Property Taxes are Rent Payments to Government

HARBESON: What your ‘rent' is really paying for

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — I hope those of you who have property here in Floyd and/or Clark County remembered that today, May 10, is the due date for making your semiannual rent payment to county government.

Most of you probably don’t think of your property tax payment as rent. You believe that you own property you purchased. But think about what would happen if you don’t pay this rent — eventually people who represent the government will kick you off and take full possession. If this is considered a legitimate act, then do you really own the property?

Government supporters say that your property tax statement is like any other bill you receive in the voluntary market for services provided to you. But does that match with reality? When other organizations, even monopolies like water and electricity, provide services you are charged for actual usage. Most importantly, if you do not pay these bills, the service providers do not kick you out of your home and take possession. They claim ownership only for the value of services you used.

Ahh, but some people will say that the government provides services people use that cannot be “shut off” or denied due to nonpayment. Therefore, you must be forced to pay your “fair” share. Somehow (don’t ask me to explain it) the value the government itself assigns to your property directly relates to your usage of those services.

But even if you accept this as justification for kicking people out of legitimately purchased property if they don’t pay the rent, how do you draw clear lines for specific items the rent payment is applied to?

For example, take a look at your government rental bill — the largest item will likely be schools. Certainly there are many who never incur any usage of schools, and heavier users do not pay more. Should a childless couple be kicked off property they purchased if they don’t pay for schools for the six kids their neighbor chose to have?

And what about grandiose building projects? Should an individual be kicked out of her home for not funding huge enclosures of unusable space like the atrium at Floyd Central High School? Or perhaps the force is justified when such extravagance can help architecture firms boast about winning design awards?

Some people say we need to pay rent for the so-called justice system. Should people be kicked out of their homes for not funding extra costs that are the direct result of the ineptness of county prosecutors who make serious errors in judgment related to a never-ending murder trial? (Someone really ought to write a book about that one.)

Should people be forced to fund a “donation” for operations of a Sister Cities program in Clarksville? This program already has many corporate sponsors and if the people involved are so passionate shouldn’t they be going out and getting more sponsors rather than taking other people’s money?

Jeffersonville Township spent thousands of dollars to fund a specific church’s food pantry, yet many local charities run food pantries. So how is it valid to kick people out of their home for not funding this particular pantry?

This is just a sampling of how your money is being spent by local governments. If you want to really dig in for yourself, you can see details for every local government entity by going to http://gateway.ifionline.org.

Some of the items I mentioned above are paid directly from the rent you pay to the county so you can live at your current residence even though you thought you owned it, and some may be paid using other forms of taxation, but they all demonstrate how government will expand far beyond any initial justifications that people are merely being sent bills to pay for “services” used.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has been told she has lots of empty space between her ears so she’s decided to offer it for rent. If interested write to Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.

Indiana Vouchers and Special Interest Groups

Latest newspaper column...

HARBESON: A special interest in school funding

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — As I read about the Indiana State Teacher’s Association’s continued attempts to invalidate Indiana’s new voucher law, using funding of religion as a primary argument, I began to wonder if they feel kind of strange watching it play out in the courts. Do they notice the irony of relying on people who don fancy robes and claim the authority to interpret vague verses in documents written before any of us were born?

I doubt it. I don’t believe ISTA is really that upset over the religious aspect in the first place. The religious argument just provides a convenient means to try and get what they want, which is to avoid competition and keep the government money earmarked for educational purposes to themselves.

As a matter of fact, I’m sure that any ISTA supporter who has taken some time to think about it must secretly be at least a bit thankful that most of the private schools who accept vouchers in Indiana are run by religious institutions. After all, the religious objection helps to avoid using other arguments that can’t as easily mask their concern about losing their monopoly over the money.

If the voucher-accepting schools were overwhelmingly secular, then it would be much harder for ISTA, an organization that supposedly supports education, to object to a government program that increases educational options to meet a variety of individual needs.

On the other hand, I’m not so sure the motives of the voucher defenders are so great either. This group certainly includes people who are also happy to have various verses within the government bible we call the Constitution interpreted in their favor so they can get control of the funds.

