Ian Questions City of Keene on Taxes

[FTL_Ian]

They don't have a "right", only might. 

[John Edward Mercier]

I always love the fantasies of others.

All control is 'might', if I'm standing on your neck... it takes something mightier than I to make me stop.

Authoritarian government is like nested cages... openning the one furtherest away does not increase your freedom. The smallest cage is the limiting factor (i.e. homeowner association, zoned district commission, or municipality).

If a section of a municipality can cede from the municipality... something done historically... there should be a method in place for others to do so.
Why re-invent the wheel? Just open the lock to the first cage.

[FTL_Ian]

I choose to seceed then.  Voila!

[Coconut]

I just thought I'd post this because it's interesting. I wrote to a podcast I listen to that has a lawyer on it that specialized in video and media law. I wrote him about using the audio of the city attorney refusing to be recorded. He also went off about how city officials should have no expectation of privacy while on the job.

[FTL_Ian]

I think we should make a habit of at least audio recording encounters with bureaucrats by default.

[McDuck]

I always love the fantasies of others.

All control is 'might', if I'm standing on your neck... it takes something mightier than I to make me stop.

Authoritarian government is like nested cages... openning the one furtherest away does not increase your freedom. The smallest cage is the limiting factor (i.e. homeowner association, zoned district commission, or municipality).

If a section of a municipality can cede from the municipality... something done historically... there should be a method in place for others to do so.
Why re-invent the wheel? Just open the lock to the first cage.

Interesting explanation. 

[BillKauffman]

My .02, the long version...

The general problem(s): 
Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum.  There is, in point of fact, a supermajority of individuals whether it be through societal norms, common law tradition, state indoctrination, or otherwise which believe in and acknowledge the legitimacy and primacy of the New Hampshire constitution and the government of New Hampshire. 

The gentleman representing the city of Keene was correct in that his (and the city's) job, actions, and authority is solely derived from the New Hampshire legislature, the city's charter, and ultimately the New Hampshire constitution.  Other local bureaucrats, representatives, etc, for obvious reasons, merely reiterate this because they are not in a capacity to unilaterally change or disregard taxation (or other) policy because it is controlled by the state government in Concord, which enjoys rule via the aforementioned supermajority of New Hampshirites  that explicitly or implicitly continue to choose to support it.   

By choosing to reject the norms, values, customs, etc of the supermajority (embodied in the institution known as 'government') in his his original state, and making an independent decision to buy property in a new state in which the government only acknowledges 'fee simple' property titles instead of 'allodial' property titles, Ian has effectively (and unwittingly) allowed himself to be subjugated into a neo-feudalistic system.  Thus in the eyes of the supermajority/government, he and others that choose to buy fee simple property are obligated to either pay their tribute or risk forfeiture.   

For better or worse, this is the current paradigm in New Hampshire.  If Ian or others did not wish to remain subjugated under such a system, they have the liberty to move somewhere else, work within the supermajority's system to end the neo-feudalistic practice of fee simple title, or use force to assert a new allodial title/property right over property that was originally purchased, in good faith, with a fee simple title/property right.

The latter would effectively amount to fraud and theft from the community (Keene/government/supermajority) as they would be losing their feudal/fee simple/taxation/tribute claim to the property, without just compensation. 


Goal: 
The endgame of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is the maximization of individual liberty, the reduction in the size of government or the elimination of government entirely, the enforcement of just contracts, and to facilitate the promotion and widespread adoption of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist norms, values, and ideas among the populous, without using force or fraud.     


Partial Remedy:
Since libertarians and anarcho-capitalists currently lack a sufficient supermajority in which to create a positive, non-violent, pro-liberty shift in the current pro-state paradigm of New Hampshire,  libertarians and anarcho-capitalists would be more effective at achieving their mutual aim of ending the neo-feudalistic practice of fee simple property ownership by working through the supermajority's existing system.

