Landlords, land ownership, and politics

What would you think of a system of land ownership that forced people to duel with swords to gain ownership?

Honestly though, I never liked the concept of property tax. It’s not paying a tax to help the local area that upsets me it’s the fact that your house if you own it can be seized if you can’t pay it, which effectively means it’s impossible to ever actually own property because someone always has the right to take it from you if you don’t pay them.

As impractical as it is, I always liked the idea of living on a dedicated houseboat to get past this.

I know that practically it sounds ridiculous to be against paying for that reason but I wish there were a way to separate actual safety of ownership of a house from the need to financially contribute to your local area which I find no problem with it’s just the way we link the two together. In my mind it meant as long as you own a traditional house you never have true freedom because you can have your property seized if you don’t have enough money.

I wonder if any other countries handle this specific issue differently in a way that would separate these two dependencies


I’m more or less an anarcho-syndicalist. I don’t think it’s a great idea to have individual people or a state have ownership of the land. I think collective ownership of the land is better. After all, if things go right, you live in your house until you’re too old and decrepit to maintain it. Then it ought to also be everyone’s responsibility to care for it as well. Communities need everyone with a stake to be involved in some way. Otherwise you get people forcing externalities on their neighbors.

I especially don’t think corporations should own anything at all. But that’s just me.


Do you live in a commune, and are you being repressed?:wink:

Interesting. My views have been mistaken for common socialist, as well as neocon. Depends on who is framing. I like actual ownership of some things, but hate the fact that people can own other things.

Just curious, since I’m not sure if I know a name for my own overarching ethos, or if there is a term for how I think, but of all the nations you know of, where best represents what you believe? A place like Sealand, perhaps? I like the concept of it.


Oh there’s no nations that are an-com. The “an” part means you don’t like nation-states, and most “com” countries were not great because they used authoritarian or totalitarian frameworks, like the soviet union.

There’s the 8Values test you can take that can generally figure your socio-economic-political point of view.

And if you pop out as some kind of leftist, there’s another test called LeftValues that can narrow down in finer detail what exactly your leftist philosophy most closely aligns with:



Well, I’m sure you’ve seen by now I’m really liberal in general, but I work in my natural opposite environment politically.

If this helps- the concept of borders is stupid to me, and I dislike the idea that one has to have documents to cross an imaginary line.

I side with a lot of the arguments many sovereign citizens or conservatives might use, except I think all those people are nuts. I definitely don’t like authority, period, and like the idea of actual true freedom in many aspects of life- in so much as I don’t agree with the umbra of the law and authority being as pervasive as it is.

I like the idea of owning property in perpetuity, but think that corporations should not be allowed to own land the same way as a citizen. I would like to see all land not privately owned or park as public land. Things like growing food or camping on public land should not be penalized or criminalized

A lot of other stuff I could go into, but I’d have to think about it. I’m close to anarchist in some ways, but not even close in others.


Just to make things a little clearer, liberalism and leftism are distinct things with some overlap.

What you’re describing are generally leftist or progressive values. Liberal values are all about the power of the state, the right of the state to have a monopoly on violent coercion, the belief in laissez-faire trade and markets. Although these days classical liberals are comparatively rare. Most democrats in congress are neo-liberal along with ALL republicans for instance.


Here’s what I got. Admittedly much of my answers on the leftist test I wasn’t sure what I felt. I dislike the idea of a straight socialist takeover of society, I feel pure socialism is a proven failure. I feel pure American capitalism is a joke though, and screws the poor, and incentivizes destroying the land to make a buck, and rationalizes horrible things for hegemony.

I think modified capitalism with more actual freedoms in a true sense, and a lot less control of everything by companies and military would be a rational choice. It’s absolutely fucking nuts we spend more on our military hardon than next 20 countries below us combined.

I’m sick of chest thumping 'Merican idiots denying scientific realities and rational thought above all else- but I love high explosives on 4th of July. I absolutely love guns and grew up a hunter- but I think we need serious and sane gun control and I no longer hunt- and the NRA is completely fucking insane.

