What is land ownership anyways

[Hugo]

In other words, I am not arguing that income re-distribution is necessary to correct some perceived injustice of nature. I argue that it is necessary to give everyone a stake in the system and there by ensure the system can survive without the use of violence to suppress people.

Why does the system need to survive? Why is equality of opportunity fulfillment of rights and not a violation of rights? What are rights anyway?

That is why I believe an anarchist system would inevitability collapse because the only people who have an incentive to support the system are the small and large property owners.

An anarchist system has never collapsed. Everyone has an incentive to support the system because creating a State requires the effort of many who will not end up benefitting from it. The State exists parasitically and as such must remain a minority so that its extortions will not just bleed the extorted dry. Therefore, the majority will not benefit from the existence of a State and so will generally oppose its creation.

As I noted above, government sponsored wealth retribution is not about rights or injustice - it is about pragmatism and doing what is necessary to ensure a stable society that does not degenerate in violence and class warfare.

I believe that government sponsored wealth redistribution is massive violence (against property, in outright confiscation, and against the persons of those who resist) and class warfare (taking from haves to give to have-nots), and I fail to see how something can prevent itself. Those States that have redistributed wealth most drastically are also those that have created the greatest amount of violence and class warfare.

To suggest that property rights are open to definition is even more abhorent to Hugo. This is tantamount to legalizing theft.

Actually, I'm very open to Stirneresque nihilism. However, if you take a nihilist view of rights then that still does not justify the State - without objective rights, the State becomes a gang of thugs doing what they want by force without any moral or ethical justification whatsoever.

The only definition of 'rights' that justifies a State is one which basically claims the State gets to define rights, and that is logically indefensible because there is nothing about the people comprising the State which would indicate that they have any better idea of what rights are than anyone else.

You own a large house on Redpath Crescent in Westmount and I own a cardboard box under the Jacques Cartier bridge. Is this situation fair?

Your question cannot be answered as posed.

What I am saying is that morals will tell a person which (and if) 'rights' are to bestowed upon others, and further, which people.

Even if true, how does this justify the existence of a State?

[August1991]

In other words, I am not arguing that income re-distribution is necessary to correct some perceived injustice of nature. I argue that it is necessary to give everyone a stake in the system and there by ensure the system can survive without the use of violence to suppress people.

Why does the system need to survive? Why is equality of opportunity fulfillment of rights and not a violation of rights?

I'm with Hugo, here. Why does the system need to survive? (A moral question, by the way.) But assuming the system wants to survive, is equality a necessary condition? (Looking at many other surviving systems - ranging from ant colonies to galaxies - equality hardly seems a requirement.)

To suggest that property rights are open to definition is even more abhorent to Hugo. This is tantamount to legalizing theft.

Actually, I'm very open to Stirneresque nihilism. However, if you take a nihilist view of rights then that still does not justify the State - without objective rights, the State becomes a gang of thugs doing what they want by force without any moral or ethical justification whatsoever.

I had to look up Stirner so my knowledge is confined to the Wikipedia article. (My answer to Stirner would be that sometimes I like to make my own chicken sandwich and sometimes I prefer to eat one made by someone else.)

Hugo, you make plain in the quote above that your argument against the State is based on morality, fairness. Not surprisingly, you answer this following example as you do:

You own a large house on Redpath Crescent in Westmount and I own a cardboard box under the Jacques Cartier bridge. Is this situation fair?

Your question cannot be answered as posed.

It seems Hugo that you view all questions in a strict moral light. To apply your morality, your sense of right and wrong, you do as most bureaucrats: you ask for more information.

-----

But then, there is this curious passage:

The only definition of 'rights' that justifies a State is one which basically claims the State gets to define rights, and that is logically indefensible because there is nothing about the people comprising the State which would indicate that they have any better idea of what rights are than anyone else.

Here, you seem to fall back to one of the standard Libertarian answers to any difficult question: Why would government bureaucrats (men with guns) be any smarter than anyone else to solve Problem X?

Hugo, you can dispense with a State solution because you believe it is immoral. But you can't dispense with the problem of how to define rights. If I sue you for breach of contract, how should the judge decide the case? (After all, the judge ultimately is deciding "rights"?) Should the judge decide based on "fairness, morality"? Whose morality or fairness? The morality of Hugoworld?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE

What I am saying is that morals will tell a person which (and if) 'rights' are to be bestowed upon others, and further, which people.