One of the main points the voucher proponents use to defend against the religious funding argument is that vouchers are not given directly to private schools. They are given to individuals so it’s the family, not the government, who may make the choice to give the funds to a religious institution.

In other words, when the parent plays middle-man, the money is somehow cleansed of its true source. It is no longer considered money that has been coerced from those who may not wish to fund religious institutions. I’m not sure exactly how this cleansing process takes place — but I’ve never understood money laundering either.

Voucher proponents love to push the idea that it’s all based on private, individual choices and parents are supposedly granted complete independence in how they use the vouchers. There’s one problem though — parents are limited to options that have been specifically government-approved. This is not an independent choice.

Of course true independence can only happen when parents are spending their own money or funds voluntarily given to them by another individual/organization that places no strings on how the funds are spent. That’s what granting independent choice means — no strings.

Vouchers do not and cannot operate like that.

If we step back and look at the voucher controversy from a big-picture perspective, we can easily see that this battle is no different than any other government battle. There are two sides supporting various special interest groups who want control of government money.

ISTA works for teachers who benefit from government-run schools. Voucher proponents work for people who benefit from voucher-accepting businesses. Neither side seems concerned about the coercion of the individual at large who is forced to fund any of these government-approved educational options.

Both sides apparently accept that it’s valid and moral to coerce individuals to pay for the education of other people’s children and unfortunately, as long as no one works to end government involvement in education, this is what we get — special interest groups fighting over who gets access and control of the funds.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is part of a special interest group that is especially interested in getting rid of special interest groups.

Summer and Educational Freedom

This week's column.

HARBESON: Those uncontrollable summer goose bumps

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — This time of year I always experience honkin’ goose bumps — the kind that comes from anticipation. This happens as summer draws near because I know the compulsion and forced association inherent in government schooling will soon disappear.

Sure, it’s a temporary reprieve, but it’s still exciting to watch even a short-lived shift toward a more healthy society — summer is the one time of year kids are not treated like prisoners.

I love to watch what happens in the summer when all families of kids who fall under compulsory attendance laws regain temporary control over their lives and are free to make choices about where their kids spend their days. This freedom creates a situation where people in the community interact with each other on a voluntary basis and work together to meet various needs that may arise when compulsory schooling is temporarily absent.

In the summer, many families look for places where they can send their kids during the day, or for a week or more at a time, and in response to that demand, individuals, organizations and businesses offer options for those families. People in the community see the market demand that exists in the summer and they work to fill the demand.

In this atmosphere, families and especially kids, are treated differently. They become customers who are respected by the people who have activities to offer. Those who want to help families by offering various options will work hard to create opportunities that are inviting and enticing because the relationships are voluntary, not coercive.

Organizations and businesses offer a huge variety of programs and options in the summer. The offerings cater to the kids because there is no need to focus on meeting government-imposed requirements. There are day-camps, overnight camps, classes, special interest clubs, etc. As a matter of fact, so many options are available that collecting and organizing them has become one of the services offered to help families. Magazines and newspapers even build entire issues around summer activities for kids.

I get goose bumps looking over what is offered in the summer to families who are temporarily freed from compulsory attendance laws because the summer season proves what educational freedom can look like. It’s easy to see how educational options can exist without the stringent government compulsion and control we see the rest of the year.

These camps, activities and classes exist even though no one is compelled in any way. They are set up with the family, not government, in mind. During the summer, people are focused on making connections with each other and not on meeting government requirements, and families enthusiastically share options they have found to be valuable.

No matter what the focus might be of a summer activity, if the kid is enjoying himself, learning becomes simply a natural part of the experience. In addition, many of these options create opportunities for older kids, whether they are volunteers or employees, giving them lots of valuable experience.

The summer focus on children as individuals seems to keep people from fighting as much with each other over school board antics, teacher union contracts, state funding formulas and other conflicts that arise naturally from government control of education.

If you haven’t really thought about how society literally changes in the summer, why not put yourself in observation mode this year? See if you can notice the change that happens when the government-imposed compulsory attendance schedule ends. Observe how kids are treated by organizations that don’t compel attendance in the summer and compare that to how kids are treated by the government school system that compels not only attendance but funding too.