The best way to achieve this via the supermajority's existing system would be via the introduction of an 'allodial title' amendment to the NH constitution.  Such an amendment could allow individuals that own their property outright, to convert their 'fee simple" title into an 'allodial' title for a nominal conversion fee.  Additionally, the amendment could also allow a title to retain or be converted back to fee simple status at the discretion of its owner.   

The amendment/conversion fee would be an amicable solution for all parties involved because:

*it would provide transitional revenue for the local government in light of reduced future tax revenue, giving the local government time to streamline processes, maximize efficiency, and reduce its size as it tailors itself to the needs and desires of the marketplace.   

*Allow and ensure that individual sovereigns to own their property 'free and clear' and also give them ability to maximize their personal liberty by being free to contract with local governments or private enterprise for whatever services they deem necessary or desirable.

*Would allow the growth of market alternatives which would have a positive impact on quality of services and choice in communities. 

*Provide for increased job creation and business opportunities throughout the state of New Hampshire. 

*Would allow the supermajority of New Hampshirites to choose, on an individual basis, between which title, and subsequently whether the neo-feudalistic or the free market, best suits the service situation in their respective communities.  The superiority of either would ultimately be proven in the market. 

*Would provide an opportunity for libertarians and anarcho-capitalists to work toward the mutual goal of maximization of individual liberty.

*Would be a "show of good faith" to the supermajority comprised mostly of non-libertarian and non-anarcho-capitalists.

*Would compensate government for losing its fee simple taxation privileges over property held by individuals that was purchased under the old system.

*Would potentially provide a check against any seizers attempted by the Federal government.  Individuals would have absolute discretion and the sole positive right, enumerated in the New Hampshire constitution, over the transfer of ownership of their property.



IMO 

Let's play this scenario out a little.

If all fee simple property is converted to allodial titles and thus all of NH is privately owned, then where can someone who moves into NH without owning any property go to not be subject to the rules of a landowner where the landowner is now no different than a government (use of force being just over a specific territory for not following rules).

Yes, one would be free to choose which landowner to contract with but one is not free not to contract with someone if all land is owned privately. Therefore why isn't the above scenario any different for the landless than your use of the term "neo-fuedalism" to describe what we have today?

[Coconut]

Let's play this scenario out a little.

If all fee simple property is converted to allodial titles and thus all of NH is privately owned, then where can someone who moves into NH without owning any property go to not be subject to the rules of a landowner where the landowner is now no different than a government (use of force being just over a specific territory for not following rules).

Yes, one would be free to choose which landowner to contract with but one is not free not to contract with someone if all land is owned privately. Therefore why isn't the above scenario any different for the landless than your use of the term "neo-fuedalism" to describe what we have today?

People are buying and selling property all the time. That doesn't stop because everything is privately owned. There would still be a real-estate market, and people who own plots of land trying to sell them outright for a profit. If a land owner only leased, and demanded insane amounts of money for the rights to his land, he is going to be pushed out of business by competition who treats their customers with respect.

[BillKauffman]

Let's play this scenario out a little.

If all fee simple property is converted to allodial titles and thus all of NH is privately owned, then where can someone who moves into NH without owning any property go to not be subject to the rules of a landowner where the landowner is now no different than a government (use of force being just over a specific territory for not following rules).

Yes, one would be free to choose which landowner to contract with but one is not free not to contract with someone if all land is owned privately. Therefore why isn't the above scenario any different for the landless than your use of the term "neo-fuedalism" to describe what we have today?

People are buying and selling property all the time. That doesn't stop because everything is privately owned. There would still be a real-estate market, and people who own plots of land trying to sell them outright for a profit. If a land owner only leased, and demanded insane amounts of money for the rights to his land, he is going to be pushed out of business by competition who treats their customers with respect.

You missed the point completely.

Some people will never have enough money to purchase land. How is this any different for them than what we have today - "neo-fuedalism"?

[Coconut]

Let's play this scenario out a little.

