mweiss

In the most average of circumstances, that would be true. The average homeowner has a property that he/she can sell with average difficulty. OTOH, take the older homeowner, who built many decades ago, in the pioneering spirit, physically bringing every board on his own back and constructing the home with only weekly paychecks to fund it. The man buys a piece of swamp land (today protected under wetlands laws) for cheap and builds on it. No mortgage, and he moves in with family, while the house is still unfinished. He may have been forced to move out of a conventional house because of an incoming sewer system and city water assessment, which would bankrupt him; hence, he moves to the unfinished house build in the middle of nowhere swampland. The family lives in the house for several decades. Then the area suddenly gets developed by an influx of rich urbanites, fleeing a major city within 100 miles of the location. Taxes proceed to jump 2,000 percent over the next 15 years. The urbanites move in, demanding big increases in town services, a major upgrade of the physical assets of the school system, and downtown beautification. Contractors milk the town, seeing a 'cash cow' and huge cost overruns result. The town is stuck with the afterthought of mismanagement on construction projects for a new high school and intermediate school, to the tune of nearly $100M. Several huge tax increases result. Now the man who built his house with no mortgage is being taxed because of the million dollar homes that popped up all around him, changing the 'prevailing value' of the area. He is not taxed on the real value of his home, but on the 'fair market value', weighted to the neighborhood standards. He has no mortgage, but suddenly his monthly tax burden is more than any mortgage payment he could have imagined if he had bought a luxury home when he'd bought this particular property. Due to the nature of the construction, it is considered 'not to code' and 'makeshift', and hence the real ability to find a buyer is very slim, with the price being much lower than the assessed value, based on neighborhood prevailing values and square footage. He is obviously overassessed, but unable to achieve a lower assessement because of the state guidelines for assessors not taking mitigating factors into account. He cannot sell for enough money to buy an equivalent place somewhere with an equivalent quality of life. If he could sell at all, he would be lucky to afford a mobile home in a trailer park, or a downpayment on a condominium. He would be taking a large plunge in the quality of life, assuming he enjoyed his property that he built with his own hands. It is valuable to him, but not to prospective buyers, who would consider it 'blighted' or fit to be demolished. Because the home may be located on a protected wetland, the ability of a new owner to demolish and rebuild would be tied up in government environmental red tape. This would severely hurt the saleability of the property, thus lowering the offering price even lower. Such a situation is extremely rare, but do exist. In that type of situation, the homeowner stands to lose his whole quality of life, his security of ownership and his privacy and freedom (let's say he's a rock musician who makes a lot of noise, so he's chosen to live in a secluded area so as not to disturb others). I'm sure others can come up with some additional diverse examples of colorful extremes of situation, in which the simple rule of selling and drawing the equity would not apply well.

Here's and interesting dilemma, (again, thinking from the similar standpoint of a tax foreclosure on one's primary domicile)--one is faced with a choice of fight, or become homeless--both choices probably lead to death--either by police bullets, or by exposure to the elements. One's choice is between starting all over again with zero, and raising the cost of state-sponsored terrorism. Clearly the latter is against Objectivist principles of self-preservation, but what about considering the age of the person being evicted? If we are talking about a young family with the ability to rebuild their wealth, clearly the answer is to start over, but if we're talking about an elderly person who cannot possibly attain a quality of life worth living once more, would that person be any more morally-justified in doing as much damage to the initiators of force, as he possibly can? This is a very personal issue for me, as I live in an area that is experiencing exponential tax increases and property valuation increases. As the saying goes, "I can see the writing on the wall." 'Glad to see some Objectivists discussing this bluntly and openly.

I've listened to all three movements. It is quite different from anything I have heard before, but this computer rendering limits its potential. I would like to hear it performed on state of the art orchestral samplers, or, if possible, a real symphony orchestra. Too much nuance is lost in this computer synthesizer version. I know, "picky, picky, picky," but as an audiophile with an intense love of music that drove me to get involved with performing music for my own pleasure, I have lost the ability to simply enjoy without analyzing the technical aspects. Or perhaps I am spoiled by the Kurzweil K-series.

Therein lies the critical challenge: How DO we persuade the vast majority of the public, who believe that there IS no better way to run government? I have engaged in this argument with friends and associates on countless occasions and have a laundry list of objections to a tax-free economy. The typical arguments I hear against it are: Few or no persons would voluntarily contribute donations to fund government. If a war broke out and the government needed a huge increase in revenue, where would they get it? The roads would not be maintained and soon you would not be able to travel to the grocery store. Anyone could come and rob you and there would be no police. Etc., etc. The persons that make those statements apparently have a low opinion of the moral character of people in general. That they might be inspired to a higher standard of conduct in a tax-free world doesn't occur to them. I am engaged in a battle over skyrocketing property taxes here in Connecticut. I have been prolific with my newspaper editorials for the past five years, on this issue. I have presented an argument, followed by systematic logical steps and definitions, to show that the property tax may not be Constitutional. If anyone wants to read the article, it can be found here: http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/story.php?id=61106 I am now about to undertake the formidable task of presenting an alternative method to finance the town's operations. I am seeking ideas wth Objectivist foundations. So I'll be watching this thread with interest.

