Bernie Sanders 2020

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
3 property tax bills.... what a slave huh.
Click to expand...
Property tax is an oxymoron.

Combining the two dissimilar terms into one concept requires one of the words, property or tax, to lose its actual meaning.

Bernie isn't a slave, he's a charlatan and an imbecile. He wants to be the slave master though.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
That isn't true. Poll consistently shows roughly 7 out of every 10 Americans report that they’re fairly satisfied with the quality of their personal coverage. The studies you're referencing reflect their opinions of the coverage of others.



Most Americans Still Rate Their Healthcare Quite Positively
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx
Click to expand...
ummmmmm, because the poll is still 'most popular' and that does not a president make..?

btw your memes are too baldrick-juvenile..are you 12, too*?:spew:

*note the proper use of 'too'
 
Last edited:
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Property tax is an oxymoron.

Combining the two dissimilar terms into one concept requires one of the words, property or tax, to lose its actual meaning.

Bernie isn't a slave, he's a charlatan and an imbecile. He wants to be the slave master though.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that land is not actually property.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
So you're saying that land is not actually property.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that land is neutral / unowned, "potential property" until it is put into use by a person(s) thru occupation, homesteading, labor, improvements etc.

Taxation is a form of theft. since it deprives and/or dilutes ownership and is an imposed concept rather than reliant on mutual voluntary exchange.

I'm saying for people to own something and then have others claim dominance over it, via annual tribute, is a contradiction.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, I'm saying that land is neutral / unowned, "potential property" until it is put into use by a person(s) thru occupation, homesteading, labor, improvements etc.
Click to expand...
This is reality though. Land only becomes property when the government kills the original inhabitants or moves them to reservations and then grants exclusive deed to you
Rob Roy said:
Taxation is a form of theft... imposed concept
Click to expand...
So you're saying that land property is theft.
Rob Roy said:
I'm saying for people to own something and then have others claim dominance over it, via annual tribute, is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Your conclusion makes no sense given the flaws in your premises. Land property is a government construct. The government makes those rules and is inextricable from any equation that leads to exclusive deed to land.

Sounds to me like you just want to receive without giving like some kind of antisocial leech and government beneficiary.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This is reality though. Land only becomes property when the government kills the original inhabitants or moves them to reservations and then grants exclusive deed to you

So you're saying that land property is theft.

Your conclusion makes no sense given the flaws in your premises. Land property is a government construct. The government makes those rules and is inextricable from any equation that leads to exclusive deed to land.

Sounds to me like you just want to receive without giving like some kind of antisocial leech and government beneficiary.
Click to expand...

Thank you for weighing in on this subject, sometimes you present interesting commentary.
I agree with some of your observations, but not with some of the conclusions you draw from those observations. I know you will pay particular attention to the bolded areas below in my fascinating fulmination, where I address your faulty conclusions.

Government grants exclusive deed? Yes that happens, but it's not the only mechanism for acquiring land property and usually it's not a just means of acquiring land property, since granting deed to something stolen casts a shadow on the entire process, obviously. Not to mention governments by definition are usually not a just construct to begin with.

"The government", doesn't normally own land property by any form of just acquisition, as you pointed out, since they abetted killing the previous inhabitants, who were possibly the original inhabitants, but that too, is in question. It's possible the "indigenous" occupants killed had gained the land thru killing other people who had predated them. You may note, I've often said for property to be owned, it ought to be justly acquired.

How could the government then grant exclusive deed to something which they never owned at least via just means anyway? Is that your point? If it is, I'd agree it is a good point.

Although, I wouldn't term it exclusive deed in reality, but I would in "government speak" . If the government maintains a permanent lien on all property within its claimed jurisdiction and extracts tax tribute on a regular basis, it's not really "exclusive deed". If the occupant (ostensible "owner") can't exclude the government, exclusive deed is a misnomer.

I'm not saying that land property is theft, as you stated, at least not in every instance. It's quite clear it isn't theft if the land a person presently occupies was not previously occupied or the land was acquired thru consensual trade from a lineage of person(s) who did justly own the property. Also land previously occupied and abandoned could be justly acquired by homesteading etc. So, no, I am not saying that ALL land property is theft, but I'd agree that some and even most claimed "owned land" today was acquired thru unjust means.

Yes, the government is inextricable from any thing they are involved in and continue to be involved in via taxation, but that doesn't mean that land can never be property. Just because much of the land presently said to be owned wasn't justly acquired doesn't mean land can never be property under other more just circumstances.

Land property, is not solely a government construct, just because government presently enforces rules claiming they own all the land. Making the assumption that all land property is a government construct, would be like going to a party where all the women happen to be whores and then concluding that all women are whores, when the fact is there could be many women who didn't attend that party who aren't whores. Such is land property.

As far as you saying that I'm receiving without giving, being a leech and government beneficiary etc. that's unnecessary and doesn't really address the topic of what property is and who can own it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top