Doesn’t Seem Very Plausible CAN IT?

And you do not think that has occurred already? The annals of the 20th century (and ongoing today) is that whenever you supply the State power over something at some point they will abuse that power. Sometimes immediately, sometimes after a period of time, but abuse follows, often of an extreme character. Private ownership of land that the State cannot remove is a huge bulwark against tyranny – take it off at the peril. That’s circular and contradictory non-logic, so it’s difficult to learn the place to start.

1. Land ownership and the living of an ongoing state are synonymous, you can’t have one with no other. Therefore the statement is really as fatuous as saying “Universal suffrage is an enormous bulwark against condition tyranny”. It was the state (i.e. culture as a whole) which chose that we’d have common suffrage to begin with.

The Normans invade England. Local councils start large size council house building in the 1920s and 1930s, offering decent casing to working and middle class family members for a portion of what they are paying private landlords. Doesn’t seem very plausible will it? 3. Public spending creates and sustains location values, and some locations advantage a lot plus some never.

  • Make payment through a reliable and secure option
  • Verify simply presents the results of the process
  • What can it mean
  • Subsidized gym account
  • Employs 460,000
  • Automatic export of reports to the Power Point (additional tool)
  • George R. Ruhl & Son, Inc
  • Define Chart of Accounts

So funding public services by levying a charge on the websites which advantage most from public spending is fair as between different landowners and it is of course predicated on the explicit assumption that land is privately possessed. Land and LVT ownership goes hand in hand. To say that LVT negates the existence of private landownership is nonsense.

4. LVT is a financial thing largely. Land owners benefit from public services; public services cost money; so fees need to be levied to invest in them. It is clearly condition tyranny if one group (workers, businesses, and consumers) are paying all the fees to fund public services and the benefits all accrue to another group (land owners).

The reality that half the populace is in both categories (i.e. working owner-occupiers) detracts nothing from this point – people moan about all the taxes they pay but celebrate rising house prices. Far better to cut out the middleman. 5. Implicit in Sobers’ state is the idea that land-owners are protected from ‘state tyranny’ but think about tenants?

Are your kids who start their first job and rent somewhere somehow less deserving of protection against state tyranny than you are? Do landlords selflessly spread the security from condition tyranny to their tenants? Nope, they charge them full whack for the privilege of accessing public services, with the state (courts, bailiffs) acting as enforcers on their behalf.

6. The private/personal right to exclusive occupation of specific land and structures is of course fundamental to a modern capitalist society. There is a huge net benefit to it. But is that online advantage distributed fairly? Clearly not. Tenants twice are paying; in taxes and again in rent once. That is the same tyranny as perpetrated by the Normans exactly, it is the same iron first but in a velvet glove.