Landlords, land ownership, and politics

[gracchus]

[While this is an interesting discussion, I’m going to request that @orenwolf or a TL4 member move this sub-topic to one of its own]

Here are my results:

I consider myself an FDR-style/Scandinavian-model liberal, so I get the sense that the economic axis pulls more toward socialist results (probably because of how the neoliberal default has distorted things). Otherwise the results are on-point. I suspect most Happy Mutants will end up labelled this way by the test.

As for LeftValues, the results are fair enough, although I consider myself more social democrat than democratic socialist and I do think the questions imply that being friendly to nature requires some serious hair-shirting on the part of humanity.

[RandomDude]

I get the hate for landlords here but I don’t support their decapitation I think that’s really going too far.

Decapitation should be reserved for gorgons and authoritarian shitheel leaders that kill their people.

I currently rent from a family that act as good landlords- they fix my property, paint my house, and fund me painting the inside. But they are batshit loony Republicans that live directly next to me, fly the gadsden flag, and 3 American flags- 4 flags total- on 3 flagpoles. Figure that one out!

I had to explain the existence of the polio vaccine and that it worked to them when they finally found out I was liberal- in the city that created the vaccine no less.

And the thought of giving my rent to them, no matter how well they do their jobs as landlords and are nice on the front of it- I’m directly funding their fucked up worldview that is killing my countrymen.

I don’t support decapitating them at all- but I sure as fuck don’t want to fund them any longer than I have to.

[RandomDude]

Holy hell I just saw there’s a video-

The guy is wearing a goddamn tricorner hat unironically and unhistorically That’s a new one. Didn’t think there was a way to even do that- but he found the one way.

He’s like a time capsule of absurdity and fantastic facial hair. If he walked the streets of San Francisco, he might be considered a historical themed hipster.

Hell- give this guy a talkshow. I’d watch. Just don’t vote him in for president.

[Ceran_Swicegood]

@RandomDude

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.

I’ve always found this to be a pretty useless anti-tax argument. What would it mean to ‘actually own property’? Ownership is a legal framework created by and enforced by the state. Your claim to own property is based on having paid money (provided by the state) for a deed (also provided by the state). Your rights in the deed are defended in court (provided by the state). In the absence of all this, what would you do? Build a moat and hire a private army?

[L0ki]

@RandomDude

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

Mooring fees, registration…

@RandomDude

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.

In our system, you can have any property seized if you can’t pay. Even a house boat. It may be a longer, more indirect route (civil law suit for the debt followed by applications to have your property sold to cover the judgment debt if you don’t pay) but it ends up in the same place.

There have been times and places where real property simply couldn’t be transferred at all but generally we human beings have ended up circumventing such systems.

[Bob_Brinkman]

Well, with a big enough yacht to anchor outside territorial waters, you could avoid the government from seizing your home. Of course, the other folks that lurk near territorial boundaries are likely to kill you and take your boat.

But there are plenty of people who do live in houseboats around the US and, as things go, it is a pretty inexpensive way to do things. Apparently, depending on where you choose to live? Once you have a houseboat you can live in it for as little as $6,000 a year. I find that a bit mind-blowing.

Of course, affording the boat itself can be difficult. The article below has a lot of information, much of which I found quite eye-opening.

Living in a House(boat!)

[RandomDude]

@L0ki

In our system, you can have any property seized if you can’t pay. Even a house boat. It may be a longer, more indirect route (civil law suit for the debt followed by applications to have your property sold to cover the judgment debt if you don’t pay) but it ends up in the same place.

Yeah- that’s the problem for me. No matter what I work for, I never actually own it. It’s never mine, in any real way. As long as it can be taken from me unless I pay somebody AFTER I’ve already paid to aquire it, it’s all fiefdom to me.

What’s the point of owning anything if it’s never actually yours? If you must always be forced to keep paying to own it? That’s a kind of financial slavery.

To me, I buy groceries, clothes, whatever- noone forces me to keep paying for them. I own them forever once bought. A house should be the same way. It’s just a damn object.

This is why I hate American ideas of so-called freedom. Actual concept of freedom doesn’t register with most people.

Do not confuse this arguement with trying to get out of paying for common good and infrastructure- I’m ok with taxes. I just don’t know how we could separate seizure of assets from either not being able to afford paying them, or some way where asset seizure isn’t linked to paying them

[RandomDude]

@L0ki

Mooring fees, registration…

Open seas, international waters, anchor.

