a mortgage that is?

Most of them probably live on bank-owned property. A lot of things have changed since our Constitution was ratified. Few Americans actually own any property other than a few items of personal property like Tupperware, dishes, chairs, tables, maybe a dresser, a car, a computer, smaller things. I wonder whose property these guys are protecting? Mostly that of corporations probably. Nothing wrong with that, but it is pretty sad.

Look at all the shiny plastic they own!
The expensive TV that anesthetizes their mind!
The shiny smartphone in their pocket that allows them to give away private information!
The fantastic car whose exhaust fumes will make life a living hell for their grandchildren!
Food that tastes so good that you don't really want to know what's inside it!
And don't forget your gun! You can point it at other people with a gun!

You never own it, even if the bank note is paid off.

you sound like one of the anti-tax wingnuts.

I pay my taxes. But you are ignoring the obvious, if one doesn't pay their taxes, their property will eventually be forfeit.

Not sure if that was exactly the point of the poster you questioned, but it is indisputably true.

Prove that doesn't happen and I will gladly admit that you are correct.

"eminent domain"?

If you owe the government money, the government has the right to collect. Perhaps you might be happier in the libertarian paradise, Somalia. Of course, most Somalis would probably love to have a government as oppressive as the American government.

And Somalia IS the libertarian paradise. It has no nasty government regulations, because, to all intents and purposes, it has no government. What more could libertarians ask for? Of course, it does not match the libertarian fantasy, because libertarianism is based on fantasy. It is rather a nasty place, run by warring groups led by local bandits. That is what would happen if the libertarians got control. In fact, what libertarians really yearn for is oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatism, rule by warlords or some combination thereof. They are either to blind to see it or too dishonest to admit it.

I know, libertarians will claim that Somalia has nothing to do with libertarianism, and linking the two is a sore point with them. They claim that it isn't true libertarianism, it's anarchy. True libertarians believe in just enough government to protect private property and personal safety; without those protections, they argue, anarchy ensues. Of course, even a minimalist government must collect taxes to pay its bills.

The problem is that they cannot point to even one current or historical example of a government that functions as they imagine it should. They have no real world examples, so they ply their arguments as a theoretical construct. Every example of places with little centralized government is dismissed by libertarians as an anarchistic situation, not a "true" libertarianism. It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, Ron Paul edition. The situation in Afghanistan is blamed on 30 years of war and tribal anarchy, rather than the lack of a central government. Somalia is blamed again on war, on American intervention, Russian intervention, and again on tribal anarchy. Historical examples of feudalism arising in the absence of a centralized state, or dark ages arising after civilization collapses, are dismissed as either irrelevant or invalid because of war and anarchy. The fact that corruption and the Mafia are more prevalent in southern Italy where tax collection and central government are weaker than in the North, is again dismissed as a cultural or anarchistic issue. It's always the same. Libertarianism is an infallible theory of the way things should be, just as Marxism is seen by its adherents. Wherever it fails, it does so because the people weren't ready for it, or there was too much violence to allow it to work, or because the government wasn't powerful enough to protect people from harm.

Libertarians fail to realize that there has never been -- and never will be -- a government that functions according to their principles because it runs entirely contrary to human nature. As any libertarian understands when it comes to authoritarians, power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you decentralize and remove the modern state, leaving only essentially a glorified police force in charge to protect private property and personal safety, one of two things happens: 1) The central police force turns into a right-wing military dictatorship invested in stamping out all leftist thinking, then appropriating the country's wealth for themselves and their friends (for example, Chile under Pinochet) or 2) All central authority and protection break down completely as power localizes into the hands of local criminals and feudal/tribal warlords with little compunction about abusing and terrorizing the local population (feudal France, Afghanistan, Somalia, western Pakistan, etc.)

The devolution of local authority and taxation into the hands of criminal groups willing to provide a safety net in exchange for their cut of the action is the inevitable result of the breakdown of the government-backed safety net. The people will want a safety net; they'll either get it from an accountable governmental authority, or from a non-governmental authority of shadowy legality. Both kinds of authority will levy their own form of taxation, be it legal and official, or part of an illegal protection scheme.

In its own way, the "No True Libertarianism" argument is very similar to the "No True Communism" of the far left, who argue that the fault of Communism lies not with the idea, but with the practice -- despite the fact that no successful large-scale Communism has ever been implemented in the world. Neither ideology can fail its adherents. They can only be failed by imperfect practitioners. Both ideologies run counter to human nature for the same reason: power abhors a vacuum. The people with the money and guns will always abuse the people who don't have the money and guns, unless there are multiple levels of checks, balances, and legal and economic protections to ensure the existence of a middle-class with a stake in maintaining a stable society. The modern state didn't arise by accident or conspiracy; it evolved as a means of avoiding the failures of other models. Libertarianism is a philosophical game played by those without real-world experience of localized, non-state-actor tyranny, or enough awareness of history to understand the immaturity of their political worldview. It is based, like Marxism, on fantasy and rejection of the real world.

I make a simple observation of a fact, and you hand me a manifesto accusing me of being a libertarian and suggesting I move to Somalia?

Libertarians spew that sort of nonsense, real people know that it's not true. So, since you are spouting the libertarian party line, I assumed you are a libertarian. It's as if someone were to call for the nationalization of industry and then deny being a Marxist.

Which is why I said I think you have me confused with someone else. Use those keen powers of deduction to go back and read who posted what.

I have questioned what happens if one does not pay their property taxes. Which has been pointedly ignored.

For a little over 5000 bucks my 10 year older first cousin sold me her home for the back taxes. In 30 more days it would have been the counties. In return for being first in line in the deed was mine and she had a 5 year "free lease". At the end of those 5 years I sold the little house for 28k. 1991...

