“Who ordained that a few should have the land of Britain as a perquisite; who made ten thousand people owners of the soil and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth?”

This quote flies in the face of property rights. It is one of the basis Karl Marx uses to take the land in the name of everyone, See Ayn Rands essay on the Rights of Man,

The difference is that in England (as well as other British commonwealths) all the land is owned by the Crown -- every inch. So all the people on the land are 'subjects', permanent tenents on land that can never be truly owned. That is the difference between America and almost every other country -- in America, a human can own land outright with no obligation to pay any rent (i.e. tax) on it. Of course, once you stop using real money for transfer of real property, we are dealing only with equitable interest in property which in terms of commercial law is taxable by the true owner. What a mind f_ck -- you own your property but owe property taxes -- if you don't pay them, you will lose your property -- that is NOT ownership! And that is not how it used to be. When we are ready to stop deluding ourselves into thinking we are free and actually take responsibility, MAYBE we will tear down the phony system that has replaced our republican common law government.

Archer, I smile, you must be in the zone today.

A few owning everything is not optimal. Property taxes are generally conceived as a way to support public education. Those with the most visible assets that cannot be hidden pay the most tax. If Uncle Sam would glom on to this gig he would not have any tax collection problems or a problem in finding peoples wealth. You may not like paying for your neighbors kids education in the first place but would you prefer living in a society where 90% of the people could not read or write.

Paying for your neighbor’s education is a benefit for all. By the way a neighbor paid for yours so I guess it comes out even. Of course it is hard to say that what goes on in schools today is really education. My grandchildren are home schooled. I was walking with my 4 year old grandson down a hall at a college. We saw a sign that read Gymnastics => he said "I want to see gymnastics". I was floored. He won't start his education for 2 more years yet he has picked that much up overhearing his older sisters classes at home. We graduate people who can't read from public schools. Go figure.

You know Warren I think I felt very special being able to go to school "free". I had some kind of awareness that this opportunity was provided my the adults in my subdivision, city, county etcetera. And I agree with you 1000 percent that we would be in a much different economy and life style without compulsory education as imperfect as it is.

Archer is in the zone :), So well said. President Jackson used the same number of hands referring to ownership. It was a bad deal. Still is today. Most can barely read and write, now, at times it is better that one teach many, for clarity sake and sound judgment to be instilled.

Bruce, your referenced choice - that of theocratic seminaries or 90% ignorance is a socialist's lie. As for example, before property taxes complete implementation, the education level in the U.S. was at the highest in the world. I have a good friend that had 19 children (no his/her/ours, twins or adoptions). They home schooled and further took in problem kids from local high schools. I and others had private schools that we gave many scholarships to families that could not pay. I have a close friend now that is working for a private school that is actively getting sponsors for kids that can not afford the better education (that particular individual's school is also very creative at finding extra-ordinary ways parents and kids can serve or do things to pay for the education). I have often mentioned here how my children (all home schooled) have started at universities at very young ages with out benefit of diplomas or other tests given to those graduating from theocratic seminaries. If socialists would get out of the way, education would greatly increase - in all ways.

@Bruce, "A few owning everything is not optimal." I agree 100%, which is why land is to only be held by 'people' in their sovereign capacity, not corporations of 'persons' which is centralized collective power. As well, when a hard currency is used by a nation, the wealth of the nation is distributed among the individual people. Whereas when a fiat currency representing promises to pay with interest is used by a nation, the people are loaded with the nation's debt -- to be wealthy is merely to hold large amounts of IOUs (i.e. money).
In this 'bizarro' world, the more prosperous a nation is, the more debt must be created to trade its goods and services.

I ask then, "Who ordained that a few should hold all the wealth of a nation as a perquisite; who made ten central bankers owners of the currency and the rest of us perpetual debtors?"