Don't sweat it to much, you are arguing against someone with an anti-education on how economics actually works to the point you can intuit how they're wrong without knowing any of the theory behind their argument.
The diagram shows how price goes up and less consumers are able to access goods when you raise taxes within a market economy.
It is also an econ 101 level oversimplification, but it is arguing against your claims.
I've taken econ 101. It seems like you've only taken econ 101. I know of no serious academic that argues that lvt has no price distortions, only that lvt has lower price distortions than other modes of taxation.
What economics education do you have? I've spent years studying neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxist economics. (Well, more than a decade on marxist economics, I've even read translated Vietnamese and Chinese texts on it) I am confident in saying that the assumptions you are relying on is faulty on theoretical bounds within neoclassical economics (which is where your argument is coming from) as well as within Marxist economics. But theory only goes so far, and if you have empirical evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.
On that we are agreed. Should your statement be taken as the Jews being settler colonizers though? I would argue that an ethnicity cannot truly be a colonizer on the land they originated from.
Okay, two things
-
taking this logic at face value, no one can colonize specific areas of Africa where humans are from. So it is obviously wrong. Do you mean what you said or are you trying to say something else?
-
If Celtics colonized London and started doing apartheid that would also be unjustifiable.
If the argument is that they are colonizers now, would the same be true in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the United States was forced to return a state to the native tribes that were originally there? Would we call the returning native tribes settler colonizers if the current inhabitants had to leave the new tribal lands? The land has belonged to the current inhabitants for over 200 years after all, and if not, how long is the cutoff?
Why would the indigenous people forcefully get all the settlers out if they overthrew the system that was perpetuating genocide against them to this day? Have you talked to indigenous people about what their political project is?
This mostly boils down to the question: if you can’t have a permanent loss of claim to a historical homeland through conquest, then why would there be an exception to this rule for the Jewish ethnicity?
This relies on the reader buying into the assumption that territorial claims last forever.
Also buying into a notion of a homeland needing to be a settler colonial state.
You could have a secular Palestine where immigrant Jewish people could live in peace as equals alongside Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians, who had a long period of relative peace before the founding of the settler colonial project.
And if you can lose claim to a historical homeland if conquered well enough, why would there be any substance to return native lands anywhere else?
You could argue that there isn't, there is only a moral mandate to end the current systems of violence and take proactive measures to produce equity in material conditions.
Not to be pedantic, but you did write just the broader enforcement of property rights and not private property rights, and I approached it from that broader perspective.
In fairness I did say "like the cpc did" which implied the distinction between personal and private property, but Im glad we've cleared up the source of misunderstanding.
The concern is that under this ideal scenario, what happens if you leave you house for a longer term? How does this take temporary moving into account? Examples: I get temporarily transferred for a year to a new city by my job and I fully intend to return to my home after this assignment. Rental homes/apartments aren’t a thing, so I must either buy a dwelling there for a year, or stay in a hotel for a year. If I buy a dwelling, I now own two properties as long as I can afford to pay both mortgages. More likely, I am forced to sell my long term home because I cannot rent it out for that year I am gone. If I do keep it, can I own two separate pieces of personal property or does one become private property because it is not in habitation? I have deprived someone of buying one of them by owning both, and ownership of empty dwellings is usually complained about just as much as renting them. Will my personal property rights be enforced on my vacant home for that year? Should the government allow someone to move in and use my house for that year without my permission or compensation, and only resume enforcing my rights when I move back in? Am I forced to sell and hope that I can rebuy my home when I return? A similar dwelling in an adjacent area may not factor against the sentimental value of a family or generational home. Are any of these parts different if I become temporarily disabled and move in to another person’s home for care. What about a year in the hospital or rehabilitation facility? I don’t think any of these concerns are all that absurd, even if they would affect a small percentage of the population.
This is entirely contextual. If there is enough housing for people to do it at the rate they're doing it then sure, own two properties at once if they are for personal use. If there is not enough housing then let someone who is going to be there for a year use it. You could also create rights to first usage in the case of letting someone (an exchange student for example) use a residence for a period of time while you retain long term usage rights.
But also, historically speaking, the communists aren't coming after your toothbrush. This stuff is a drop in the bucket and they don't care.
Also why would you still be paying a mortgage in this system? The idea is decommodified housing. Housing is assigned based on needs, not currency.
which is another reason to view it at a somewhat extreme angle.
You could view private property as an extreme angle that has been normalized. The idea of private property rights is the bedrock of capitalism, which is rapidly committing ecocide on the one planet humans are able to access.
Literally no ethnicities deserve settler colonial apartheid states.
It effectively communicates the message in my opinion.
Why would anyone pay property tax if property rights stop being enforced?
Monopoly of violence, same as always. I also said stop enforcing private property rights. Personal property is distinct.
A home doesn't stop being your personal property when you leave it for work, don't be absurd.
You must be conscious about how much of a stretch that rhetoric is, right?
Yeah, it really sucks that colonial violence makes anticolonial violence inevitable. Israel needs to stop doing colonial violence so that the anticolonial violence stops. It will never stop until the colonial violence stops or Israel exterminates all Palestinians.
This isn't a threat this is just an understanding of historical materialism.
If you actually cared about Jewish people and weren't interested in Jewish death to advance a settler colonial political project you'd be calling for an end to Israeli apartheid.
I heard some germans even donated supplies to it
Pretty dark joke given the post war famine that the USSR suffered due to the nazi rampage.