I took that 28k added 43k of the banks money and built my first house. 1992-93

Sold that house and took 40k and built my second house. 96-06

Sold that house and took the 51k and bought the house I'm living in now. 07-xx


Thanks to my pot head cousin and the state I'm doing good now.

to pay the debt. Your house could conceivably taken in payment for any debt. It's your asset.

If you borrow money and can't repay it, your assets may be taken to pay it. In the case of property taxes the creditor is the government. In the case of a bank loan, the creditor is the bank.

You owe your property taxes. The government doesn't just take your house if you don't pay your taxes. They attach a lien. If you can't afford property taxes, you probably can't afford to live in your house. Your property taxes go to support the government services like schools and other things that make your house worth something on the market. If you don't have a local school district, people probably won't want to live in your house or buy it. If you think your property taxes are too high, start a campaign to lower them.

Doesn't make much difference to the person losing their property.

I know what taxes are for, and I pay mine with no issues.

A major tenet of the conservative religion.

Maybe I misunderstood earlier. Yet eminent domain is taking someones property without 'real' just cause based entirely in the hands of 'authorities' and public officials open to corruption and fraud......That's what I understand, am I wrong? . That's a form of outright theft, because the people losing their property usually do not get proper restitution.

the owner of the property "just compensation." That's in the Constitution, Fifth Amendment to start with.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5.html

If someone's property is taken by eminent domain, the owner of the property can go to court to establish legally what constitutes "just compensation."

for clarification

By virtue of a piece of paper, the state backs your claim to have exclusive control over some land -- to be able to exclude all others from any access to "your" land.

In exchange for the state and the rest of society recognizing your claim of exclusive use of some land, you might be required to reimburse society and the state on an ongoing basis.

"Owning" land is a abstract creation of the state. You own your belongings and the things you created. Land is something very different. You didn't create the land. The land was always here. It's as basic as wind and water.

The government manages the records that track who owns what land and also defends our right to own private property including land. I quoted the Fifth Amendment to the person raising this issue. The government services like schools and flood control and the fire department, maybe even some utility services and roads enhance the value of the land. Our property taxes go to pay for things like schools that increase the value of the property we own.

A good school district or even just a good school makes a property more valuable. So property taxes are a good investment.

Republic? Wow!

Some of those Oath Keepers are almost certainly St.L cops who are just off-duty

because the cops won't shoot them. Even if they are standing on that rooftop firing on citizens, the cops will respect them and not shoot them on sight. It has something to do with the fact that they aren't black. They are treated different. Imagine if a group of black males tried to stand on a rooftop with guns pointed down at citizens. Yeah, we know how that would end... not well at all.

... the new and improved KKK. IMO.

else but still the same.

I don't know much about them although I have read the term. I assumed the oath they were keeping was their marriage vow. I guessed wrong apparently.

a large group of Evangelical Christians basically advocating Sharia law based on their interpretation of the Old Testament.

Oath keepers is a "militia" group formed primarily of RW police and military, current service or veterans, and their fellow political travelers. The "oath" they reference is their oaths to protect the Constitution, but the reality is it's their interpretation of the Constitution that they're going to defend. Please note that membership is not exclusive to veterans or acting service members and cops, but anyone they deem to be likely to think as they do, act like they do.

In their opinion the biggest threat to the Constitution is having a black man serving as president; eg, they are just a recently renamed incarnation of the Klan.

The biggest problem for society is that many of these assholes are serving police officers, with the ability to harass and kill at will under color of law and the protection from prosecution afforded by other members who serve as prosecutors, police administrators, and "business leaders" chosen to be on Grand Juries.

They should be identified and arrested for treason, as they have sworn (to each other and their personal "God&quot to disobey any orders they deem unlawful (by their interpretation of the Constitution) and to wage civil war against the lawful government of the United States.

I don't know that the killer-cop Darren Wilson is a member, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Confusing. Motherfuckers don't do originality.

the "invisible empire." People thought I was being paranoid. No, just observant. They really do that. They infiltrate all areas of authority in the government for the sole purpose of furthering their agenda, which only benefits them, not the rest of us. They see the rest of us literally like roaches that need to be annihilated.

From the local School Board to the Presidency, the Dominionists want it all, and we'll be totally fucked when they get it.

What's with the need to soften terms?

Wants to protect us from something when in reality they are a much bigger threat than our government. Oath keepers stay the fuck out of my neighborhood, I don't support your ignorant right wing values ...

But they should also know that they would be responsible for any illegal actions taken by the group. Otherwise, if thats the only way to keep your business from being burned and looted, how can I blame them?
There is also a group of armed black men protecting a convenience store owned by a white family. They say he has employed them and helped their families. Of course, THAT news doesnt make CNN.

tabloid journalism.

......the Tea Party News Network!!! It was posted on FB. In the story it linked to a story from Reuters, which is below
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/us-usa-missouri-shooting-gasstation-idUSKCN0JA1XF20141126

black people guarding the store!!!

and its also on the "Blaze", "Brietbart", Fox, the "Inquisitor", freedom outpost, etc. It seems a lot of the right-wing sites picked it up.

Land of the free

I seem to remember something early on before he was really IDed?

Maybe Im confusing media driven news cases...

They were bribed to drop out of the race to let the Democratic candidate automatically win.

I guess he doesn't take an "oath" very seriously.

but Glenn Greenwald is an unapologetic OK supporter...Just a friendly reminder...

Sadly people tend to have short memories and tend to not pay attention when the real story comes out months later...

Luckily, I've been keeping track best I can of all the major instances where the real story doesn't match up with Glenn's interpretation...