Can anyone tell me about Politics....

[Carl in Michigan]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

 

[Flopper]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

They could just ask instead of hassling someone, using someone's property without permission just makes enemies for yourself. I know if someone asked me, I'd say they could, or just help them burn it, why not help each other?

I guess in your world, everyone is an asshole, though, and somehow gains more from making enemies than helping each other out voluntarily? I think it's kind of sick that you believe that the initiation of force has to be used for anyone to get what they want.

Oh, and as I mentioned several times; Without barriers to entering the market, set by Government, people would be free to fulfill demand for profit, so if you want your trash gone, you can just pay for it. Much like every other service. This should not be hard to comprehend, it's how the market has worked since the beginning of time.

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

They could just ask instead of hassling someone, using someone's property without permission just makes enemies for yourself. I know if someone asked me, I'd say they could, or just help them burn it, why not help each other?

I guess in your world, everyone is an asshole, though, and somehow gains more from making enemies than helping each other out voluntarily? I think it's kind of sick that you believe that the initiation of force has to be used for anyone to get what they want.

Oh, and as I mentioned several times; Without barriers to entering the market, set by Government, people would be free to fulfill demand for profit, so if you want your trash gone, you can just pay for it. Much like every other service. This should not be hard to comprehend, it's how the market has worked since the beginning of time.

No, most people are not assholes, thieves, murders and rapist. However, it only takes one apple to spoil the bunch. Despite what you seem to think, not everyone responds to accommodations and negotiations. There are a lot of people in this world that are takers and they will take whatever they want unless there's someone to stop them.

 

[Flopper]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So who doesn't produce garbage that needs to be disposed of? We all do.

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.

Government is the people. Our city did the calculations and found that by using private services, they saved money instead of doing it themselves. I believe them because I'm a truck driver, and I know the costs associated with getting drivers and up keeping the equipment.

Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.

So you think that "people acting in their own individual interests" would work out? Let's look at that.

Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.

The city decides it's no longer going to college rubbish private or otherwise. They tell all residents to find their own way to dispose of trash. What do you suppose the city would look like in about a month?

It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.

There would be garbage thrown all over the street, all over other people's property, filling up vacant lots like mountains, and again, throwing garbage in business garbage containers that would eventually cause them to pack up and move somewhere else.

This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.

Not only are all government records public, but they can be found on the internet. If any resident has a better idea than the Council, then they are welcome to propose their idea at a Council meeting.

I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.
Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
^Public opinion has zero affect on whether legislation passes or fails. They literally just decide whether or not they want to pass something, then do it, while giving themselves permission to enforce it regardless of what the Constitution says.
Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.
It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.
This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.
I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.

Here's a better question, since this entire time the burden of proof has actually been on you, since you're the one speaking in favor of force. Yes, I've been humoring you, solely because I can easily answer every single one of your questions; They've been answered thousands of times in thousands of different ways.

If you think people acting in their own interests are bad, and we're not capable of voluntarily organizing ourselves and solving our own problems, despite profit incentive actually incentivizing doing so, then why are you in favor of a ruler? If you think people are bad, and will only act ethically under threat of violence from an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration(Despite the fact that ethical and law are far from the same thing), then why do you trust complete strangers with no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields they'd be deciding regulations for, to act ethically in a seat of supposed nearly absolute power? Wouldn't they be subject to the same vices as everyone else? Or in other words, to put it simply: "If people are good, why do they need to be told what to do? If people are bad, God help those who are put under the rule of another."

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

I am firmly convinced that humans are intrinsically evil. Only a moral education -- early -- can change that. This is why these theoretical discussions of socialism, communism and anarchy are pointless. They just dont take into consideration the nature of Man.

Back to another point though, I do think it is EVIL that the subjects/peons dont really own anything -- not even your home. There HAS to be a better way to find necessary services like trash collection, than PROPERTY TAXES. No one should EVER fear losing their home (something the PAID for) because of a property tax bill.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

I am firmly convinced that humans are intrinsically evil. Only a moral education -- early -- can change that. This is why these theoretical discussions of socialism, communism and anarchy are pointless. They just dont take into consideration the nature of Man.