Maybe you will see what I see — that when the entire premise of helping kids learn changes from being government enforced to family controlled, people have no problem cooperating and interacting with each other and the community becomes loaded with a wide variety of offerings based on interests — which leads to learning that sticks.

Will there ever be a day when this kind of respectful and voluntary interaction between families and those offering educational resources happens all year long? Who knows, but I get goose bumps just thinking about it.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson inadvertently disturbs the peace this time of year due to her honkin’ goose bumps. Write her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.

Here Comes Da Judge

Judge Steven Fleece has responded to my two recent columns about the State Board of Accounts Audit for Clark Superior Court 3, that implicates him in a few misdeeds. See the first column by clicking here. And for the second part, click here. 

Here's an excerpt to his response:

"At the risk of boring everyone except Debbie Harbeson and myself, I must take issue with some of the comments made in her columns concerning the State Board of Accounts audit of the Clark County Alcohol and Drug Services Program. First of all, however, I wish to thank the News and Tribune for what seemed to me a fair and balanced account of the controversy in the April 5 edition.


 I also want to commend Mrs. Harbeson for taking the time to read my response to the audit. I could do without the sarcasm. But, I suppose when you view the world from her “all government is evil” libertarian perspective, some of what I wrote in my response really does seem “hysterical” to her. Personally, I think it’s hysterical every time she compares any governmental restraint on personal conduct, no matter how reasonable, as the government “holding a gun” to somebody’s head.... Click here to read more."

Voluntaryism Defined Video

Here's a short video introduction to voluntaryism that I thought was interesting. I like to see people working on producing and creating short videos like this because it's an easy way to spread around basic information that people may not have been exposed to before.

Judge Fleece Pulls Out Dictionary Again

 This week's column...

 HARBESON: More fun with fees

SELLERSBURG — Last week, while discussing the recent State Board of Accounts audit report for Clark County Superior Court No. 3, I focused on Judge Steven Fleece’s disagreement with the SBOA that no users were inappropriately charged user fees. This week I want to focus on Fleece’s disagreement with another SBOA contention — that the funds were also spent inappropriately.

As he did in his previous response, Fleece pulled out his dictionary. This time Fleece used the dictionary to broaden the interpretation of the word “intervention” so he could make the case that it was valid to expand drug and alcohol fund expenditures on prevention.

This was important because Fleece wanted to defend “the subsidy of youth sports leagues.” Government officials were “donating” drug and alcohol program user fee funds to sports organizations under the assumption that they prevent drug and alcohol abuse.

This brings up lots of questions, one being what about the many, many other youth activities available? And why only team sports? What about sports that focus on individual accomplishments like running, Karate or rock climbing?

Clearly the decision to broaden the scope in order to justify spending money on such items creates difficulties because it ends up with government officials favoring some groups over others. In addition, it is difficult if not impossible to provide evidence that any of these activities actually provide a direct causation to preventing drug and alcohol abuse, let alone proving that one type is more effective than any other.

After all, we all know that jocks are not conspicuously absent from weekend keggers.

Broadening the scope of this program put government officials in a position where they were “donating” to a “good cause” and since lots of benefits accrue to elected officials who “donate” money that is not their own, it’s easy to see why they would justify boosting the fund by charging user fees to nonusers.

Another troubling aspect of drug and alcohol program expenditures is the spending that was done for the benefit of various government departments. In the 2008 audit report for the County Council, we’ve already learned that government officials deemed it appropriate to spend user funds on new carpeting for judicial offices and in this report there were even more items of interest.

One was binoculars for the Department of Natural Resources. You may be wondering how that relates to the county drug and alcohol program. I don’t know but my guess is that they decided that someone needed to keep an eye out for drunken squirrels in the park.

The second purchase was for a lawn mower, and it’s easier to imagine how that got in there. My guess is that someone mentioned “grass” and when Fleece looked it up in his dictionary, he saw a common slang usage he could use to show a relationship to the drug and alcohol program.