Re: eminent domain, I agree totally that this is an insidious and very dangerous law. But I wanted to raise another corollary issue: property taxes. They are the 'proof' that the state's position on property ownership is that they own it all and we are simply renters (who also have the burdens of landlords--maintenance) of that property. Look at the building code laws. These are here for a number of obvious reasons, but the underlying reason is to ensure a uniform type of home construction--one that will be marketable, should you ever get too far behind on your taxes. I find property taxes to be fundamentally un-American, and I think there is a possible logical argument, referencing the Constitution, to demonstrate that they may be un-Constitutional. Briefly, the Preamble talks about Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The dictionary defines liberty as freedom from slavery or forced labor. Property taxes, being mandatory and not based on income level, must be paid, regardless of employment status. This means that one must go out and do some sort of labor to aquire the money to pay the tax. That, in a brief summary, is the 'forced labor' that the Preamble, by definition, proscribes. I believe property rights to be one of the most important rights. If we do not have the security and safety of our private property, we are not free as individuals, or as a nation. What particularly irritates me is the implicit notion that America is a free nation that respects individual rights, when in practice, a majority of the laws contradict that noble stance. In another thread, I will seek ideas for alternative funding of town services, such as schools, as I am in the process of educating (through a series of newspaper editorials) the locals on the danger of taxation and the real status of land ownership. I have done that much, but now am about to embark on the task of showing them a constructive alternative to taxation. On a lighter note, the airport Eminent Domain situation is similar to one used in the Australian movie "The Castle", which is about a family faced with losing their home to an airport expansion. The story imbues a bit of humor into the situation, as the main character is a little bit dense, but nice all-around guy who rises to the occasion and stands up for his rights. I think we, as Objectivists, have a duty to ourselves to become more active in public issues like this, because our silence leaves government in a vacuum, where 'anything goes' and that is to our detriment. I'm doing it through my editorials in the paper, as well as discussing issues of importance in online communities.

Hello to all. I discovered this forum through a Google search and read quite a few of the threads and liked what I read, so here I am. By way of a short introduction, I have been into Objectivism since the mid 1960s. I have read most of Ayn Rand's works by the mid '70s. Her philosophy, simply put, makes sense to me, as it explains fundamental concepts with a clarity and certainty that no other philosopher has managed to accomplish. That being said, I'll comment on Nobuo Uematsu. I became a fan of Japanese animation "anime" in the late 1980s, but soon discovered, as a biproduct, that the music scores in many animated films from Japan are excellent. My first taste of Nobuo Uematsu's music was an album called "Phantasmagoria". I later discovered his connection to Final Fantasy. I have been buying soundtracks by him ever since. Probably some of the most beautiful music he has written are, "Aerith's Theme," "Main Theme-Orchestrated" from FF VII Reunion and "Opening Theme 'Tina'" from FF Grand Finale. His music is intricate, complex, mysterious, enchanting, and highly visual--it tells a story without words. Simply amazing music. I enjoy quite a few Japanese composers. Joe Hisaishi is another favorite of mine. I often would say that he records the music that I have locked up in my head. I was particularly enamoured with his soundtrack theme to "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind", and I have collected many of his solo albums after discovering his music. If I were to list the top 10 great musical works, the Final Fantasy tracks would be on it. This thread inspired me to listen to the FF VII Main Theme again tonight. I realize that I enjoy this music intensely because it is so varied and never repeats any theme in a trivial way, but instead takes you on a journey inside your mind, to places that are only limited by your imagination. I thought about why I like soundtrack music as opposed to pop music, and I think it it because soundtrack music, by design, has purpose. It tells a story, or helps to paint the mood of the story it augments. If the type of story is one of magnificent proportions, then the soundtrack can be powerful, meaningful and intense. I enjoy that in music. BTW, nice to find a group of Objectivist minds online. I was beginning to wonder where everyone went. My last real contact with Objectivists in person was in 1980, when I attended Dr. Peikoff's lectures in New York. My only contact with Ayn Rand was during intermission at Carnegie Hall, while attending Dr. Alan Blumenthal's piano concert, I met her in the gallery and had a brief chat with her. It seems like most of the Objectivist principals have relocated to the west coast now, so there have not been as many opportunities for me to attend lectures as there used to be. I have a lot of questions, comments and views, so I plan to be active on these forums. Nice meeting all of you!