Back to another point though, I do think it is EVIL that the subjects/peons dont really own anything -- not even your home. There HAS to be a better way to find necessary services like trash collection, than PROPERTY TAXES. No one should EVER fear losing their home (something the PAID for) because of a property tax bill.

It probably boils down to where you are at. One of the biggest problems we have here are people not paying their taxes. Here, property taxes are collected by the county, and then our city gets it's share. Our county (Cuyahoga) has 55 cities in it. Because the county is in charge of property taxes, our city has very few options for collecting taxes from our residents.

So when we complain about snow removal, lines being painted on the roads, road repair, the council is quit to remind us of all the delinquent and non-paying residents we have, and there is little they can do about it.

To be honest, I wish they could take their home. During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks. Along with them came the crime, and that chased all the good people and businesses out of the area. It also drastically lowered our property values. Low property values means low tax collection.

So the bottom line is houses are very cheap here; cheap enough for lowlifes to afford them. But what they never consider is paying the tax, nor do they care. You only need 20% down to get out of escrow, and that means the property taxes are not included in your loan payment. You pay the property taxes separately. So if you got a house for 50K, you only had to come up with 10K to get out of escrow, and then they don't pay their property taxes.

The rest of us suffer, and so do the schools. We are barely out of the red, and the county has us on Fiscal Watch. So property tax collection is imperative to operate a city properly. And it's simply not fair that I (and others) pay our taxes on time every year, and the lowlifes pay nothing breaking the city.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

That was my point. These people here are not losing their homes. So if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, what should the government do about it if they can't touch their home?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

That was my point. These people here are not losing their homes. So if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, what should the government do about it if they can't touch their home?

Their home ISN'T paid for. It is owned by someone else (still not the government)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

That was my point. These people here are not losing their homes. So if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, what should the government do about it if they can't touch their home?

Their home ISN'T paid for. It is owned by someone else (still not the government)

It doesn't really make a difference. The city can still take their home and give it back to the bank minus property taxes owed. But lets say somebody does own their home and doesn't pay property taxes. What should the government do about that if they can't take the house?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

That was my point. These people here are not losing their homes. So if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, what should the government do about it if they can't touch their home?

Their home ISN'T paid for. It is owned by someone else (still not the government)

It doesn't really make a difference. The city can still take their home and give it back to the bank minus property taxes owed. But lets say somebody does own their home and doesn't pay property taxes. What should the government do about that if they can't take the house?

I don't see the "right" of anyone to take your property. It is theft.

Here is how some get by without the need for propert taxes (renting your home from the Godvernment)

How 5 communities eliminated property taxes completely

 

[Flopper]

Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

I am firmly convinced that humans are intrinsically evil. Only a moral education -- early -- can change that. This is why these theoretical discussions of socialism, communism and anarchy are pointless. They just dont take into consideration the nature of Man.

Back to another point though, I do think it is EVIL that the subjects/peons dont really own anything -- not even your home. There HAS to be a better way to find necessary services like trash collection, than PROPERTY TAXES. No one should EVER fear losing their home (something the PAID for) because of a property tax bill.

I have to disagree with you here. As children grow up, things happened to them that should never happen to any child, homelessness, poverty, broken homes, addicted parents, and abuse. Children are not resilient. They are malleable. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Many kids get over it and adapt, but far too many develop little self esteem learning early in life that rules are made to be broken and the only way to get anything in life is take it. Behind almost every evil adult lies a damaged child.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Yep. Political THEORY always sounds good in theory. In real life things just dont work that way. Her theories fail for the same reason socialism fails. Human nature and people acting in their own SELF(ish) interest often gives the results one would expect, and that's not always good.

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

I am firmly convinced that humans are intrinsically evil. Only a moral education -- early -- can change that. This is why these theoretical discussions of socialism, communism and anarchy are pointless. They just dont take into consideration the nature of Man.

Back to another point though, I do think it is EVIL that the subjects/peons dont really own anything -- not even your home. There HAS to be a better way to find necessary services like trash collection, than PROPERTY TAXES. No one should EVER fear losing their home (something the PAID for) because of a property tax bill.

I have to disagree with you here. As children grow up, things happened to them that should never happen to any child, homelessness, poverty, broken homes, addicted parents, and abuse. Children are not resilient. They are malleable. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Many kids get over it and adapt, but far too many develop little self esteem learning early in life that rules are made to be broken and the only way to get anything in life is take it. Behind almost every evil adult lies a damaged child.

