[all2]

I'm not saying taxes are bad. I'm saying specifically that taxing property itself is bad. If someone 'owns' a thing, why would they pay rent to some landlord (the state)?

I acknowledge that I'm indulging in equivocation by saying 'assessing taxes from property is essentially paying rent to the state'. I assert that the equivocation is valid because the outcomes of not paying rent and not paying property taxes is the same: you get evicted.

[pandaman]

This depends on what you mean by "own". We have property rights, which are colloquially referenced as "ownership" but, by definition, these are rights and don't exist outside the state, which enforces them. So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them. If you could naively own your property then you could just tell the tax collectors to fuck off, what are they going to do with your property if it had been truly yours?

[all2]

> So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them.

This ignores the Constitution and the acknowledgement of 'inalienable rights'.

   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [...]

In essence, the government of the United States derives its power from the governed, and otherwise wields no true power. The Constitution of this nation is written specifically limiting powers of the government, and not enumerating the rights of the people.

> If you could naively own your property then you could just tell the tax collectors to fuck off, what are they going to do with your property if it had been truly yours?

Yes. This is where the second and fourth amendments to the constitution are important. True sovereignty (not in the sense of that 'sovereign citizen' nonsense) comes with martial ability; that is, the right to take another life. Sovereignty is necessarily paired with 'power', as without it, there isn't any true ability to protect one's rights.

---

All that said, I'm appealing to an ideal when I say 'property tax is theft'.

[pandaman]

I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted? Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right?

Also, how theft would be even possible if property rights had been unalienable? If someone stole from you and you retained your property rights you could just keep enjoying your property and exclude the thief from your property as the right entitles you.

[all2]

I know this is a facetious dismissal, but I'll try to respond anyway.

> I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted?

Correct.

> Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right?

I'm not advocating for breaking laws, regulations, or rules of the nation I live in.

> Also, how theft would be even possible if property rights had been unalienable? If someone stole from you and you retained your property rights you could just keep enjoying your property and exclude the thief from your property as the right entitles you.

This is less about the pragmatics of 'possession' and its intricacies (the old adage 'possession is 9/10s of the law' is relevant here), and more about the policies of the governments that rule, and ultimately that answer to the people they rule.

If I am advocating for anything, it is change in laws and the appropriate limits on government to limit the levying of taxes on possessed things. In this case, land.

[BrenBarn]

> I'm not advocating for breaking laws, regulations, or rules of the nation I live in.

What if we change the laws to remove or limit those property rights?

> This is less about the pragmatics of 'possession' and its intricacies (the old adage 'possession is 9/10s of the law' is relevant here), and more about the policies of the governments that rule, and ultimately that answer to the people they rule.

What if most of those people want to reduce the property rights of a small wealthy minority?

[pandaman]

Just like you read your unalienable property rights from the Declaration of Independence you seem to be reading a facetious dismissal from a very simple and factual commentary on your beliefs. This is probably why you did not address anything.