Even if true,

(correction mine)

I would prefer that you admit this is true. I say it is logically undeniable. And the crux of my past arguments.

how does this justify the existence of a State?

It wasn't meant to. The thread is " What is land ownership anyways".

The state in this case would be 'the holders and enforcers of the laws', and the more people that are aware of it and respect it universally means the more people will hold to your or my ideas. The opposite is voluntary. Better (nay, best), but impossible, for now.

[Hugo]

Hugo, you can dispense with a State solution because you believe it is immoral. But you can't dispense with the problem of how to define rights.

There are many avenues of attack on the State. Murray Rothbard pursues the theory that it runs counter to natural rights, David Friedman does not particularly care about rights but argues that the State is both unnecessary and dangerous in a utilitarian way because nothing it does cannot be done better in a free market.

If Thelonius is correct and there are no concrete and objective rights, then the State is just another gang of thugs and can't be justified.

It seems Hugo that you view all questions in a strict moral light. To apply your morality, your sense of right and wrong, you do as most bureaucrats: you ask for more information.

I object to that, because the way you have posed the question means that it is inevitably couched in the terms of your morality and sense of right and wrong. The use of the word 'fair' denotes that much, because it is a moral concept. What you seem to be asking me to do is take a moral idea and judge it without morality.

It wasn't meant to. The thread is " What is land ownership anyways".

The state in this case would be 'the holders and enforcers of the laws', and the more people that are aware of it and respect it universally means the more people will hold to your or my ideas.

But if you believe there are no fixed rights than that also means there is no such thing as property or ownership, because these concepts denote the right to control, and nobody can have such a right. Therefore, under your theory, anybody who does adhere to the State's definition of laws and rights is delusional.

[I Miss Trudeau]

If Thelonius is correct and there are no concrete and objective rights, then the State is just another gang of thugs and can't be justified.

It is easily justified so long as the population comprising the state believes that this particular gang of thugs brings about greater personal utility than any other band of thugs.

[Hugo]

It is easily justified so long as the population comprising the state believes that this particular gang of thugs brings about greater personal utility than any other band of thugs.

If that were true, the Earth would be flat. Belief does not make fact.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It is easily justified so long as the population comprising the state believes that this particular gang of thugs brings about greater personal utility than any other band of thugs.

If that were true, the Earth would be flat. Belief does not make fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The state is justified, in the minds of its members, by their belief that participating in rule with one gang of thugs is preferable to being ruled by any other set of thugs.

Asking for justification for the state beyond the wishes of its members is like asking for a justification for the existence of apple pie.

[Hugo]

Asking for justification for the state beyond the wishes of its members is like asking for a justification for the existence of apple pie.

What of those "members" (since you mistakenly seem to insist that the State is synonymous with its subjects) who reject it? What justifies the imposition of the State upon them against their will?

[I Miss Trudeau]

What of those "members" (since you mistakenly seem to insist that the State is synonymous with its subjects) who reject it?

Who cares if they reject it? Tough luck for them. Remember, this entire exchange began with this claim:

If Thelonius is correct and there are no concrete and objective rights, then the State is just another gang of thugs and can't be justified.

If there are no concrete or objective rights, it simply doesn't matter, in a moral sense, if people have their wishes violated.

[Hugo]

Who cares if they reject it? Tough luck for them... If there are no concrete or objective rights, it simply doesn't matter, in a moral sense, if people have their wishes violated.

Alright, so basically you are saying that the State exists not because it should or because it is right, just or utilitarian, but because it can. There's no difference between the Government and the Mafia.

Correct?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Alright, so basically you are saying that the State exists not because it should or because it is right, just or utilitarian, but because it can.

The state exists because people want to know that they'll be protected from groups of thugs by virtue of their membership in a more powerful group of thugs.

Furthermore, I reject the use of words such as "right" or "just" here. The words are utterly meaningless when one assumes that people have no objective or concrete right.

There's no difference between the Government and the Mafia.

Apart from size and power, not really.

[Hugo]

The state exists because people want to know that they'll be protected from groups of thugs by virtue of their membership in a more powerful group of thugs.