What point are you disagreeing with? I agree with what you posted. I find no disagreement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

That was my point. These people here are not losing their homes. So if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, what should the government do about it if they can't touch their home?

Their home ISN'T paid for. It is owned by someone else (still not the government)

It doesn't really make a difference. The city can still take their home and give it back to the bank minus property taxes owed. But lets say somebody does own their home and doesn't pay property taxes. What should the government do about that if they can't take the house?

I don't see the "right" of anyone to take your property. It is theft.

Here is how some get by without the need for propert taxes (renting your home from the Godvernment)

How 5 communities eliminated property taxes completely

It's not renting your home from the government. You are provided with services, and you simply have to pay for them like anywhere else. Nobody works for free. It's just like if you join a condo community. Part of the deal is maintenance fees. They cut your grass, plow the snow in the winter, and some even have appliance and house protection inside and out. It all depends on where you go.

My sister recently moved to such a community. She doesn't have any protection for her home, but they do the outside maintenance, and that's a huge burden off her shoulders now that she's over 60 and can't do yard work as much anymore.

As to your link, they don't apply to the situation my city is in. We are having trouble attracting good businesses yet alone be able to tax them to death. We have a highway where our police can pass out tickets, but being a very diverse community, the Ferguson Effect has them too worried about doing things like that. Cuyahoga County already has a sales tax of 8%, so any additional sales tax would not work out either. Currently, people on the borders of our county often go to adjoining counties to buy products, especially major purchases like big screens, cars or boats. We don't have any beeches either.

So none of the examples in your link could possibly work for us. The only thing that can work is property taxes, and everybody should have to pay them.

 

[Flopper]

During the housing bubble, lowlife inner-city people moved here because of 0 down and no credit checks

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

That was my point. These people here are not losing their homes. So if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, what should the government do about it if they can't touch their home?

Their home ISN'T paid for. It is owned by someone else (still not the government)

It doesn't really make a difference. The city can still take their home and give it back to the bank minus property taxes owed. But lets say somebody does own their home and doesn't pay property taxes. What should the government do about that if they can't take the house?

I don't see the "right" of anyone to take your property. It is theft.

Here is how some get by without the need for propert taxes (renting your home from the Godvernment)

How 5 communities eliminated property taxes completely

If government lacks the power to enforce tax laws, who will pay taxes. Louisiana adopted an income tax many years ago. Although the state adopted the tax, the legislature failed to pass an enforcement clause for some years. The result was hardly anyone filed state income tax until the legislature made it mandatory. People do not pay taxes unless they believe they must.

Of the towns listed in your link that abolished property taxes:

• One had a population of less then 100
• One shifted the tax burden to businesses,
• One, a town of almost all retirees that adopted a 3-percent town sales tax, 2-percent hotel tax and a 2-percent rental tax.
• One town abolished property taxes and levied a school tax, and a number of other smaller taxes.
• One of many small communities in Alaska has no property tax because the town's sales taxes are as high as 7%, more than some states.

One way or another government will get the taxes it needs.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

/---/ Liberal politics says the police are the problem here, while Conservatives say lock the door and leave him alone.

 

[Flopper]

Actually, my theories succeed because it relies on people acting in their own self-interest. It's the exact opposite of your conclusion.

The idea of a ruling class, however, your idea is applicable to. What do you think separates a ruling class from everyone else when discussing self-interest? Are they somehow exempt from this idea just because they call themselves Government, much like how Ray views murder, theft, and kidnapping? Do you think your ruling class isn't acting in their self-interest?

There was a story in the newspaper a few days ago of two people robbing a convince store. The owner, an elderly lady handed over all the cash in the register and when one of the robbers said hand over the keys to your car, she complied. And when the other robber filled up a bag with sandwiches and beer. She said, "help yourself, take some napkins." As they left, one of the robbers turned his gun on the lady and blew her head off. Later when apprehended, he told the police, he killed the lady because she could identify him. He had to do it because it was in his own self interest. I would certainly not want live in a world where everyone was free to act in their own self interest and I doubt you would either.

