I highly recommend "Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed"

reviewing the rise of top-down city planning especially in recent modern cities like Brasilia (which systematically removed public space & spontaneous street interactions by design)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia

> Compulsory ujamaa villages in Tanzania, collectivization in Russia, Le Corbusier’s urban planning theory realized in Brasilia, the Great Leap Forward in China, agricultural "modernization" in the Tropics―the twentieth century has been racked by grand utopian schemes that have inadvertently brought death and disruption to millions. Why do well-intentioned plans for improving the human condition go tragically awry?

Thanks, it sounds like something I'd love; ordering a copy!

Great! Other recommendations: City of Quartz & Season of the Witch (on LA and SF's civic development), everything by Jane Jacobs, Organization of Man

Please let me correct what you just said: "rent seeking is pretty blatantly anti-competitive [1], detrimental to individuals [2][3], and rotting the system from the inside out [4][5]."

Now let's talk about having control over my speakers.

Tax is not rent unless you're in an actual feudal system.

> Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour. [1]

If I don't mow my lawn or pick up my garbage (labour) then my homeowners' association or local government can initiate legal proceedings which may end in me not "owning" my home.

Look, I'm actually for taxes generally, whatever you want to think about that, as long as they provide equal value to the people. However, our current system is designed so that any local government can arbitrarily decide that they're incorporated and I'm subject to their laws and taxation. 99% of us work towards putting more into the system than we get back and many do so exponentially.

Last time I checked, eminent domain and asset forfeiture are still actual things that happen in 2017.

We may not live in an outright "feudal system" but many of us live in a system closer to one than not.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

It's rent. If I don't pay my property taxes, the government will march in and take my house.

Land specifically is kind of a special case, in that we can't just make more of it (to a first approximation). There is an ongoing opportunity cost to society to give you exclusive rights over a piece of land, and therefore it is right and proper that you make an ongoing contribution to society to compensate.

Taxes ≠ rents.

Generally, I would agree, and in the broadest sense of the terms, they are not equal. You can call anything whatever you want; you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. England used taxation as a way to maintain control over its colonies regardless of how it turned out. Eventually, and most famously, the U.S. realized the taxation was a form of oppression and not for the common good.

People who didn't pay the "taxes" were evicted and their possessions given to loyalists; sounds a lot like renting.

The American Revolution isn't nearly as clear cut as that. It wasn't anti-taxation, it was anti-taxation without representation. The colonists were objecting to being taxed without having a say in the levying of the taxes. There were many colonial Americans who would have been happy returning Members to Parliament without independence.

The core of the issue really was that Britain defended the American colonies from French invasion during the Seven Year's War and the British taxpayer bore the brunt of the taxation (I can't remember exact figures, but Britons were taxed much, much heavier than Americans, even after the stamp duties and tea taxes). After the war, Parliament came looking for payback, understandably. So Britain wasn't using taxation to control the colonies, it was looking to recoup the costs of defending them.

On a sidenote, this is actually quite interesting in today's context over NATO military spending, where now it is Britain freeloading on American military spending.

I really appreciate your response; you're correct. I was wrong to offer the ideal I did. I had hoped to posit that taxation is often abused, used as a tool to accomplish something other than to generally fund the government or improve society; as a control over the people.

My argument wasn't sound - I'm glad you provided historically accurate facts that were both enjoyable and informative!

Your sidenote is also interesting - and on another note (albeit silly) - have you heard of the AMC drama TURN: Washington's Spies? I've started watching it and have quite enjoyed it so far.

> The American Revolution isn't nearly as clear cut as that.

This is an entirely legitimate statement.

> ...now it is Britain freeloading on American military spending.

...but this you're really going to have to back up. Can you point to a specific example and explain why it's 'freeloading'?

The US has a significant presence in the UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unknown-terri...

Actually... it kinda.. does.

No? Don't pay your property tax. See how fast you get evicted from that home you "own" by the sheriff.

Property tax is.