Freedom Infringing Freedom

[shanek]

Exactly. Rivers systems that are dammed and utilised are going to have management issues, including yours. It is inevitable.

When did I say they wouldn't have management issues? I merely said that they are responsible for any damage to property or property values of their downstream neighbors that result from their use.

 

[Earthborn]

If you dam a river and deprive others of their property value, then you are damaging their property.

Okay, a more general question: what constitutes damage to someone else's property? Can it mean anything that might decrease the value of the property?

Suppose I have a house and I paint it bright pink. Few people want to live next to the ugly pink house, so the property value of the neighbours homes is decreased. Could I have damaged their property so much that they have legitimate claim against me?

Or suppose I have a normal house but I sell it to a black person. The people in the area don't like black people, so the property value of the houses drops. Have I deprived these people of their property value enough to take me to court?

 

[kimiko]

Every private school that I've visited has been wheelchair-accessible.

If it wasn't a government regulation and was left up to the market, most private schools wouldn't bother because it wouldn't be cost efficient.


on nursing staff needed by schools:

He would require that even if he were to stay at home, so how is this an extra expense for the family or school?

The family probably has learned to provide much of the care themselves out of necessity. Most parents do not go to school and stay with their children all day, so someone else, someone qualified, would have to perform those duties instead.


on society:

It exists in the human mind only.

I'm not sure that's true. Separate societies have real effects on the individuals within them as evidenced by the different socializations that give rise to different behaviors.


taxation for services:

How do individuals not receive a direct benefit from the services you mentioned?

I, and most people, have never recieved direct benefit from fire departments for example. I have never had a building I was in catch fire or any building near me. I'm not sure I've ever benefitted directly from police either. I've never had them respond to an emergency call, assist me after a car wreck, or protect me specifically from a criminal. Roads, certainly, but I pay taxes on that directly when I pump gas.

username: It is those children who raise the average cost. shanek: Not really; it depends mostly on the skill levels of the teachers. Most special-needs children don't require any more in the way of infrastructure, materials, etc. than any other child; and I, as a father of an autistic child, should know. They just need a specially-structured class, which, if anything, is easier to provide in a private school as most of them have a lower student-to-teacher ratio.

The average cost for a special education student yearly is $16,921, compared to $7,552 for an average student. (from the NEA) Most private schools don't offer special education precisely because it would cost too much. Only seven percent of all special ed teachers in the US work for private schools. (US Dept. of Labor). The average salary of a special needs teacher is higher than for general teaching staff. Yet the average salary of private school teachers is over 20% lower than public school teachers. Private schools can afford the smaller student-teacher ratio by paying the teachers less. How exactly would the market compensate for the discrepancy if there was no pubic schooling?

 

[shanek]

Okay, a more general question: what constitutes damage to someone else's property? Can it mean anything that might decrease the value of the property?

Might decrease? No. You would have to show actual damages. In addition, anything that would directly endanger the property or anyone on it.

Suppose I have a house and I paint it bright pink. Few people want to live next to the ugly pink house, so the property value of the neighbours homes is decreased. Could I have damaged their property so much that they have legitimate claim against me?

No. That's way too subjective and a bit on the silly side.

Or suppose I have a normal house but I sell it to a black person. The people in the area don't like black people, so the property value of the houses drops. Have I deprived these people of their property value enough to take me to court?

Same here. There has to be actual damages.

 

[shanek]

If it wasn't a government regulation and was left up to the market, most private schools wouldn't bother because it wouldn't be cost efficient.

The private college that I went to was 100% wheelchair-accessible for something like 20-30 years before the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Yeah, sure, cut off a source of potential income. That's a good business practice...

The family probably has learned to provide much of the care themselves out of necessity. Most parents do not go to school and stay with their children all day, so someone else, someone qualified, would have to perform those duties instead.

Okay, now you're just making stuff up.

I'm not sure that's true. Separate societies have real effects on the individuals within them as evidenced by the different socializations that give rise to different behaviors.

That's just the effect of one's environment. By your definition, urban New York and suburban North Carolina are two separate societies, and therefore the Federal government shouldn't be forcing one way on both of them. You just shot down your own argument.

I, and most people, have never recieved direct benefit from fire departments for example.