That happens more than people think. Down the street from me is a gas station with a small convenience store. A guy went into the store, pulled out his gun, and leaned over the counter to open the register and take cash. The clerk fully complied by backing away with his arms up. The robber shot him dead anyway. He got around 50 bucks.

My mailman lived with his ill mother who he was taking care of. A guy walked up to him while doing his job and shot him dead without giving him any option to surrender willfully. The mailman had five bucks on him.

Both assailants were eventually caught and stood trial. But that could have never happened without our police force and detectives. Weekend warriors could have never accomplished such a thing.

Not to drift off the subject, but this is also why we need armed citizens. Last week in the city, three guys tried to rob a pizza parlor, but one employee decided he would not let his funeral happen without a fight, so he shot one of the robbers and in the process, was shot himself. The police found the robber at the ER for his gunshot wound, and now the police can better identify who the other two men were. That would have never happened if that employee didn't use his firearm to fight back.

I am firmly convinced that humans are intrinsically evil. Only a moral education -- early -- can change that. This is why these theoretical discussions of socialism, communism and anarchy are pointless. They just dont take into consideration the nature of Man.

Back to another point though, I do think it is EVIL that the subjects/peons dont really own anything -- not even your home. There HAS to be a better way to find necessary services like trash collection, than PROPERTY TAXES. No one should EVER fear losing their home (something the PAID for) because of a property tax bill.

I have to disagree with you here. As children grow up, things happened to them that should never happen to any child, homelessness, poverty, broken homes, addicted parents, and abuse. Children are not resilient. They are malleable. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Many kids get over it and adapt, but far too many develop little self esteem learning early in life that rules are made to be broken and the only way to get anything in life is take it. Behind almost every evil adult lies a damaged child.

What point are you disagreeing with? I agree with what you posted. I find no disagreement.

I am firmly convinced that humans are intrinsically evil.

I don't agree with that statement.

 

[Toro]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

You are at the wrong place if you want to have a serious discussion of politics. It's a great place to learn about the political dysfunction in this country, though.

On the positive side, you'll have lots of old guys fawning all over you based on your avatar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thanks to Bill Clinton and threats from Janet Reno. I still say, if you've PAID for your home, it is yours and government should NEVER get allowed to take it. Otherwise we are just renters

That was my point. These people here are not losing their homes. So if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, what should the government do about it if they can't touch their home?

Their home ISN'T paid for. It is owned by someone else (still not the government)

It doesn't really make a difference. The city can still take their home and give it back to the bank minus property taxes owed. But lets say somebody does own their home and doesn't pay property taxes. What should the government do about that if they can't take the house?

I don't see the "right" of anyone to take your property. It is theft.

Here is how some get by without the need for propert taxes (renting your home from the Godvernment)

How 5 communities eliminated property taxes completely

If government lacks the power to enforce tax laws, who will pay taxes. Louisiana adopted an income tax many years ago. Although the state adopted the tax, the legislature failed to pass an enforcement clause for some years. The result was hardly anyone filed state income tax until the legislature made it mandatory. People do not pay taxes unless they believe they must.

Of the towns listed in your link that abolished property taxes:

• One had a population of less then 100
• One shifted the tax burden to businesses,
• One, a town of almost all retirees that adopted a 3-percent town sales tax, 2-percent hotel tax and a 2-percent rental tax.
• One town abolished property taxes and levied a school tax, and a number of other smaller taxes.
• One of many small communities in Alaska has no property tax because the town's sales taxes are as high as 7%, more than some states.

One way or another government will get the taxes it needs.

Absolutely Flopper, and remember that the Alaska town had oil revenue as well which most communities don't have. Plus one of those other areas started to experience a lack of sufficient revenue and ended up going in the hole. I think it was the Youngstown one. The article is dated so who knows how that turned out for them.

But the bottom line is all communities need money to operate. They need money to keep the street lights on, the water and sewer systems running properly, the schools which takes up much of the property tax you pay, snow removal, emergency services such as police and fire, and of course street maintenance and replacement.

The only thing I object to in our area (and I'm sure in many others) is the school revenue. Here, they charge you by what your property is worth and not by how much you use the facilities. For instance I may be paying twice as much towards our school system than the family down the street. I have no children in the schools, and they have four. It shouldn't be based on property value, what you pay should be based on usage.