Land is treated differently than any other possession we can own. We must perpetually pay taxes to maintain posession of our own property. Property, can also be material possessions like cars, baseball cards, books, food, jewlery, etc. But, these types of property don't require perpetual taxation to maintain ownership. Should we be able to own land like we own other possessions?

No. Mostly because land doesn't lose value in the way a car or a ring would, land has permanency.

The physiocrats had interesting ideas about the value of land in that they believed that that was the only real source of wealth. In contrast to Marx who thought that the theory of labor value was the source of wealth.

No. Mostly because land doesn't lose value in the way a car or a ring would, land has permanency.

The physiocrats had interesting ideas about the value of land in that they believed that that was the only real source of wealth. In contrast to Marx who thought that the theory of labor value was the source of wealth.But, lots of things appreciate in value and they aren't taxed yearly just to maintain possession of them. Antique cars, rare coins, autographed baseballs, stocks, etc. And there are conditions in which land depreciates like pollution, flood, landslides, etc.

property taxes pretty much go for the schools,right? I read some guy saying property taxes were the biggest generators of inflation in the US-what do you guys think?

But, lots of things appreciate in value and they aren't taxed yearly just to maintain possession of them. Antique cars, rare coins, autographed baseballs, stocks, etc. And there are conditions in which land depreciates like pollution, flood, landslides, etc.

None of those things hold anywhere near the intrinsic value of land. Land is immutable. Baseball cards are for children and made of paper.

property taxes pretty much go for the schools,right? I read some guy saying property taxes were the biggest generators of inflation in the US-what do you guys think?

Loose monetary policies are the major source of inflation.

None of those things hold anywhere near the intrinsic value of land. Land is immutable. Baseball cards are for children and made of paper.Even if land appreciates 100% of the time and can never go away, why is that a basis for perpetual taxation?

land belongs to all of us, not just the person living there

How do you figure that, I paid for it.

land belongs to all of us, not just the person living there
aphoristic :bs:

Land really is different than other kinds of property. It can't be created (in quantities large enough to matter) like other kinds of property, it can be enclosed unlike other kinds of property, it's the basis of the resources we need to live and have freedom of movement, etc. Of course, this was explained to certain people months ago (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1252066), but they keep repeating the same old trash anyway so I'll just have to repeat my explanation of why it's trash. Let's start by reviewing where the term "real estate" came from (http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html).
We call ourselves the "party of principle," and we base property rights on the principle that everyone is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Land, however, is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and our system of land tenure is based not on labor, but on decrees of privilege issued from the state, called titles. In fact, the term "real estate" is Middle English (originally French) for "royal state." The "title" to land is the essence of the title of nobility, and the root of noble privilege.
A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation.

--Thomas Jefferson
I guess some people think they know more than Thomas Jefferson about liberty. Law is the basis of land ownership. No law, no land ownership. Paying for something that should never have been sold (permanent and absolute land ownership without paying land rent) is equivalent to receiving stolen property. Let's move on to question 3 in the Geolibertarian FAQ (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm#landownership).
3. Isn't land-ownership the foundation of property rights, and thus of a free society?

No, self-ownership is. That is to say, the foundation of property rights (and the freedom that flows from those rights) is the property that each person has in himself and, by extension, in the fruits his labor.

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself." -- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, Ch. 5

"The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Bk 1, Ch. 10, Pt 2
Somehow I'm more swayed by the arguments of Jefferson, Locke, and Adam Smith than of the fifth-rate wingnut polemicist who is the only person I've seen F&L cite regarding this topic. I've read those arguments too, lest anyone think that's a mere appeal to authority. I'd repeat them here and that should be the end of it, but they should be common knowledge and the most important passages are readily available through the cites I have provided. Let's see what the residents of the "property equals freedom" asylum can come up with to rationalize giving dirt and dollars more freedom than their fellow man.

Loose monetary policies are the major source of inflation.

You got a war on several fronts going here-it's a regressive tax and it inflates and it carries positively everything with it.
Strict monetary policies can't contain greed...

I blame the Europeans for land taxes. :|

Land really is different than other kinds of property. It can't be created (in quantities large enough to matter) like other kinds of property, it can be enclosed unlike other kinds of property, it's the basis of the resources we need to live and have freedom of movement, etc. Of course, this was explained to certain people months ago (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1252066), but they keep repeating the same old trash anyway so I'll just have to repeat my explanation of why it's trash. Let's start by reviewing where the term "real estate" came from (http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html).You were wrong then and you are still wrong.
The economic concept of private property refers to the rights owners have to the exclusive use and disposal of a physical object. Property is not a table, a chair, or an acre of land. It is the bundle of rights which the owner is entitled to employ those objects. The alternative (collectivist) view is that private property consists merely of a legal deed to an object with the use and disposal of the object subject to the whims and mercies of the state. Under this latter view, the state retains ownership and may at any time regulate or even repossess the property it temporarily cedes to individuals.

