Property rights: the reality vs. the ideology of it

Here is the article by the same name by Alex Krainer, "Property Rights: The Reality vs. the Ideology of It," Alex Krainer, April 22, 2023. 

Croatia has no property taxes.  

Today, American taxpayers pay more taxes than medieval serfs and work a lot harder than medieval serfs.

Krainer is not supporting the communist system of private property.

Huge difference between ideology and actual practice.  

What's on the brochure doesn't correspond with the actual practice.  The West supports private property rights, and habeas corpus but in practice, the government will give itself a lot of leeway in how it executes its principles.  

Governments invoke emergencies in order to sidestep the legal strictures that protect the people from the government.  People say, "Oh, well, we can understand it because there was this emergency," well then the government can always invent emergencies in order to sidestep the legal strictures, and then people will little by little get used to more and more infringements upon their civil liberties and their rights, and then you find yourself a couple of generations down the road rather than paying zero income tax, you're paying 35 to 40%.  In Europe, it's close to 50%.  In some countries, it's more than that.  You find yourself paying property taxes on property that is supposedly your own.  And people don't question this as they should, because if you're obliged to pay property taxes on property that is supposedly yours, what happens, if for some reason, you're unable to meet the property taxes, you can't pay 

10:40  That happens all the time here in the United States.  Old people lose their 

10:50  People lose their houses, their land, and their houses.  Sometimes they lose houses owned by their family for generations.  And because their ability to pay taxes can't keep up with the pride bubbles, then they lose their property.  So what does this imply?  It implies that it was never yours.  You only enjoyed it with the indulgence of the government provided that you paid the tax.  

11:11  Paul Fitzgerald and Liz Gould, coming on my live show this Friday, they support Henry George's theory which is that there should be only 1 tax.  And that should be on land, and it should not go up [in price] with the improvement so that the value of the land itself with no improvements should be taxed and the only tax that anybody ever pays, saying that this would optimize economic performance.  

12:00  I don't know, but I think that income taxes and property taxes should be zero as they have been through most of human history.  I'm in Croatia now, but I normally reside in Monaco, and in Monaco there is no income tax.  I've lived in Monaco for 27 years.  I haven't declared my income even once in my life and nobody ever asked me how much money I make or I never had to sweat waiting for my tax returns.  

12:40  It's nobody's business really, is it?  That's the worst thing.  The worst thing about taxes is the violation of privacy.  The government claims the right to examine every single penny that's passed through everybody's hands because what I'm spending is income to somebody else.  So essentially the government demands the right to surveil every single economic transaction so they can tax it.  

13:05  Yes, it's absurd, because they kind of got the people to acquiesce to think, "Wow if we didn't have income taxes, how could the government even function?  How could they even make their money?"  Well, in Monaco, the government collects no income tax.  They tax businesses, and they tax them based on their profits.  It used to be in the United States as well.  And then, you know, if you look historically, personal income taxes even when they were introduced were a minuscule portion of the government tax receipts.  

With regard to all of the COVID insanity. #1: DON'T COMPLY.

With regard to all of the COVID insanity.  #1: DON'T COMPLY. 

I'll take the case of Eddie Stage.  We get to use discovery because the business has a temporary restraining order against it and the person running the business continues running the business without stopping.  That's what you have to do.

Document: a response that we got back after sending questions to the agency that obtained the temporary straining agency in court. And they did it with 3 avidavits that had no relevance whatsoever. What's supposed to happen is the agency obtains the physician's affidavit from a physician who's identified someone affiliated or identified with that business as having a communicable disease and then take action.  So that never happened.  What they're doing is policing interventions that they've imposed on businesses, but they're not policing the discovery and administration of a communicable disease.  They're acting as if everybody has it, so they're only policing the intervention, which has yet to be proven anyways.  So by these discovery questions, we're going to step it back a little bit.  And our purpose here in discovery is to ask for the basis of the junction, and then once we get enough discovery responses to get the restraining order dissolved.     

2:47  So we asked if we could see the copies of all the physicians' affidavits, identifying the defendant or anyone associated with the defendant as having been suspected of a communicable disease.  And then the attorneys--there was the county and the city involved in this--responded back with a really bogus objection, saying, "Well, we object because your question is too complicated.  It's vague, ambiguous, overly broad, it's confusing."  And so they cite this case law, but they know that the question is garbage, so they went and answered the question anyway, so at the very bottom, you can see right here: none.  That's the answer.  [to what question?]  Where's the physician's affidavit identifying someone with my business as having a communicable disease?  Ah, none.  There isn't any. 

3:45  And what's interesting is that these attorneys pretty much have unlimited resources.  There's no excuse justifying an attorney who's answering this to not know or understand the question.  Not a difficult question.  It's an adult question.  It's not Cat in the Hat, right?  Nonetheless, it's not just one attorney.  It's any attorney.  Whoever did this and didn't understand the response, he could just call up another attorney or a physician and say, "Hey, what do you think about this question?"  Now we have a response under oath that says there is no physician's affidavit.  And that's actually required to have attained the temporary restraining order.  So they got the temporary restraining order by saying to the court, "This business wasn't complying with our interventions."  And the court replied by saying, "Okay, we'll give you the restraining order."  No, no, no.  [everybody in a court of law is leveraging each other]  That's not how it works.  You go to the court and say, "We've discovered a communicable disease, and here's the affidavit stating . . . ."  Can we have our restraining order, and then the judge can yes, and then you have a hearing with the business owner to determine if that restraining order should be sustained.  [so no issuance by the court is permanent]  

5:15  We're going to use the answer to get rid of the restraining order.  So, for business owners, this might be the worst-case scenario.  This is the thing that terrifies people, okay.  Your attorney should know this.  Have to understand the jurisprudence so you can get these guys, you can beat them.  And you can beat them.  But you've got to start at the beginning and you've got to know what the beginning is, okay.

Identify anyone--employee, customer--as having contracted a disease as a result of patronizing my business.  

attorney bar number: Lexus law

west law.  check case law.  bench book

cheaper if you do a memorandum