Socialism: Are we flirting with it or is it already here?

[Ender]

If you can buy and sell it, you own it. Also, not every state have property taxes and in some places you only pay property taxes for a certain number of years, so at worst you can say some places have maintenance fees to own real estate. What you cannot say is that we don't have property rights in the US

There are NO states w/o property tax. And ANY gov charge on your "private" property means you do not officially own it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you have any idea what it takes to start a small business in the US? Costs & regulations make it almost impossible for the average joe.

It varies by industry. As a rule, there are fees and licensing and taxes to be paid for everything you can imagine and then some. But I have taken small business administration and learned to write/pitch business plans, so I know a little about it. I agree that the average Joe Murican alone will have difficulties with a new startup. They tell you the first day of business class that most new small businesses fail. (3 out of 5, IIRC)

 

[Anti Federalist]

If you can buy and sell it, you own it. Also, not every state have property taxes and in some places you only pay property taxes for a certain number of years, so at worst you can say some places have maintenance fees to own real estate. What you cannot say is that we don't have property rights in the US

What we have are renter's privileges, not rights.

 

[devil21]

Do you have any idea what it takes to start a small business in the US? Costs & regulations make it almost impossible for the average joe.

When you register a business (regis...hmm, sounds "royal", no? I wonder why that is...) you are giving ownership of the business to the government you registered with and then must abide by the arbitrary rules that the Trustees and Executors of the Trust (Court Officials and Legislators, respectively) come up with. Codes are not laws, they are corporate regulations regulating commerce. You don't own a registered business. The state owns it under the Trust and legally sets the rules under which you can operate it, no different than what I detailed about property and vehicles earlier in the thread.

[MENTION=28857]juleswin[/MENTION]
For the correct 10,000 feet view, think of all of what you described about buying and selling as if our entire economic system is one big casino. We use the casino's chips to play the various games throughout the casino (FRNs) but the casino always owns the chips and all of the games and sets the rules for each game, which always ensure the casino wins. When you buy and sell "your" property, you are still just playing a casino game with their chips and their rules and of course the casino always gets a cut, whether directly like blackjack or indirectly like Poker. Take their chips out of the casino and they suddenly lose all value. Violate the casino's rules by "cheating" and they'll seize "your" chips. Some people manage to win occasionally at the casino and they'll even throw you a few benefits to keep you voluntarily playing (free drinks!!) but overall the house always wins.

Coincidence that Trump,Adelson, Wilbur Ross, et al love the casino business? They see the 10,000 feet view. It's somewhat telling that Trump himself couldn't even manage casinos from going bankrupt, though.

 

[PAF]

What we have are renter's privileges, not rights.

Exactly, AF, which is why I keep promoting my sig.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Refer to #1 and #4 of the OP.

I've read the Communist Manifesto and I'm aware of the many restraints which the government places on private property rights.

And yet, as I said, private property exists (and not just in a formal-legal sense; there is still real substance to it).

It's worse than that. All of the land we think we "own" is actually Fee Simple Deed instead of Alloidial Title. In other words, when a mortgage is taken out and the buyer signs the 40 page 'Deed of Trust' that's placed in front of them by the friendly real estate attorney, the property is placed into a Trust run by the state and local governments, where the government becomes the owner of the land and the "buyer" merely a tenant in perpetuity. Same with vehicles. And most everything else we consider to be "property". After all, we've never actually paid for anything. Why? Because the currency itself is debt and you can never pay a debt with another debt. You can only shift the debt around. We have what's called an "equitable color of title" to property. A title in appearance....but not actual ownership. We are allowed to use the property and if we violate the terms, it is taken by force by people in various costumes. If you own something then no one in a costume can simply take it from you, legally, for refusing to follow some arbitrary rule. This form of faux ownership is the basis of all of the asset forfeitures, vehicle impoundments and seizures for victimless "crimes" and failure to pay taxes, etc. It's because the state already owns it and you just get to use it.

By that logic, private property has never existed (since states have always been able to seize it for non-payment of taxes), in which case the distinction between socialist and non-socialist societies becomes meaningless. But private property doesn't have to be absolute or absent; a person owning land in fee simple has property rights (a lesser form of property rights than someone holding land in allodium, but nonetheless). If you want to characterize the state as the ultimate owner of everything, with all of us as renters, that's fine - but keep in mind that the rights associated with being a renter are themselves property rights.

 

[nikcers]

I've read the Communist Manifesto and I'm aware of the many restraints which the government places on private property rights.

And yet, as I said, private property exists (and not just in a formal-legal sense; there is still real substance to it).



