the only reason that income taxes are more intrusive on one’s information is because income is easier to hide than property – or even more precisely, because it is possible to hide income, while hiding property, such as real estate, is virtually impossible. So I think that if you look at it this way, it makes income taxes preferable for the taxpayer for yet another reason.

I don’t see it; the conclusion you’ve reached is at odds with the argument you’ve offered in support of it.

As you’ve pointed out, income taxes provide a great opportunity for a state power grab. Tax something which can be easily hidden and you’ve got an excuse to demand information about the intimate details of the public’s affairs, in order to check that it isn’t being hidden. If you think it is preferable for the taxpayer to have to continually account to the state, then I can see the point you are trying to make, otherwise, I’m at a loss.

I don’t own me, I am me. Start from a nonsense concept and you are likely to reach a nonsense conclusion.

Yup, you are trolling. Go away.

Quite correct – if the state demands even 1% of your income, it can demand details of all your income.

And if the state demands even 0.1% of your property – it can demand details of all your property (in order to work out what 0.1% would be).

And demanding details of all property you own is even MORE intrusive than demanding all details of your income.

If you are talking about property in the wealth tax sense, then I would say that they are on a similar level of intrusiveness. If you are talking about property in the sense commonly used when talking about property taxes – i.e. land and buildings, then they are far less intrusive.

So (by your logic) we should go over to excise taxes – accept we already do (20% sales tax – and vastly higher on booze, baccy and fuel).

No, as sales taxes are more intrusive than taxes on land and buildings.

No property rights over your body? So no “right of exit”?

I don’t own me, I am me. Start from a nonsense concept and you are likely to reach a nonsense conclusion.

I suppose it might just be possible for people to be free while living in a society where every item and piece of land is owned by the state

You appear to be confusing two very different scenarios:

1. An arrangement with no property rights.

2. An arrangement with strong property rights, all held by the state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MkVuFOMnco

The whole thing was supposed to be shot at the Feminist movement (of the A. Dworkin/Germaine Greer/Simone de Beauvoir/ etc. type–that is, the “Feminazis, the “all males are just naturally oppressors, marriage is slavery, a wife is ‘a whore to her husband, a slave to her children,’ in fact all sex is rape and all pornography is rape”–you know, the PC-type DOWN WITH MEN! Feminist Movement.) They think that any woman who enjoys being a wife and mother and thinks her husband is the bee’s knees is not really a woman, in the same manner as race hustlers think that Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas are not really black. These are the people who somehow fail to be very upset with the Islamics who think nothing of throwing acid on misbehaving women, or stoning them to death. “Fail to be very upset”? No, they fail to even notice.

However, I see that Wikipedia does say that the term “monastery” can refer to a home for monastics of any sort, either monks or nuns. (Perhaps that’s because the word “nunnery” has become a little, well, tainted thanks to Mr. Shakespeare?) But monks are still only men, right?

The bad old days of restricting monasteries to male monks are gone. Now nuns are different. They’re female, you see, and Female Pride would NEVER permit the unwashed–nor even the washed–feet of The Oppressive Gender to cross the convent’s threshold. (Unless, of course, the nun is Héloïse and your name happens to be Abélard. That would be different.)

WHEN did this happen?? My DE-AH! Haven’t you heard Simone de Beauvoir? Andrea Dworkin? (Oh dear. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin )