[egberts1]

It is common for liberty-oriented officials to put their own home into an LLC and have an appointed officer/manager as the public-facing contact.

I am quite sure that rich and powerful people will do some decent but firm pushback if FinCen goes too far in making records public.

Edited: replaced 'privacy-oriented' with 'liberty-oriented' in light of Bruce Schneier's blog.

[PopAlongKid]

First sentence in the article explains the actual purpose, it's not about liberty/privacy, it's about catching criminals.

> to combat and deter money laundering in the U.S. residential real estate sector by increasing transparency.

[egberts1]

Exactly: Liberty vs. Control.

[wavefunction]

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. I would take the hypothetical fear and pushback by these "types" as a strong positive signal that this is an effort that is vitally worth doing for society.

[davrosthedalek]

The expression "If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear" is one of the most scary sentences.

I am sure the Dutch didn't think recording the religion/race was a problem. Until it was. Took some work to limit the damage [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_bombing_of_the_Amsterdam_...

[wavefunction]

Perhaps it was both tongue-in-cheek and not. But if they're not doing anything "wrong" then what is there to fear? Nothing.

What will really happen is that we find out that there are millions of LLCs owned by a few corporate investment offices that are driving up the price of housing for my fellow citizens, actual human beings who I value far more than any legal fictions.

[davrosthedalek]

What have the Jews in the Netherlands done wrong?

Anyway, just to paint maybe some more realistic threat models: Swatting. People suing rich people to get "go-away" money. Targeted robberies or abductions.

Privacy is a right, also for rich people. For any information that is private, I can find a good reason for it to not be private.

[Eisenstein]

Do you really think that society is so just that only those people who do wrong need fear things?

[dogman144]

They have to fear swatting. If you’ve got the time and knowledge of where the individual likely lives, a hunting app for instance will show who owns each land plot in clear-text lol.

[wavefunction]

Ok but I have to fear that, what's the purpose for different privileges? My info is publicly available.

[dogman144]

If you’ve got the time and effort, it doesn’t have to be. These “extreme privacy” measures are available to the laymen with some time/effort/money, or definitely for someone with a tech job.

One of the main steps is buying or renting under a LLC. Anyone can do that with planning.

[1024core]

You want to find out where someone lives? Head over to zabasearch.com and search away!

[egberts1]

Quoting Joseph Goebbels?

Bruce Schneier said: "Too many wrongly characterize the debate as 'security versus privacy.' The real choice is liberty versus control."

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal...

[wavefunction]

Liberty is freedom with responsibilty, not free from responsibility. There's definitely a middle ground between "You can only license one house from Great Society, comrade" and letting America become a rent-extraction exercise rather than real value creation. Forgive me for looking dimly on the situation.

[nostromo]

> If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

Ok then. Share with us your email and social media passwords -- and give us access to your Google Photos while you're at it. Otherwise -- what are you hiding?

[wavefunction]

You're comparing a democratic government's lawful actions to your silly demands on the internet?

[GoldenMonkey]

Is nothing in our life private now? What about the need for privacy. Random ppl shouldn't know your financial holdings. We have a real lack of privacy now and easy access to the public records.

[dwater]

There is public benefit to knowing the beneficial owner of real estate. It is the physical assets of a community and the community benefits from knowing who ultimately owns those assets.

[kiba]

If you tax land properly, it doesn't matter who's the owner of the estate as long as the state can reach them or start a process to claw back the estate for nonpayment of taxes.

[lazide]

Ultimately, this appears to be yet another step in the direction of deep control of society over wealth and the people who have it.

Which, if you ever want to have anything of your own or be better than median in some way should concern you greatly.

Some people will not rest until you’re poorer and more miserable than them, no matter what. Even if it means hurting themselves (and everyone else) to do it.

Crabs in a bucket mentality is deeply destructive and dangerous.

[kiba]

Land is a scarce and valuable commodity that should be divided amongst the community to maximize its benefit for everyone, typically through taxation.

If you want the most valuable land, you should be operating enterprises that provide values high enough to pay for the land.

[lazide]

Ah, manipulative arguments here we come!

If property taxes don't vary based on who owns them, but rather by some standardized valuation, then why does it matter if it is owned by an LLC, a Corp, or some individual? The tax is the same and needs to be paid regardless. The land will need to be used effectively, or it's a cost on a balance sheet somewhere coming out of someone's pocket.

The 'utility based value' is always the same then, correct? And the incentive to use it effectively is the same too, correct?

The 'value' of these kinds of rule changes is because, eventually, the tax WILL be different based on who owns it. 'Good people' (based on the current political winds) of course being given good rates, and 'Bad people' getting punitive rates or having it outright seized.

[Eisenstein]

Do you believe that wealth is an innate right no matter the societal cost -- that people should be able to own such things or amounts of things that it is to the detriment of those around them?

[lazide]

Wouldn't any detriment be related to the land/property itself, and hence that should be addressed?

For instance, if the owner is doing something obnoxious on a parcel in town, the town can put a lien on it, or condemn it. Then the problem is fixed and that parcel is taken away.

If someone is monopolizing hotels (say) in an area, the local county or state can pass a tax on hotels that make it less desirable to do that. Or start taking on anti monopoly action in the hotel industry in the area.

If that same person owns a parcel in another state, how do those two things relate? Or say one hotel in another state?

Unless someone also wants to go after that other parcel or property, anyway, as a prize.

[Analemma_]

Something like this argument applies to a lot of privately-created wealth, but not to land. Private ownership of land (and the profits generated by it) is completely philosophically incoherent if you spend a little time thinking about it, starting with the fact that private property rights require that stolen assets be returned and not able to be profited from, but all land is stolen when you trace back far enough, and all land ownership claims are the fruit of the poisoned tree.

The best approach would be one where the government issues long-term leases to parcels of land, but property taxes are an okay-ish alternative if that (or LVTs) aren't feasible. Note that this is already what we do for things like the EM spectrum: the government owns it in the public trust, then leases it with an open bidding process.