By that logic, private property has never existed (since states have always been able to seize it for non-payment of taxes), in which case the distinction between socialist and non-socialist societies becomes meaningless. But private property doesn't have to be absolute or absent; a person owning land in fee simple has property rights (a lesser form of property rights than someone holding land in allodium, but nonetheless). If you want to characterize the state as the ultimate owner of everything, with all of us as renters, that's fine - but keep in mind that the rights associated with being a renter are themselves property rights.

 

[devil21]

I've read the Communist Manifesto and I'm aware of the many restraints which the government places on private property rights.

And yet, as I said, private property exists (and not just in a formal-legal sense; there is still real substance to it).

The legal axiom about possession being 9/10 of the law, I assume. What I'm saying is that it's the remaining 1/10 that's the important part as far as private property ownership is concerned, at least in a legal sense. It's that 1/10, the legal status of "title" that forms the basis for the rest of it.

By that logic, private property has never existed (since states have always been able to seize it for non-payment of taxes), in which case the distinction between socialist and non-socialist societies becomes meaningless. In reality, private property doesn't have to be absolute or absent; a person owning land in fee simple has property rights (a lesser form of property rights than someone holding land in allodium, but nonetheless). If you want to characterize the state as the ultimate owner of everything, with all of us as renters, that's fine - but keep in mind that the rights associated with being a renter are themselves property rights.

I dub them "usage rights" and I thought that was implied. They are not, however, ownership. Consider that even usage rights are subject to every little zoning rule or permit requirement/approval. So, in reality, how many rights are there really?

Can you show me evidence that a state could/would/did seize private property for non-payment of property taxes in the late 1700's, for example?

My reading of history shows that private property did exist for a very short time, courtesy of the Founders. Prior to that, it was legal ownership by the King/Queen for everyone except the upper levels of the royal and religious hierarchy (Lords, eg). That royal system of faux ownership was re-implemented here once the legal profession got its hooks into law-making again during and in the aftermath of the Civil War. True private property ownership had a very (relatively) short stint compared to the otherwise many hundreds, or even thousands, of years that it has not been so I can certainly see how one could say that it has never existed. Never is absolute term though.

Fun fact: The Trust system I referenced was created by the Knights Templar during the Crusades in order to assure their lands that they actually owned, as soldiers of the Church and Royals, were returned to them upon returning from a Crusade. That was the 1200's. The system was further streamlined in the aftermath of the 1666 London Fire. The same system is in effect here today.

 

[juleswin]

When you register a business (regis...hmm, sounds "royal", no? I wonder why that is...) you are giving ownership of the business to the government you registered with and then must abide by the arbitrary rules that the Trustees and Executors of the Trust (Court Officials and Legislators, respectively) come up with. Codes are not laws, they are corporate regulations regulating commerce. You don't own a registered business. The state owns it under the Trust and legally sets the rules under which you can operate it, no different than what I detailed about property and vehicles earlier in the thread.

[MENTION=28857]juleswin[/MENTION]
For the correct 10,000 feet view, think of all of what you described about buying and selling as if our entire economic system is one big casino. We use the casino's chips to play the various games throughout the casino (FRNs) but the casino always owns the chips and all of the games and sets the rules for each game, which always ensure the casino wins. When you buy and sell "your" property, you are still just playing a casino game with their chips and their rules and of course the casino always gets a cut, whether directly like blackjack or indirectly like Poker. Take their chips out of the casino and they suddenly lose all value. Violate the casino's rules by "cheating" and they'll seize "your" chips. Some people manage to win occasionally at the casino and they'll even throw you a few benefits to keep you voluntarily playing (free drinks!!) but overall the house always wins.

Coincidence that Trump,Adelson, Wilbur Ross, et al love the casino business? They see the 10,000 feet view. It's somewhat telling that Trump himself couldn't even manage casinos from going bankrupt, though.

You actually own your casino chips, you can go home with it, trade it or toss it if you want. Like I said, if you can buy and sell something, you for the most part own it, its just that simple

 

[devil21]

You actually own your casino chips, you can go home with it, trade it or toss it if you want. Like I said, if you can buy and sell something, you for the most part own it, its just that simple

We're getting down into minor details, instead of 10,000 feet view but sure, you can take the chips with you. They aren't intrinsically worth anything outside of the casino though. Why aren't casino chips made of gold and silver? And like our currency, they say right on the face who owns it.

See my comment above about the legal axiom of possession being 9/10 of the law. It's the remaining 1/10 that matters when it comes to ownership. People forget that anything can be seized by the bang of a judge's gavel. Those chips, a house, a child even. If that is the case, and it is, then how can anyone claim anything other than a temporary usage right? A license to use something that doesn't belong to them, as long as the true owner benefits from your usage? Look up how "licensing" works in business. It's the same concept.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I dub them "usage rights" and I thought that was implied. They are not, however, ownership. Consider that even usage rights are subject to every little zoning rule or permit requirement/approval. So, in reality, how many rights are there really?