The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people--including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners--even the government.
http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=215



I guess some people think they know more than Thomas Jefferson about liberty. Law is the basis of land ownership. No law, no land ownership. Paying for something that should never have been sold (permanent and absolute land ownership without paying land rent) is equivalent to receiving stolen property. I don't think so. It seems Thomas Jefferson corrected himself at a later date.
That we shall at this time also take notice of an error in the nature of our landholdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement. The introduction of the feudal tenures into the kingdom of England, though ancient, is well enough understood to set this matter in its proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown, and very few, if any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superior. . . . William the Conqueror first introduced that system [feudalism] generally. The lands which had belonged to those who fell at the battle of Hastings, and in the subsequent insurrections of his reign, formed a considerable proportion of the lands of the whole kingdom. These he granted out, subject to feudal duties, as did he also those of a great number of his new subjects, who by persuasions or threats were induced to surrender then for that purpose. But still much of the land was left in the hands of his Saxon subjects, held of no superior, and not subject to feudal conditions. . . . A general principle indeed was introduced that "all lands in England were held either mediately or immediately of the crown": but thus was borrowed from those holdings which were truly feudal, and applied to others for the purposes of illustration. Feudal holdings were therefore but exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. These therefore still form the basis of the common law, to prevail whenever the exceptions have not taken place. America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him or any of his successors. Possessions are undoubtedly of the [absolute disencumbered] nature. Our ancestors however, were laborers, not lawyers. The fictitious principle that all lands belong originally to the king, that they were early persuaded to believe real, and accrdingly took grants of their own lands from the crown. And while the crown continued to grant for small sums and on reasonable rents, there was no inducement to arrest the error.
Somehow I'm more swayed by the arguments of Jefferson, Locke, and Adam Smith than of the fifth-rate wingnut polemicist who is the only person I've seen F&L cite regarding this topic. I've read those arguments too, lest anyone think that's a mere appeal to authority. I'd repeat them here and that should be the end of it, but they should be common knowledge and the most important passages are readily available through the cites I have provided. Let's see what the residents of the "property equals freedom" asylum can come up with to rationalize giving dirt and dollars more freedom than their fellow man. How convenient it must be to simply ignore the constitution and it's amendments when attempting to make points. I guess common knowledge isn't really very important or accurate where you come from.

Rather than post copious amounts of information that you won't like or probably grasp, I'll just use a link. Hopefully this will put an end to your ignorance on this topic and you will gain a proper understanding of freedom and property. I suggest you read it and learn something about the constitution and the formation of the country you live in before commenting further.

http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=215

Without property taxes, you wouldn't have a road to get to your hunk of lawn in the first place. You wouldn't have sewage & water lines running nicely to & from your house, or a fire department to douse your home if needed.

If the government didn't get their cash from property taxes, they'd just screw you out of it some other way. At least this way you get a nice bill to look at & stuff.

you should add some green peppers to that, it'll spice it up just right :nice:

Property taxes date back to beginning of civilization ... 8,000 years give or take a few centuries ... so don't hold your breath waiting for them to vanish

In a nutshell it is payment to the government to protect your freedoms and well being ... armys, courts, police, fire depts etc cost money ... (and yes I know the money is spent in other ways too)

Of course, there is no law that says one has to own real property so that is one way to avoid it ;)

You were wrong then and you are still wrong.
The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them.
That quote is not from the founding fathers themselves. It's an interpretation of their intent by another wingnut such as you specialize in quoting. I'll take the word of Jefferson himself, thank you. Also, you are (yet again) failing to distinguish between property in general and land in particular. A quote about property in general does not make your case for you because the whole point here is that land is not the same as other property. The people on whose theories of property our laws and culture are based clearly felt that way, as illustrated by the quotes I have provided.
I don't think so. It seems Thomas Jefferson corrected himself at a later date.
"Possessions are undoubtedly of the [absolute disencumbered] nature. Our ancestors however, were laborers, not lawyers. The fictitious principle that all lands belong originally to the king, that they were early persuaded to believe real, and accrdingly took grants of their own lands from the crown. And while the crown continued to grant for small sums and on reasonable rents, there was no inducement to arrest the error."
What Jefferson is arguing against here is not the special nature of land ownership, but the idea of such ownership being vested in a king and (through royal grants) nobility. He even implicitly accepts the notion of land rents in the last sentence - a fact you seem to have ignored. If Pecquet weren't quoting Jefferson so selectively, it would be even clearer that this is not a correction of the previous point but a different point entirely. Here's the end of the very same paragraph (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s10.html) that your pet hack quoted (emphasis mine).
It is time therefore for us to lay this matter before his majesty, and to declare that he has no right to grant lands of himself. From the nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the limits which any particular society has circumscribed around itself, are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment only. This may be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their legislature to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority: and, if they are allotted in neither of these ways, each individual of the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant, and occupancy will give him title.
Clearly he is saying that society, not the individual, has first claim to land and first right to decide its disposition. As I said earlier, land ownership is a social construct and not an innate right. When Jefferson and others refer to "property" without further qualification, anybody who has actually taken the time to understand their ideas instead of just mining for passages to quote out of context knows that it means "regular" (i.e. movable) property and not necessarily land.
Rather than post copious amounts of information that you won't like or probably grasp, I'll just use a link.
Stop posting garbage, F&L. I don't care how your fellow wingnuts warp and twist the words of our founders, or of their philosophical predecessors such as Locke. I've quoted those founders themselves, and explained quite clearly how a sane interpretation of their words leads to a conclusion opposite yours. It's obvious who's the ignorant one here, so your insults only show that you're ill-tempered as well as ill-informed. If you want to make an argument that convinces, it will have to address those same sources directly, not through the rantings of more fifth-rate propertarian hacks who know and care nothing whatsoever about actual liberty and thus do not deserve the moniker they apply to themselves.