That doesn't make sense. It's like saying a woman wants to be raped by somebody so that she won't be raped by somebody else.

Apart from size and power, not really.

Good, and that's basically my point: the State is essentially a criminal organization of thugs who exert power over people for their own benefit. I don't see how a rational defence of the State can arise from that. Your argument that one group of thugs may be better than another is pointless since it basically says that the worst that can come of anarchy is what we have already, therefore, we need to preserve what we have already.

[Riverwind]

In other words, I am not arguing that income re-distribution is necessary to correct some perceived injustice of nature. I argue that it is necessary to give everyone a stake in the system and there by ensure the system can survive without the use of violence to suppress people.

Why does the system need to survive? Why is equality of opportunity fulfillment of rights and not a violation of rights? What are rights anyway?

Whenever humans gather in groups they must have a 'system' that defines what sort of behavoirs are acceptable and which are not. In addition the system must have a way of punishing those who break the rules. This is true of our society today and it is definitely true of the anarchist society you advocate. The only difference between the two are the rules and the means of enforcement.

That is why I believe an anarchist system would inevitability collapse because the only people who have an incentive to support the system are the small and large property owners.

An anarchist system has never collapsed. Everyone has an incentive to support the system because creating a State requires the effort of many who will not end up benefitting from it.

Every anachist society that you have ever mentioned has collapsed. Usually because people who did not benefit from the system did not support it.

Any purist capitalist society which puts property rights above all else will inevitably produce a system where a small number of people control most of the wealth. You could say that is human nature because some people are just smarter than others but that does not change the fact that extreme inequality will lead to resentment among those who are at the bottom of the pile.

The anarchist system offers nothing to those at the bottom - just a brutal existance as virtual slaves of those with 'property'. Which is my point: these people will inevitably seek to over throw the system that only benefits the few. A democratic system like we have today creates a more stable society because, even if similar inequalities exist, those at the bottom have power through the democratic insitutions and receive something back from society via government programs such as education, police and emergency services.

[I Miss Trudeau]

That doesn't make sense. It's like saying a woman wants to be raped by somebody so that she won't be raped by somebody else.

Its not like saying that at all, though I am glad you've found a new ridiculous assertion to make. The old "you support the holocaust" bit was getting a little tired.

What it IS like saying is a woman wants to enter into an arrangement in which she doesn't have to worry (as much) about being raped because there is a powerful entity that seeks to ensure that she isn't raped, and will punish anyone that does it. The price for that protection is that she agrees not to rape anyone else.

Good, and that's basically my point: the State is essentially a criminal organization of thugs who exert power over people for their own benefit.

And the benefit of the members of that state. If most people saw the state as a net loss, there would be a whole lot more people like you. There aren't.

I don't see how a rational defence of the State can arise from that.

Reread my posts. Its there.

Your argument that one group of thugs may be better than another is pointless since it basically says that the worst that can come of anarchy is what we have already, therefore, we need to preserve what we have already.

Another ridiculous assertion. Maybe you could at least try to provide an argument for this rather large leap.

My argument is that most people would rather be part of the big group of thugs, so that they have less to worry about from the little groups of thugs. To maintain the stability and power of that large group, they agree to behave in a certain way.

[Hugo]

Whenever humans gather in groups they must have a 'system' that defines what sort of behavoirs are acceptable and which are not. In addition the system must have a way of punishing those who break the rules. This is true of our society today and it is definitely true of the anarchist society you advocate. The only difference between the two are the rules and the means of enforcement.

And the most important difference of all: under a State, one group practically monopolizes these rules and punishments, and violently attacks anybody who attempts to compete - as I've said, like the Mafia.

Consider this: in every society we need food. This is true of Statist societies and anarchist ones. Therefore, what's the difference between an anarchist society and one like Cuba where the State monopolizes the production and distribution of food?

The answer is the monopoly.

Every anachist society that you have ever mentioned has collapsed.

This is not true. Every anarchist society that I have mentioned did not collapse but was invaded by foreigners - a fate that States are definitely not immune to! Iceland thrived for several centuries and was conquered by Norway. Ireland thrived for almost a millenium and was conquered by England. Hole Experiment Pennsylvania thrived for a shorter time and was conquered by England. In all of these cases it is also interesting that the conquest proved much more difficult than the conquest of a State, since the people were used to rejecting government and there were no existing organs of government for the conquerors to take over. The English in Ireland, for instance, were shocked to find that every time they concluded a peace treaty with some tribe, others would still attack them in the same geographical region - they found it hard to comprehend that there could be multiple 'governments' in the same area.