Think like a pirate matey.

But yeah, practically speaking, to live near civilization- yes. I still don’t like it though.

Sealand…I need a version of that. My own micronation.

If I could, a floating nation, interlinked hexagonal pontoons an acre large, supported by recycled plastic- starting a utopian society that lives in international waters as a floating collective, joining requirements are you must respect and follow scientific progress, eschew religious quackery and dogma preaching, and be up for fully sustainable living on the waves.

At least- in my dreams. I swear, this has long been a dream.

[lizard-of-oz]

@RandomDude

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.

I can relate to that, we all have a need for safety and autonomy, and a it is now, most states don‘t provide for that unconditionally.

I would hope that in any socialist or communist society there is still space for people who don‘t want to see other people or even directly contribute to society in a tangible way, simply because there is enough for all of us.

@RandomDude

I never asked- it was assumed I needed help, and it was incredibly humbling to have to accept it.

Many of us were brought up to see it that way, that we need to carry our weight at all times, or we are considered a burden to others. As a society we should strive to give to each according to their needs, because we are interdependent anyways, there are times when you can contribute, and times when you can’t, and that is perfectly fine. This is not even a zero sum game. It‘s just the right thing to do.

[anothernewbbaccount]

@RandomDude

As long as it can be taken from me unless I pay somebody AFTER I’ve already paid to aquire it, it’s all fiefdom to me.

What we pay in property taxes, community charges, poll taxes, domestic rates, or whatever else they are called, they are our contribution to local civic society. They fund things. Like drainage, or roads or local welfare or (whatever - a long list of public goods most people agree are largely what a civic society needs, even as they fight wars about exactly which ones, on the margins).

More than that, those public goods that our taxes pay for all contribute directly to the desirability and value of our property. Our ownership of that property is contingent on a social contract that says we will contribute to the upkeep of the locale.

So if we do not pay those taxes why should we be given a free pass to keep enjoying the benefits of our property and the benefits of the public goods everyone else has contributed to?

There are two options, it seems to me (and they are not mutually exclusive). Lose some freedom (prison for non-payment, as punishment, but the debt will probably persist) or lose some goods / chattels (namely our property) to pay the debt. I’ll agree that in the latter case any proceeds from the disposal of our property, that exceed the debt, should be returned to us.

Ownership of property brings responsibilities - and costs. It’s part and parcel of owning it. If we want to keep it, surely we’d not buy a property whose upkeep (maintenance) we could not afford. Local taxes are just one part of that upkeep cost.

If we are temporarily genuinely unable to pay them, that’s a different story. It’s what a civilised socialist society would have a welfare safety net in place for.

So, if you agree with paying for infrastructure (it seems you do) and you think it wrong to seize assets for inability to pay, there are limited choices: loss of liberty (but how does that discharge the debt?), a welfare net or … what?

And any welfare safety net has to eventually concede it can’t be open-ended. How long should the rest of the people subsidise our taxes before we are able to do so or clearly not going to? How long should everyone else agree to let us keep the benefit of our ownership without contributing, when disposal of that asset would allow us to discharge our debt/not accrue further debt and enable someone who WILL contribute, to own the property.

@RandomDude

I just don’t know how we could separate seizure of assets from either not being able to afford paying them, or some way where asset seizure isn’t linked to paying them

This is the core problem and the ultimate sanction must surely be removal of ownership rights.

Thinking further…

One other option that might work would be enforced mandatory community service. X hours of defined community service (actual work) for the local community/administration. The trouble is in valuing that, and then managing/supervising it (an extra cost). The chances of someone being able to do enough of such work to (and is it unskilled or skilled work? Who decides what your capabilities are?) to cover undischarged property tax debts are perhaps low, and in any case accrue further overheads for the administration. Making it simple for owners to understand (‘pay or ultimately risk your property’) is perhaps the better option.

[anon50609448]

@RandomDude

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.

I would also desperately like to be able to tell humanity to fuck off. I’m just convinced it’s a fantasy, akin to hoping a fairy godmother will come and solve our problems. We’re all in this together.

@RandomDude

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?

Yes, because the fact that I own property makes me rich. If I haven’t left as much and as good property for everyone else then I have no rational right to think that somehow I have a right to it. If I don’t like owning property anymore than I can very easily decide to cease owning it and walk out with a pretty large amount of money in the deal. And if I end up not ending up with money in the deal because we’re in the middle of an economic collapse and values have tanked then I’m in the situation a renter is in.

