his force is added to that of the others, and the act of banding together is a force multiplier (the reason for community). Since it's now the community projecting force in order to hold the land, the individual has responsibilities that come with ownership. It's no surprise, that societies will sooner or later set up taxes, which reflect that relationship.

During the feudal era, few people actually owned the land and even lords were just granted stewardship of royal lands. This arrangement came with duties and obligations carried out by each member of society according to their rank, creating - in principle - a just society. The security umbrella created by a lord was the main benefit for his tax-payers, and in modern states, this is still true.

The property tax per se is not unjust. Whoever holds a lot of land, has more obligations towards his community, since the community also protects his privileges. If you could just sit on your land without any obligations to anyone around you, you could just decide to stop being a productive member of society, profitting off the security umbrella without giving anything back. A property tax forces you to be at least somewhat productive.

The major problem with big government creating taxes in the far-away capital is when it acts against your interests, for example by importing illegal immigrants, who are a net drain on society, or who are a security threat. What's more, enforcing demographic shifts and promoting miscegenation with less intelligent races directly harms your long term interests. A real government by/for/of the people (white Americans of European descent) would theoretically go a long way of ensuring taxation with representation, but in reality it didn't, because whites are not immune to corruption, and the system is probably intrinsically flawed.

That is why it is not useful to think of "owning" as "holding without any responsibilities." Owning is only ever holding through force. Force is projected by the one sitting on the land, but if he is part of a community, his force is added to that of the others, and the act of banding together is a force multiplier (the reason for community). Since it's now the community projecting force in order to hold the land, the individual has responsibilities that come with ownership. It's no surprise, that societies will sooner or later set up taxes, which reflect that relationship. During the feudal era, few people actually owned the land and even lords were just granted stewardship of royal lands. This arrangement came with duties and obligations carried out by each member of society according to their rank, creating - in principle - a just society. The security umbrella created by a lord was the main benefit for his tax-payers, and in modern states, this is still true. The property tax per se is not unjust. Whoever holds a lot of land, has more obligations towards his community, since the community also protects his privileges. If you could just sit on your land without any obligations to anyone around you, you could just decide to stop being a productive member of society, profitting off the security umbrella without giving anything back. A property tax forces you to be at least somewhat productive. The major problem with big government creating taxes in the far-away capital is when it acts against your interests, for example by importing illegal immigrants, who are a net drain on society, or who are a security threat. What's more, enforcing demographic shifts and promoting miscegenation with less intelligent races directly harms your long term interests. A real government by/for/of the people (white Americans of European descent) would theoretically go a long way of ensuring taxation with representation, but in reality it didn't, because whites are not immune to corruption, and the system is probably intrinsically flawed.

link