If all fee simple property is converted to allodial titles and thus all of NH is privately owned, then where can someone who moves into NH without owning any property go to not be subject to the rules of a landowner where the landowner is now no different than a government (use of force being just over a specific territory for not following rules).

Yes, one would be free to choose which landowner to contract with but one is not free not to contract with someone if all land is owned privately. Therefore why isn't the above scenario any different for the landless than your use of the term "neo-fuedalism" to describe what we have today?

People are buying and selling property all the time. That doesn't stop because everything is privately owned. There would still be a real-estate market, and people who own plots of land trying to sell them outright for a profit. If a land owner only leased, and demanded insane amounts of money for the rights to his land, he is going to be pushed out of business by competition who treats their customers with respect.

You missed the point completely.

I guess so. The conversation is getting too legal for me to follow. I thought you were asking how a privately owned system would differ from what we have now.

My answer was that land owners would be competitors for renters and buyers, therefore they can't be making the insane demands for using their land that government does. Just like private sellers of other products don't sell them terms. Except cell phones 

[BillKauffman]

I thought you were asking how a privately owned system would differ from what we have now.

Yes, you live with rules under a landlord just the same as a government and if you don't own any land you have to live under some rule.

My answer was that land owners would be competitors for renters and buyers, therefore they can't be making the insane demands for using their land that government does.

But you agree that they can't live under no rule at all - right? Because all land is privately owned.

[Vitruvian]

If all fee simple property is converted to allodial titles and thus all of NH is privately owned, then where can someone who moves into NH without owning any property go to not be subject to the rules of a landowner where the landowner is now no different than a government (use of force being just over a specific territory for not following rules).

Yes, one would be free to choose which landowner to contract with but one is not free not to contract with someone if all land is owned privately. Therefore why isn't the above scenario any different for the landless than your use of the term "neo-fuedalism" to describe what we have today?

If you are like most people, then you spend most of your day on private property, most of which you do not own.  If all property were privately-owned (as it should be), then a person could be excluded legitimately from a large area.  However, this outcome does not seem likely.

[John Edward Mercier]

Bill wasn't talking about exclusion... just imposed rule.
On all private property, there is the imposed rule of the deeded owner... or their agent.
Allodial doesn't have nested layers like simple fee, but it has rules. A monarchy of sorts.

[McDuck]

My .02, the long version...

The general problem(s): 
Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum.  There is, in point of fact, a supermajority of individuals whether it be through societal norms, common law tradition, state indoctrination, or otherwise which believe in and acknowledge the legitimacy and primacy of the New Hampshire constitution and the government of New Hampshire. 

The gentleman representing the city of Keene was correct in that his (and the city's) job, actions, and authority is solely derived from the New Hampshire legislature, the city's charter, and ultimately the New Hampshire constitution.  Other local bureaucrats, representatives, etc, for obvious reasons, merely reiterate this because they are not in a capacity to unilaterally change or disregard taxation (or other) policy because it is controlled by the state government in Concord, which enjoys rule via the aforementioned supermajority of New Hampshirites  that explicitly or implicitly continue to choose to support it.   

By choosing to reject the norms, values, customs, etc of the supermajority (embodied in the institution known as 'government') in his his original state, and making an independent decision to buy property in a new state in which the government only acknowledges 'fee simple' property titles instead of 'allodial' property titles, Ian has effectively (and unwittingly) allowed himself to be subjugated into a neo-feudalistic system.  Thus in the eyes of the supermajority/government, he and others that choose to buy fee simple property are obligated to either pay their tribute or risk forfeiture.   

For better or worse, this is the current paradigm in New Hampshire.  If Ian or others did not wish to remain subjugated under such a system, they have the liberty to move somewhere else, work within the supermajority's system to end the neo-feudalistic practice of fee simple title, or use force to assert a new allodial title/property right over property that was originally purchased, in good faith, with a fee simple title/property right.

The latter would effectively amount to fraud and theft from the community (Keene/government/supermajority) as they would be losing their feudal/fee simple/taxation/tribute claim to the property, without just compensation. 