Private industry demanding payment from people with no assets isn’t at all similar to the public demanding payment form people with assets. I’m lucky, and society doesn’t owe me for that luck, I owe society for that luck.

[Wetterschneider]

There’s a lot of confusion here. The victim might just be the roommate who’s name was on the lease. The murderer had a verbal agreement to pay the victim each month. This is not unusual, even if it is unwise.

[Bob_Brinkman]

@RandomDude

If I could, a floating nation, interlinked hexagonal pontoons an acre large, supported by recycled plastic- starting a utopian society that lives in international waters as a floating collective, joining requirements are you must respect and follow scientific progress, eschew religious quackery and dogma preaching, and be up for fully sustainable living on the waves.

A great concept, but one that the nations of the world have made it a lot more difficult through the creation of the “Exclusive Economic Zones”, which stretch 200 miles from a nation’s coastline as opposed to just being “international” waters at 12 miles out.

Plenty of ocean out there that would be usable…but you’d need to stay a long ways from anything. Granted, these days that would be a plus.

[LDoBe]

You’re never a long way from a cruise missile.

[anon73430903]

@Freshhawk

aka anarcho-capitalism

Why Anarcho-Capitalists Aren't Anarchists!

[anothernewbbaccount]

@Freshhawk

Mistaken for socialist? That was quite the mistake.

@Freshhawk

“sovereign citizens” are your ideological neighbours

Do you really think the sovereign citizens would get a rating similar to his on the 8values assessment? An assessment that shows he is very economically socialist?

I suspect you may be the one who made the mistake, here. Probably another one of those random uses of ‘socialist’ where its true meaning is misunderstood.

[anon73430903]

@RandomDude

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.

Going by these results and your comments here, I would suggest looking at mutualism

Mutualism (economic theory)

[anon15258403]

I think one issue which may be important to what you are getting at (and is one that capitalism and it’s defenders are often fairly loathe to make, (and often gets glossed over in theory in general, since academic discussions are usually concerned at the more macro level)) is the distinction between personal and private property, and where the demarcation between so-called subsistence and capitalized economic activity occurs (assuming such a thing would be possible).

What about natural resources? Specifically those that don’t necessarily require permanent land occupation to utilize - forests, fish, mineral extraction etc. Should those things be available for the taking without recompense to the communities that surround them? The value of land is defined as much by its relational orientation to it’s surroundings as much as the contents of its survey lines.

There’s an economics theory that is (at least in some manifestations) more-or-less market-ish, that maintains that taxing land is the only tax that should exist : Georgism aka geoism. It apparently even got some traction with ultra-anti tax types like Milton Friedman - but doesn’t get much attention today, probably because it’s a major over-simplification, sort of interesting in terms of the history of the conversation over the last century or so.

[Bob_Brinkman]

@LDoBe

You’re never a long way from a cruise missile.

A very depressing truth.

[Bunbain]

@RandomDude

I just don’t know how we could separate seizure of assets from either not being able to afford paying them, or some way where asset seizure isn’t linked to paying them

How about,
You want to keep your house and land, but won’t/can’t pay taxes, fine, then don’t let us catch you using our infrastructure (roads) or else we’ll make life difficult for you (one way or another). Because setting up a toll booth at the end of your driveway is ridiculous. So if you can live off the land, great, enjoy your life in seclusion.
Oh, and if other people come squat on your land, do not come complain to us to do something. Moreover, if you harm them we’ll come after you, because, you know, the majority agree you can’t just go harming people. Besides, they probably pay taxes one way or another.

Not sure if putting voter registration in the shredder should be part of the trade-off.
Thinking about these things makes me wonder if everyone just agreed “Please just take my house already!” because the alternatives always got out of hand.

@RandomDude

A house should be the same way. It’s just a damn object.

Conceivably, I could be wrong, but if you were willing and able to move your (paid off) house to another property, you’d be allowed to keep it. Very easy if it’s on wheels or floats on water.
Land probably got special rules because

• They’re not making more land (practically).
• The land can be divided/recombined.
• You can ruin/improve the land, but you can’t take it somewhere else.
  ETA
• Everyone must have land to live. Unless you are in orbit, you occupy some small amount of land from birth to death, possibly longer!