As I read this audit report discussing appropriate spending of funds created for a very specific purpose, I found myself thinking about the recent tornadoes that slammed into Clark County. Many of you donated money to help and took advantage of the choice some organizations offered that allowed you to specify that your donation be directed to that organization’s tornado relief fund.

So, how would you feel if your donation specifically marked for tornado relief was spent on new drapes for offices of the administrators?

How would you feel if the organization you supported used your funds to subsidize a board member’s wind chime club and justified that purchase by saying, “well when we looked up the word ‘tornado’ in the dictionary, we saw that wind is involved. These chimes create sounds when wind blows so we decided to broaden our interpretation of ‘tornado relief’ to include anything that could warn people that wind is blowing.”

Ridiculous? No more so than the government spending drug and alcohol program user fee funds on football equipment.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson says that reading SBOA reports on the drug and alcohol program is driving her to drink. Write her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.

My Constant Battle with Hypocrisy

Ever since I started digging into libertarian philosophy I’ve struggled with hypocrisy. Once I truly understood and came to terms with the fact that government is an entity that exists because of the threat of violence, I did not want to support the state. Also I did not want to use or participate in anything the state controls, because it’s all backed up by the violence. I felt that I would be a hypocrite if I did.

I spent lots of time in lengthy debates with other self-described libertarians over specific actions one could or could not take, if one wanted to adhere to the philosophy of non-aggression. I tried to create specific rules in my mind, not just for myself but for others too. For some reason it was important for me to declare that “I (and anyone else) would be a hypocrite if I (we) used, or participated in, xyz.”

It didn’t work. I found gray areas all over the place. But now I’m slowly coming to terms with the fact that we are limited by the society that exists today. Yes, there is the risk of rationalizing an action one wants to take, yet I don’t think it helps to constantly self-attack or attack others, particularly those who already get that the state runs on violence. We are all just trying to live our lives as best as we can.

There are choices others make to work with the state that I would not do because it would be crossing a line I just could not cross. And on the other side, there are actions others take to avoid the state that go far beyond what I would do. We all have to deal with our own personal experience, abilities, history and current life circumstances that related to how we may choose to interact with government.

I’m trying to relax more about my possible hypocrisy because it’s just not doing me any good at all. It’s not helping me to live the life I want to live. Ironically my constant worry about hypocrisy in relation to government is making me less free than before I learned all I have learned over the past 10 years or so. And if I try too hard to avoid accusations of hypocrisy I also might be stopping myself from helping others who could use help and are also limited by the society we currently live in.

On this subject, I was comforted by a recent podcast of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio. Here’s an excerpt that really spoke to me. This is from FDR Podcast 2122, “Liberty Chat.” (This excerpt comes at around the 58:30 mark but the entire podcast is excellent.)

Someone asked if it was a conflict for libertarian anarcho-capitalist to pursue a law degree and here’s an excerpt of what Stefan said:

“No, no, I think that we spend a little too much time worrying about ‘should I take this student loan’ or ‘I’m working with a company that works with a company that works with a company that has a contract with the department of defense’, live your life and be happy! If you want to be a doctor in Canada that means you gotta join the socialist system then be a doctor, be happy with that. If you want to be a lawyer, go be a lawyer. You know, let’s keep our moral searchlights and lasers pointed directly at the people who have or cheer the guns and not worry about what we need to do to find our way through the thickets of statism with all of this stripy predator surrounding us. So I think we gotta cut ourselves a huge amount of slack and not worry about our own moral choices so much because I think once you have a good understanding of morality it’s kind of impossible for you to do any significant wrong. And as long as you’re speaking out against the system, I mean I could care less what you do with it because we all have to survive. And not just survive but actually have fun, you know, like enjoy ourselves,…”

I have been listening to FDR podcasts since 2007 and it appears to me that he has softened his views on our interactions with the state too. The main message I get from him presently is that we need to relax more about the way things are now and realize the move to a voluntary society will be a gradual thing, a “multi-generational project” as he says.

His focus on peaceful parenting as the means to this end really resonates with me. I will still continue to tell the truth and point out problems as I see them but it makes me less concerned about any possible hypocrisy in myself and others living within the limits of the current society, and much more hopeful about the future.