I have a friend who is an engineer who fled Ukraine as a kid during Peristroika. He tells me how great it is here but he still hates Trump even more than me (and I hate Trump more than words even exist to describe, he’s the antithesis of everything I consider decent, correct, sane, and American)


Yeah, libertarian socialism is what I usually get too. It’s the balance of freedoms and the recognition that corporate influence is pernicious and antithetical to free society.

Best I can describe the libertarian socialism slogan is: humans have rights. Corporations have responsibilities.


Oh that one, he’s a…character, as my mother would say.

I do find sovereign citizen arguements sympathetic occasionally, though generally ridiculous- only for my absolute hatred of cops and authority in general (it’s always abused by those that have it, my entire life is full of examples since I was a kid of this)

I do especially like this line though- it’d be fun to use on a cop if I go to traffic court again:

““I never plead,” Tertelgte responded “Animals plead. Sounds like baaaaa, oink, oink.””

An aside-

The last time I did see a cop it was with a judge- over speeding (I don’t do anything honestly heinous), and I successfully badgered them down as a trained watchmaker on how pathetic their timing method was, how the watch was out of calibration, and how the age of the oscillator made their results highly questionable at the least. I even threw in cosign error into the discussion. They entered my words as expert testimony, apologized, and cut the fine in half, along with points.

I love giving authority a hard time. I consider it a sport occasionally. They’ve fucked my life enough without any real cause, so I go out of my way to fuck them back every chance I get


Honestly at this point I feel like my understanding of actual socialism communism and various historical forms of government is sorely lacking; I feel I need to actually read some Marx to finally understand what the deal was. I might find him completely deluded.

All I know is the society in TNG Picard represents is the kind of world I need to find a real way towards. Money is no longer a thing for anyone, people work but not to live, just to improve themselves. Society cherishes research, exploration, diplomacy, and science. Rationality is above all.

Especially so since my mom was a history teacher. I need to do her more justice.


Lol, Star Trek is pretty much Fully Automated Luxury Queer Space Communism.

And yes, definitely read some theory. Besides Marx, there’s also Peter Kropotkin who wrote what a lot of anarcho-leftists/liblefts call the “bread book” aka The Conquest of Bread.



Will do. Interesting to hear the intelligent thoughts of another happy mutant


I honestly have a lot to learn about theory myself. There’s others here like @the_borderer who are much better qualified to speak on leftist theory, but they seem to not yet be telling me how much I’ve been screwing up, so I take that I’m not completely off-base.


I think if you dig deeper, both on the theory and on the so-called socialist states you probably would find that

  • pure socialism has not been implemented anywhere yet
  • where it has been approached, many things changed for the better (and some others didn’t)
  • socialism (as described by Marx) was only seen as a transitional step towards communism
  • socialism/communism without a form of democracy is simply not possible
  • it may be the state itself that is the greatest obstacle towards achieving socialism/communism, as in a state those in power misuse power to further their own ends (that‘s where the idea of anarchism comes from)

There is a problem with that: those whose parents happened to own property have a distinct advantage over those whose parents didn’t. If you also oppose property tax, that is a guarantee for inequality of opportunity.

There are several ways out of this that don‘t include property tax:

  • limit the amount of property any individual/family can own
  • limit the amount of time property can be owned (China does this)
  • limit the amount of property that one can inherit
  • prevent inheritance of property altogether
  • prevent individuals from renting out property
  • make it really easy to acquire property if you don’t have any (e.g. in Libya you could get a state loan to buy property and build a house on it, and the debt would never be collected)

Also the availability of affordable and defend public housing and the idea of private sufficiency, public luxury might reduce the perceived need of private property.

Maybe also some Gramsci,I find his theory of cultural hegemony very helpful for making sense of why things are as they are.


It’s funny, that’s exactly why I like the idea of property tax. Though I would rather we were upfront about the idea that no one can privately own land and acted in a way consistent with that.