All property rights are use rights, and all of them are subject to various degrees of restraint.

"Ownership" just means a (relatively) unrestrained use right, as opposed to a more restrained use right like tenancy.

These are only differences of degree.

As to socialism, the question is: to what extent does the state restrain my right to use my property? Or, what is the same thing, to what extent do I have discretion as to how to use my property? If the answer is "the state totally restrains my use of my property, as to which I have no discretion whatsoever," then it's your property in name only, and that's socialism. If not, not.

Now, by this rigorous definition, there has probably never been a socialist state - even the USSR et al allowed a certain amount of private property in trivial things (e.g, clothes, cooking pots, etc), at least de facto. But there's a huge difference of degree between that and the current situation in the US. We actually do have considerable (albeit diminishing) discretion in how we use our houses, cars, bank accounts, etc. That these things are our properties isn't a mere legal fiction (yet).

Can you show me evidence that a state could/would/did seize private property for non-payment of property taxes in the late 1700's, for example?

Do you dispute that taxes existed at that time?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

TL;DR?

 

[nikcers]

TL;DR?

It's really worth a watch, not going to lie. Its about a country that is not recognized by any of the major powers as being a real country, they have fought for years protecting their rights and independence with makeshift weaponry with a history going back over 1000's of years.

 

[devil21]

All property rights are use rights, and all of them are subject to various degrees of restraint.

"Ownership" just means a (relatively) unrestrained use right, as opposed to a more restrained use right like tenancy.

These are only differences of degree.

Considering that the thread is about socialism, which calls for abolition of private property, that plank has long since been fulfilled. Saying that it still exists is kind of like saying that plantation slaves owned the hovels they lived in because they could cook in them or maintain the grass outside and therefore had "property rights".

As to socialism, the question is: to what extent does the state restrain my right to use my property? Or, what is the same thing, to what extent do I have discretion as to how to use my property? If the answer is "the state totally restrains my use of my property, as to which I have no discretion whatsoever," then it's your property in name only, and that's socialism. If not, not.

Now, by this rigorous definition, there has probably never been a socialist state - even the USSR et al allowed a certain amount of private property in trivial things (e.g, clothes, cooking pots, etc), at least de facto. But there's a huge difference of degree between that and the current situation in the US. We actually do have considerable (albeit diminishing) discretion in how we use our houses, cars, bank accounts, etc. That these things are our properties isn't a mere legal fiction (yet).

Well, there is the little problem where the houses, cars and bank accounts are not even in your name but rather the ALL CAPS NAME of the Trust that was created after we were born that allows for a living being to engage in commerce with dead paper entities called corporations. The rabbit hole on this topic is deep, son. Nothing is what it appears to be. Any way, I'd argue that the bits of leeway that we do have stemming from the usage license is mostly just to maintain the property for the continued beneficial use of the real owner, as a means to continue to generate tax and fee revenue.

Do you dispute that taxes existed at that time?

There were some forms of taxes yes, as authorized by the state's and 1789 Constitution. The question was whether property could be seized for not paying taxes, namely property taxes. I'm going to assume you couldn't find any evidence of land being seized for failure to pay anything resembling a property tax that we have today.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Considering that the thread is about socialism, which calls for abolition of private property, that plank has long since been fulfilled. Saying that it still exists is kind of like saying that plantation slaves owned the hovels they lived in because they could cook in them or maintain the grass outside and therefore had "property rights".

If you can't see the difference between chattel slavery and our present situation, I don't know what to tell you.

Well, there is the little problem where the houses, cars and bank accounts are not even in your name but rather the ALL CAPS NAME of the Trust that was created after we were born that allows for a living being to engage in commerce with dead paper entities called corporations. The rabbit hole on this topic is deep, son. Nothing is what it appears to be. Any way, I'd argue that the bits of leeway that we do have stemming from the usage license is mostly just to maintain the property for the continued beneficial use of the real owner, as a means to continue to generate tax and fee revenue.

I'm all too familiar with the "sovereign citizen" mythology.

There were some forms of taxes yes, as authorized by the state's and 1789 Constitution. The question was whether property could be seized for not paying taxes, namely property taxes. I'm going to assume you couldn't find any evidence of land being seized for failure to pay anything resembling a property tax that we have today.

Then I'm confused...

If you know that there were taxes, how can you be denying that property was seized for non-payment?

How do you think taxes were collected when someone refused to pay?