Stop posting garbage, F&L. I don't care how your fellow wingnuts warp and twist the words of our founders, or of their philosophical predecessors such as Locke. I've quoted those founders themselves, and explained quite clearly how a sane interpretation of their words leads to a conclusion opposite yours. It's obvious who's the ignorant one here, so your insults only show that you're ill-tempered as well as ill-informed. If you want to make an argument that convinces, it will have to address those same sources directly, not through the rantings of more fifth-rate propertarian hacks who know and care nothing whatsoever about actual liberty and thus do not deserve the moniker they apply to themselves.Even a blind man could see how wrong you are. You have an absolutely twisted concept of the thoughts of the founders of our nation. You also have no repsect for a constitution and bill of rights that prohibits the taxation you desire. What you understand about liberty wouldn't fill a thimble.

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."
-- Winston Churchill, 1948

Principle 14 - Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure .
John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone "in common." However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of "property rights."

http://www.centerunion.org/28fundamentalbeliefs.htm

Also, you can read this iif you have the stomach for it.
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Analyses/const-sidebar.gif
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Analyses/propertyrights.htm (http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Analyses/propertyrights.htm)



The American Revolution is of course the appropriate place to begin to understand the role of property rights in the American legal order. The American Revolution was in part a rebellion against the feudal order, remnants of which still prevailed in Great Britain. In the feudal order all property belonged to the King; the King retained ownership but conditionally granted the use of property to his subjects.

By contrast, the idea that men possessed the right to acquire and enjoy property separate and apart from the prerogative of sovereign government was one of the "unalienable rights" grounded in "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" at the heart of the American Revolution. In the founders' view, property rights did not emanate from government. Rather, they emanated from the nature of man, and it was the function of government to protect the rights conferred on man by nature. Indeed, Jefferson characterized property rights as "the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone [of] the free exercise of industry and the fruits acquired by it." As Jefferson's comment suggests, the right to acquire property was the critical right for the founders; it made property rights the friend of the poor by allowing them to earn and safeguard wealth ("the fruits acquired by" work).

Accordingly, when the founders crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they provided numerous protections of property rights. Congress was authorized to protect the intellectual property of writers and inventors through the issuance of patents and copyrights. The states were prohibited from impairing private contractual obligations.

Further, putting property on a par with life and liberty, the Constitution prohibited the government from taking property in any criminal case without due process. And in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, the government was prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation; the government was not even afforded the power to take private property for anything but public use.

The founders extended these and other specific protections to the property of Americans in the fundamental law of the United States for the sake of freedom. The freedom to exercise and profit from one's abilities without regard to caste or class was in the view of the founders the essence of freedom.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010835.php

Property taxes date back to beginning of civilization ... 8,000 years give or take a few centuries ... so don't hold your breath waiting for them to vanish

In a nutshell it is payment to the government to protect your freedoms and well being ... armys, courts, police, fire depts etc cost money ... (and yes I know the money is spent in other ways too)

Of course, there is no law that says one has to own real property so that is one way to avoid it ;)I know they aren't going away, but currently they only exist at the local level. One of the primary reason this country was formed was to get rid of the feudal system and to protect our right to own property without government interference. I also realise that property rights have been diminished over the years due to the efforts of some misguided liberals. Even when you rent, you are paying property tax for your landlord as that cost is part of the rent. PG wants to allow the federal government to tax all land. It's called a Land Value Tax (LVT), and it's basically an effort by a group of environmentalists who call themselves geolibertarians. Obvioulsy, I think he and they are dead wrong.