Any purist capitalist society which puts property rights above all else will inevitably produce a system where a small number of people control most of the wealth.

Why? Explain. I would also like to hear what right, in your opinion, trumps property rights, and why.

The anarchist system offers nothing to those at the bottom - just a brutal existance as virtual slaves of those with 'property'. Which is my point: these people will inevitably seek to over throw the system that only benefits the few. A democratic system like we have today creates a more stable society because, even if similar inequalities exist, those at the bottom have power through the democratic insitutions and receive something back from society via government programs such as education, police and emergency services.

You have far more power over the rich being a consumer than you have over the government being a citizen. You don't have to buy what they offer and you don't have to accept any job they have. They cannot prevent you starting out on your own in either case. Your control over them is your ability to choose their competitors. Under capitalism, if anybody is enslaved to anybody, it is the entrepreneurs who are enslaved to the consumers.

Politicians have no such restraint. All they need is the support of maybe 1/5 of the electorate, and they are your masters without possibility of appeal or any alternative.

What it IS like saying is a woman wants to enter into an arrangement in which she doesn't have to worry (as much) about being raped because there is a powerful entity that seeks to ensure that she isn't raped, and will punish anyone that does it. The price for that protection is that she agrees not to rape anyone else.

But you handily gloss over the fact that it is States who are the biggest expropriators, the biggest murderers, kidnappers, counterfeiters, confidence tricksters and so on. So you conveniently leave out the fact that the woman, as part of the bargain for this protection, must suffer the crimes she seeks protection from.

You have admitted as much already: we have a State, you claim, because of all the bands of thugs we could possibly be exploited by, we prefer them.

And the benefit of the members of that state. If most people saw the state as a net loss, there would be a whole lot more people like you. There aren't.

Assuming that people always know the truth. They don't, and to return to my earlier parallel, if what you said were true the Earth should be flat. Most people didn't realize it was round, most people didn't realize that bad smells didn't cause sickness, most people didn't realize that drought and famine were the products of adverse weather conditions and not angry gods, and most people don't realize that the State is unnecessary and dangerous.

My argument is that most people would rather be part of the big group of thugs, so that they have less to worry about from the little groups of thugs. To maintain the stability and power of that large group, they agree to behave in a certain way.

Perhaps I can explain this another way. I assume that you believe a monopoly is bad for people. You will probably agree that a corporation with a monopoly will extort, gouge and rip people off. It will use its monopoly status for its own gain at the expense of everybody else.

What we have done with the State is to grant one gang of thugs monopoly power. If what I have said above is true, this means it is inevitable that the State, with this monopoly, would quickly become not only the biggest but also the worst and most tyrannical group of thugs. After all, there is now nothing to restrain that.

[I Miss Trudeau]

So you conveniently leave out the fact that the woman, as part of the bargain for this protection, must suffer the crimes she seeks protection from.

You're completely missing the point, Hugo. Most people don't consider the state (at least this one) to be criminal or murderous. At worst, some people believe that the current leaders of the state are criminal, but thats a far cry from believing that the state itself is criminal.

You have admitted as much already: we have a State, you claim, because of all the bands of thugs we could possibly be exploited by, we prefer them.

People would rather have a small stake in the powerful group that gaurantees their safety, rather than no stake in small groups that pose a threat to them.

Assuming that people always know the truth.

What truth is that? That the State violates objective, natural rights than NO person in the history of this planet has been able to justify?

They don't, and to return to my earlier parallel, if what you said were true the Earth should be flat. Most people didn't realize it was round, most people didn't realize that bad smells didn't cause sickness, most people didn't realize that drought and famine were the products of adverse weather conditions and not angry gods, and most people don't realize that the State is unnecessary and dangerous.

Well, what can you expect from a bunch of holocaust supporters, I guess.

What we have done with the State is to grant one gang of thugs monopoly power. If what I have said above is true, this means it is inevitable that the State, with this monopoly, would quickly become not only the biggest but also the worst and most tyrannical group of thugs.