Back on topic,it's terrible that a human being was decapitated. I'm thinking about this story being a sensational example of something that's probably happening in lots of places. Sovereign citizens with swords make better headlines than people with guns, knives or heavy frying pans, but given that maybe millions of people are newly evictable today thanks to the inaction of the US Senate, people going to get murdered, and murder is going to be just one part of the societal harm that is coming.

Not sure I fully recognise all of those attributes but there may be nuances of meaning in your bald statements.

Also, neo-liberal is not liberal.

Where has “pure” socialism ever been actually tried? Are there any citations of these proofs of failure? By the way, I probably vehemently agree with you right across the board, but (and this is a generic comment not necessarily aimed at you personally) there is a huge misunderstanding of what socialism is and tendency to describe as socialist things that aren’t, especially among USians.

Plus what @lizard-of-oz said.


There’s also a distinction to be made between social liberalism and economic liberalism (classical, neo, various forms of pro-corporate Libertarianism).

Both do recognise the monopoly on violent coercion as a defining feature of the modern nation-state (many progressives do, too), although they differ on the definition and level of acceptability of the violent coercion itself (e.g. economic liberals see regulation of corporations as onerous, social liberals find it acceptable).

In terms of American politics, you’re correct that the Dem establishment still subscribes to a “lite” version of the neoliberal economic consensus, while the GOP are various degrees of neoliberal fundamentalist.

“Sovereign citizens” reject the state’s monopoly on violence, but unlike left-anarchists they take that position mainly because they hunger to commit real violence themselves without facing consequences. As this murderous goober who killed his landlord with a sword is about to find out, all the flag-fringe theories in the world won’t keep him out of prison.


This, especially.

I nearly responded to the earlier comment by @LDoBe by saying that a somewhat USian definition of ‘liberal’ was being used there. Other flavours of liberal exist. (Hence the wiki link.)


PS - I told you we agreed :wink:
Biggest difference between us is on the Civil Axis.

(some time later…) I did the LeftValues test, too. Reasonably close match here, but I’m more of reformist than a revolutionary.


Some of the views I thought I was discussing in the open with someone are subject to change, or further definition. I don’t subscribe to the idea that my current view of reality is absolute, unchangeable, and correct. I know that I lack detail occasionally- which is why I admitted so above and need to study some stuff.

In my case- the reason I’m against the idea of being evicted for not paying property tax- I’ve moved countless times, across countries 3 times, across states, and I’ve left places to live with family because of various circumstances that left me too poor to stay in place.

I simply want a place that I can eventually own, outright, mortgage or whatever paid off- so that owning it actually means I own it, in the true sense, and noone can take that away from me. Noone can kick me out, because it’s really mine- and my land. Meaning humanity can finally fuck off if I go inside.

I like the idea of pure freedom to exist, somewhere, without having to essentially pay for the privilege as we do now.

Yes, I know, utilities and such. Get a wood fired Bulljeran stove and solar panels and batteries for electricity, whatever. It’s the idea that if I wanted to, once you own your land- you’re done. You owe nothing more. You don’t have to worry about how people can sieze your assets if you’ve paid for them already.

Like I said- funding local infrastructure, I have no issues with- but I haven’t figured out a way to make that possible to de-link from this asset seizure model we live in. What if you have nothing to pay?

Have you never been poor?

I make a decent living right now, I’ve lost a lot of money this year in lost overtime by the end, but I’ve lived off the canned goods of my neighbors and without heat at one point in a foreign country- where I was during the recession of 08. I never asked- it was assumed I needed help, and it was incredibly humbling to have to accept it. I saw kindness can kill your soul as well as help you; I never want to feel indebted to anyone again. It made me change career paths to this. I lived in constant fear of being deported, because my job market there vanished almost overnight. I’ll never forget how fragile the ability to simply exist can be if you’re broke, and I’ve just scraped by most of my life.

For some reason here it’s specifically the idea that someone can seize your property if you don’t have enough money you seem to like?

And then right below that you seem to be concerned with people being evicted for that very reason?

That sounds incredibly hypocritical on the face of it.

Perhaps I missed something.