Goal: 
The endgame of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is the maximization of individual liberty, the reduction in the size of government or the elimination of government entirely, the enforcement of just contracts, and to facilitate the promotion and widespread adoption of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist norms, values, and ideas among the populous, without using force or fraud.     


Partial Remedy:
Since libertarians and anarcho-capitalists currently lack a sufficient supermajority in which to create a positive, non-violent, pro-liberty shift in the current pro-state paradigm of New Hampshire,  libertarians and anarcho-capitalists would be more effective at achieving their mutual aim of ending the neo-feudalistic practice of fee simple property ownership by working through the supermajority's existing system.

The best way to achieve this via the supermajority's existing system would be via the introduction of an 'allodial title' amendment to the NH constitution.  Such an amendment could allow individuals that own their property outright, to convert their 'fee simple" title into an 'allodial' title for a nominal conversion fee.  Additionally, the amendment could also allow a title to retain or be converted back to fee simple status at the discretion of its owner.   

The amendment/conversion fee would be an amicable solution for all parties involved because:

*it would provide transitional revenue for the local government in light of reduced future tax revenue, giving the local government time to streamline processes, maximize efficiency, and reduce its size as it tailors itself to the needs and desires of the marketplace.   

*Allow and ensure that individual sovereigns to own their property 'free and clear' and also give them ability to maximize their personal liberty by being free to contract with local governments or private enterprise for whatever services they deem necessary or desirable.

*Would allow the growth of market alternatives which would have a positive impact on quality of services and choice in communities. 

*Provide for increased job creation and business opportunities throughout the state of New Hampshire. 

*Would allow the supermajority of New Hampshirites to choose, on an individual basis, between which title, and subsequently whether the neo-feudalistic or the free market, best suits the service situation in their respective communities.  The superiority of either would ultimately be proven in the market. 

*Would provide an opportunity for libertarians and anarcho-capitalists to work toward the mutual goal of maximization of individual liberty.

*Would be a "show of good faith" to the supermajority comprised mostly of non-libertarian and non-anarcho-capitalists.

*Would compensate government for losing its fee simple taxation privileges over property held by individuals that was purchased under the old system.

*Would potentially provide a check against any seizers attempted by the Federal government.  Individuals would have absolute discretion and the sole positive right, enumerated in the New Hampshire constitution, over the transfer of ownership of their property.



IMO 

Let's play this scenario out a little.

If all fee simple property is converted to allodial titles and thus all of NH is privately owned, then where can someone who moves into NH without owning any property go to not be subject to the rules of a landowner where the landowner is now no different than a government (use of force being just over a specific territory for not following rules).

Yes, one would be free to choose which landowner to contract with but one is not free not to contract with someone if all land is owned privately. Therefore why isn't the above scenario any different for the landless than your use of the term "neo-fuedalism" to describe what we have today?

There would still be a real estate market, and an incentive for people to conduct commerce in exchange for mutual benefit.

All fee simple title WOULDN'T be converted to allodial title under my amendment.  It would give people the OPTION to convert their fee simple title to allodial title (and vice versa), and ultimately provide a market alternative to the state current state dominated system.

Equilibrium would ultimately be determined in the marketplace.

For example, If a land owner owned 10 acres of land with an allodial title and wanted to profit from part of it because of personal economic hardship; increase activity in the real estate market, etc, he could simply choose to convert his 10 acre allodial title to fee simple status, sell off half of his property, and convert the remaining 5 acres back into allodial status.  Market needs and conditions would ultimately determine the fate of the other 5 acres. 

[McDuck]

Some people will never have enough money to purchase land. How is this any different for them than what we have today - "neo-fuedalism"?

That's based off of the assumption that there would NEVER be varying types, sizes, acreages, etc of land for sale or service providers willing to feel the needs and wants of varying personal budgets, economic realities and situations of those engaged in the real estate market, which is false.   

Hard work and fiscal responsibility would be further incentivized.  Laziness and economic irresponsiblity wouldn't.