Why is that inevitable?

[Hugo]

People would rather have a small stake in the powerful group that gaurantees their safety, rather than no stake in small groups that pose a threat to them.

What small groups are these - private criminals? We still have those under the State, and the empirical evidence demonstrates that the State is less effective in battling their privations than private citizens and private guards. If you refer to private protection agencies and courts, of course people have a stake - everyone who buys their products has a stake that can be withdrawn, i.e. by going to the competition. I would say that this stake is at least as powerful as a vote.

Why is that inevitable?

Perhaps you can tell me if you agree with my summary of monopoly. Let's say we gave Exxon a monopoly over the supply of oil and also the power to force people to buy oil - they could access everybody's bank account, draw out what they liked and in exchange, give you access to whatever amount of oil they like.

You have the power to change this, of course - you can buy shares in Exxon. One share, however, has a negligible effect, just as one vote has a negligible effect. Owning a large bloc of shares has a bigger effect but the means to do this are limited to a few people, just as entry into political office, which has a similar effect on the State, is limited to a few people - one must be well-connected, wealthy or backed by wealth (corporate, special-interest, labour union etc.), educated, Francophone, etc.

In this situation, what's to stop Exxon from delivering as poor of a product as it likes and to charge as much for it as people could possibly pay?

Then, replace "Exxon" with "State", and "oil" with "law and justice" and the sundry other goods and services the State controls, and tell me what's changed so that the State would not conduct itself the way a corporation would.

You're completely missing the point, Hugo. Most people don't consider the state (at least this one) to be criminal or murderous.

And yet, it is. The State violates every one of its own laws. If justice is blind then the State is a big gang of thugs. Murder, kidnapping, extortion, theft, counterfeiting, you name it, the State does it, every day.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If justice is blind then the State is a big gang of thugs. Murder, kidnapping, extortion, theft, counterfeiting, you name it, the State does it, every day.

Please point out these 'daily murders', I can't seem to find anything of the sort in my paper. Kidnapping? We (the general populace) don't see it that way, for we grant the police the right to perform arrests.

[PocketRocket]

To lighten things up a bit, let's look again at the original question.......

What is land ownership anyways,

Land ownership is the right to pay even MORE taxes.

Can you really own land?

Sure you can. And not only do you pay sales tax when you buy it, you get to CONTINUE paying taxes on it until you decide to get rid of it.

And the beauty of it is that if you decide to "improve" it by upgrading the buildings on it, not only do you pay MORE sales tax for the building materials, and/or labour involved in the upgrade, you also get to pay MORE property tax because said property is now more valuable.

Isn't ownership wonderful???

[Riverwind]

Sure you can. And not only do you pay sales tax when you buy it, you get to CONTINUE paying taxes on it until you decide to get rid of it.

So you believe that sewer, water, garbage and fire services are free? Do you think that the road in front of your place was built by magic elves? You could try to make an argument that privatizing some of these services might save you money, however, it is unlikely that you would save much in the end. If I am going to hand over a monopoly over some basic service like water and sewer to a third party, I would rather give it to a municipal gov't that I can vote for than some greedy corporation with no interest in anything other than squeezing a much money out of me as possible.

[Renegade]

So you believe that sewer, water, garbage and fire services are free? Do you think that the road in front of your place was built by magic elves?

I don't think any property owner would argue that they shouldn't pay for the services they use, however there is no relation between the value of the property and the services provided. Why not just charge based upon services consumed? You seem to have a bias against a private corporaton providing the service, but there are many examples of private monopolies providing service at a reasonable price (eg your local telephone)

[Riverwind]

I don't think any property owner would argue that they shouldn't pay for the services they use, however there is no relation between the value of the property and the services provided. Why not just charge based upon services consumed? You seem to have a bias against a private corporation providing the service, but there are many examples of private monopolies providing service at a reasonable price (eg your local telephone)

I would agree that the current system of assessing taxes based on property value is problematic. I am in favour of usage based models for most services because it encourages efficiency. Private sector monopolies only work with extensive gov't regulation - cable and telco companies only started to provide decent service when it became technologically practical to allow competition. In areas like water and sewer where a truly competitive environment is not practical I think a government monopoly provides the best service at the lowest cost.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Good, and that's basically my point: the State is essentially a criminal organization of thugs who exert power over people for their own benefit.

