Thursday, August 18, 2005

A Man's Home is His Castle, As Long As He Can Afford the Rent...

For those of you who own your homes, and that is a growing statistic these days, did you ever stop to think that the land you're raising your family on, well, isn't really yours. Of course, the first thought that might come to mind is "Well, duh, the bank owns most of it", but you can eventually pay off the bank and owe no one privately for what you've rightly earned. Who you can't pay off is the government. Yes, I'm talking about property taxes.

Consider that one of the cornerstone rights of us as a people is to own and be preeminently secure in our own property. There are many wonderful articles written on this, not the least of which is Walter Williams' always brilliant editorial, which I've referenced before. This is a fundamentally American notion, one repugnant even to the British as they trounced all over the Colonies in an attempt to squash our Revolution and one they, our closest allies, still consider somewhat alien. The rest of the world, admittedly, doesn't subscribe to this thought, most clearly stated in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Even in that right, you see the inkling of the sacredness of personal property. These rights we would consider natural rights, and not civil, as is fashionable these days. Remember, these are not rights endowed to us by our government, but by our Creator, as I've discussed previously. Now, if all this holds true, and we consider these rights as immutable and unalienable, how then can any government justify taxing us for that which they do not possess? How, more so, can they threaten us with confiscation of our rightly-owned land for failure to pay them the extortion that is property tax?

I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this question, especially not by a government figure. I ran for County Auditor in the last election, and my esteemed opponent, while a very nice lady, was certainly not the model of "limited government" her party espouses. To such a notion that property taxes were an unbearable and unconstitutional infringement on a person's rights, she said people who believed such things didn't really understand government and were at best naive. Naive? People that believe the government exists to serve the people, and not that the people exist to service and feed the bloated pig of government are naive. Let that sink in and remember to ask your local representative if they feel the same way.

In all fairness, I did let her know that I understood government very well, and understood that as long as you kept shoveling money into the trough, the bloated carcass of government would continue to feast at it. I think it's time to put the government on a diet. That seems to be all the rage these days with people, why not try the government. Several states have tried alternate tax structures and user fees to replace property tax, and to some success. Why then can't Indiana? It would remove the specter of totalitarianism from the government and make it leaner and more responsive to the jobs it actually needs to be doing.

It would be nice to see the government actually conform to its original intent than try to become the socialist nanny state so many on the left have worked so hard to see it become, but that's a whole different argument. Just remember next time when you get the little card showing you how your property tax is being spent, how your lot isn't much different than that of a feudal serf. You don't own your land, the government does, and you'd better believe they won't let you forget it.