who owns the world?

[thx1138]

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about...ef=patrick.net

[tstv_lover]

What a strange article. She certainly doesn't own my freehold properties in the countries named!! and the Duke of Westminster is the richest land owner in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...nster-property

[thx1138]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

[thx1138]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

[trish]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

If the government OWNED the property, there wouldn’t be a private land owner to pay the PROPERTY tax. You just got yourself entangled in a logical conundrum! Taxes simply do not function as rent. Land owners do NOT have leases with their respective governments. In the U.S., as I assume in most other places, property owners hold titles.

So who owns the world? No one, yet; but in the libertarian world view, any asshole who gathers enough personal power and money has every right to own every fucking square inch, right? I mean no government should stand in his way?

[hippifried]

I own the world. I just bought it.

It's mine. Mine I tell ya! MINE MINE MINE!!!

Now everybody get the fuck out!

[thx1138]

Well, what would happened if owners did not pay the tax? Sooner or later a sheriff would come and forcibly evict you from "your" property. If it were truly "your" property NO ONE could evict you.

[hippifried]

Ok ok... I'll let a few of my favorites stay if they pay up. The rent just got raised.

[trish]

Well, what would happened if owners did not pay the tax? Sooner or later a sheriff would come and forcibly evict you from "your" property. If it were truly "your" property NO ONE could evict you.

Even though you haven’t explicitly answered my question, I think I see your tact. By using the modifier “really” or "truly" you hope to distinguish between “real ownership” (which is, according to you, the current relation between “the” government and “your” land) and “pseudo-ownership” (which currently passes for ownership and is the current relation between tax paying property “owners” and “their” land).

Okay let’s go with that. The modifier “truly” suggests there is such a thing as "true", or “real ownership”. That “real ownership” is something more than a social construct; something more than what we define it to be through custom or law. But what can this relationship between a person and his property be, if not a social construct? If it were a physical relationship one would expect to discover physical tests for ownership. Perhaps elementary particles are exchanged between an owner and what she owns. In that case we could test for the exchange of possessive-gluons. If the relationship were metaphysical, then of course you could never know whether you owned something or not in so far as the metaphysical realm is inaccessible from and transcends ordinary understanding.

Libertarianism is the last bastion of theology; its god is the metaphysical notion of property. The rest of us are clear. We know there is no such thing as “real ownership” distinguishable from the social construct of “ownership” that is determined by custom and law. The notion of ownership is society dependent (likely originating in some biological dispositions toward possessive behaviors) and its understanding varies from place to place and time to time. At one time people in the U.S. could own other people. No longer.

It seems libertarians have some confusion about what the social construct of property IS in the U.S. They seem to think that if you own something, you can do anything you want with it. That, however, is not our understanding of property. If you own a gun, there are legal constraints on how it may be used. If you own giant speakers, you may find that you still have to obey the noise ordinances in your neighborhood. If you own property within the border of a municipality, you may find that you are required to help maintain the local roads, the traffic lights, the bridges, the sewer system, the school system and other infrastructure that advantage your choice of location. Usually these things are supported by property taxes. Municipalities do not have the same rights as property owners. They do not own your land and you do not pay rent to the local municipality. You pay taxes and you have all the rights that American society and law accrues to property owners; just not all the "rights" that libertarians think they should have.

Do I think local infrastructure and public schools should be supported by means other than property tax? Yes and no. Most municipalities depend way too heavily on this particular source of revenue. I would like to see more State and Federal support for local infrastructure and education, through the tax on income, including income earned through the trading of stock. Perhaps you don’t care if the road to your house is pitted with potholes, the traffic lights in your town aren’t working and the sewers occasionally back up and flood your neighbor’s basement. Perhaps you don’t care if your neighbor’s kids learn to read, write and cipher. Perhaps you just don’t want them to learn on your dollar. Too bad, whiner. In the U.S. we expect a certain amount of cooperation for our mutual benefit, and we have written those expectations into law. Repeatedly break the law, and you may wind up having to sell your property to pay your lawyers.

[tstv_lover]

Well, what would happened if owners did not pay the tax? Sooner or later a sheriff would come and forcibly evict you from "your" property. If it were truly "your" property NO ONE could evict you.

I'll skip over Trish's comments, not because I disagree but because it gives me a headache when I wander into philosophy.

Just for the hell of it, I typed "what if I don't pay tax" into Google and this was one of the first articles picked up:

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAn...YouDontPay.htm

Interesting to note that although the council may sell some of your belongings to offset costs, may initiate legal proceedings that will land you in prison, may petition to have you declared bankrupt and may put a "charging order" to recoved council debt from a future property sale - they CANNOT EVICT YOU.

This is the UK. Of course the situation in the US (and New Zealand) may be quite different - I'm not tempted to test that right now.