Government is supposed to work for the benefit of 'the people', not their own benefit. Just because some of those who hold elected office are self-serving, doesn't mean that that is the purpose of gov't. The Mafia members are supposed to get individually wealthy, the gov't members aren't supposed to. They should theoretically enjoy the same benefits and suffer the same privations as those they lawfully govern.

[Hugo]

Please point out these 'daily murders', I can't seem to find anything of the sort in my paper.

Police officers never shoot anybody for victimless crimes? The Canadian Government didn't bomb any innocent civilians in Yugoslavia? I beg to differ.

Kidnapping? We (the general populace) don't see it that way, for we grant the police the right to perform arrests.

If a man is innocent until proven guilty, then to arrest and detain him before his conviction is therefore kidnapping. Whether or not the populace consents to it is irrelevant, unless you are still clinging to the idea that rights are what other people say they are. And if that's the case, then if I bomb Parliament, none of the MPs can have had a right to govern or even to live.

Government is supposed to work for the benefit of 'the people', not their own benefit.

But they don't. We're not living in some cloud-cuckoo land where the unachievable is discussed.

Just because some of those who hold elected office are self-serving, doesn't mean that that is the purpose of gov't.

Well, sure, and just because everyone in the USSR was poor and oppressed didn't mean that the goal of the Soviet Constitution was to impoverish and oppress all the people. However, that's the way it turned out, and when you examine it, it dawns on you that this was not only possible but, in fact, inevitable.

So it is with Government. The purpose is not for officials to serve themselves, but when you create a system that attracts people with a lust for power and grants them the "right" and the power to lord it over others, and then remove all the checks and balances against them, what else could possibly happen? It's just a matter of time before the State becomes self-serving.

They should theoretically enjoy the same benefits and suffer the same privations as those they lawfully govern.

That is impossible. To govern others means that you need to be able to do to them what they cannot do to you (e.g. you must be able to imprison them if they don't do as you say, but you must be invulnerable to imprisonment for not doing what they say), therefore, to have Government, you need to have a double standard in law.

[PocketRocket]

Sure you can. And not only do you pay sales tax when you buy it, you get to CONTINUE paying taxes on it until you decide to get rid of it.

So you believe that sewer, water, garbage and fire services are free? Do you think that the road in front of your place was built by magic elves? You could try to make an argument that privatizing some of these services might save you money, however, it is unlikely that you would save much in the end. If I am going to hand over a monopoly over some basic service like water and sewer to a third party, I would rather give it to a municipal gov't that I can vote for than some greedy corporation with no interest in anything other than squeezing a much money out of me as possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, well, no, I don't think what you are suggesting.

With all due respects, SPAR, I thought I made it clear that I was joking when I opened the post with.......

To lighten things up a bit, let's look again at the original question.......

.....and then ended it all with a jolly sort of........

Isn't ownership wonderful???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

....along with a smiley.

I would have thought that it was clear that this was all a joke.

But, as an aside and to address a couple of your questions......

A friend of mine bought a couple hundred acres of land in the bush. The nearest road came no closer than 3 miles from that land.

My friend spent tens of thousands of dollars, along with several months of work in his spare time, building a dirt road so he could access his land.

He was paying property tax on this land all along, but at a very low rate.

He built a septic sytem and installed a field bed.

He had a well dug, built a windmill to generate power (and bought a generator to keep the batteries topped up on windless days-his house all runs on 12 volts), and built a small house/cottage. A simple retreat from the city, that's all he wanted.

The assessors came and had a look one day, and suddenly he found his property taxes had more than quadrupled.

For what??? He's getting none of the services you mentioned, not even a road. He had to build his own.

He even has to plow the road himself if he wants access in the winter.

What exactly is HE getting for the increased taxes which are being levied???

So, to address your question; yes, sewer, water, roads etc all have to be paid for.

But why is it that if I spend my hard-earned money to increase the size of my house, then my property taxes go up???

Bigger house does not mean I'll be using the road any more.

Doesn't mean I'll be flushing the toilet more often.

I have no problem with paying taxes for the services I receive.

But I do resent when some button sorter, whose wages are paid by my taxes, decides that I should pay more because I have deigned to improve my home.