And, probably, neither from your car or fire insurance, either. You still pay it.

I'm not sure I've ever benefitted directly from police either.

Keeping crime down doesn't benefit you?

Roads, certainly, but I pay taxes on that directly when I pump gas.

Theoretically. Check your state's budget and see if it actually works that way.

The average cost for a special education student yearly is $16,921, compared to $7,552 for an average student. (from the NEA) Most private schools don't offer special education precisely because it would cost too much. Only seven percent of all special ed teachers in the US work for private schools. (US Dept. of Labor). The average salary of a special needs teacher is higher than for general teaching staff. Yet the average salary of private school teachers is over 20% lower than public school teachers. Private schools can afford the smaller student-teacher ratio by paying the teachers less. How exactly would the market compensate for the discrepancy if there was no pubic schooling?

Wow. What an astounding collection of completely meaningless statistics. What GovCo pays for education is not at all comparable with what private schools charge. you 7% statistic is meaningless without a lot of supporting items, such as % of overall teachers in the private sector and teacher/student ratios. The "average salary" claim is just completely wrong; teachers are much better paid in private schools. That's why there are no shortage of applicants for private schools while public schools are suffering teacher shortages.

 

[kimiko]

The private college that I went to was 100% wheelchair-accessible for something like 20-30 years before the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Yeah, sure, cut off a source of potential income. That's a good business practice...



Okay, now you're just making stuff up.



That's just the effect of one's environment. By your definition, urban New York and suburban North Carolina are two separate societies, and therefore the Federal government shouldn't be forcing one way on both of them. You just shot down your own argument.



And, probably, neither from your car or fire insurance, either. You still pay it.



Keeping crime down doesn't benefit you?



Theoretically. Check your state's budget and see if it actually works that way.



Wow. What an astounding collection of completely meaningless statistics. What GovCo pays for education is not at all comparable with what private schools charge. you 7% statistic is meaningless without a lot of supporting items, such as % of overall teachers in the private sector and teacher/student ratios. The "average salary" claim is just completely wrong; teachers are much better paid in private schools. That's why there are no shortage of applicants for private schools while public schools are suffering teacher shortages.

Your private college is a single example, give something more substantive. Your opinions on business practice aside, different disabilities require different levels of accomodation and private schools have no incentive to accomodate all students, unlike public schools.

This: "The family probably has learned to provide much of the care themselves out of necessity. Most parents do not go to school and stay with their children all day, so someone else, someone qualified, would have to perform those duties instead." is making stuff up? How about a real response. I'll give you an example- a student requiring a feeding tube. Guess what, the parents take care of that themselves at home, but that isn't an everyday activity for most people, and who is supposed to do it for the child at school? It is an example of nursing care. I have known only one girl whose mother attended school with her; she was partially paralyzed.

New York and the Carolinas wouldn't be considered different societies but different cities within American society. But take the practice of bowing in Japanese society. Not every Japanese person has to bow, and a portion of the population could stop entirely, but the practice wouldn't disappear as a characteristic of their society. There's certainly no physical thing forcing them to bow, but the society seems to exert itself in what behaviors bring the approval and scorn of the averge other citizen.

I pay car insurance because I want to, but I have never benefitted from having it. If I was in a car wreck, then I would benefit. I pay fire insurance because, again, I want to just in case, but I have never benefitted from an unused policy.

The police don't "keep crime down", they respond to crime. Perhaps that has an deterent effect, I don't know without statistics to prove it. I have weapons. There's no reason I couldn't defend myself in the event I ever had to.

If my statistics were wrong then you have to prove it. The reason people choose to work at private schools despite lower pay is they like the religious nature of the school, they like the environment, they are given discounts on tuition for their own children, etc. Private schools suffer a shortage of teachers too. In my private school, they had a terrible time getting qualified teachers and often hired people without teaching licenses out of necessity. My private school charged $3000 per student per year, but it was heavily underwritten by the catholic churches in the area, the diocese, and their separate long-standing scholarship fund. The episcopal school in town charges almost $6000, is also underwritten by a scholarship fund and church contributions. Per student expenditures in my county in the public schools is only $4,641 per student. (Texas Education Agency)

There is a well on my parents' property. The water is unusable without reverse osmosis though because it is contaminated with salt from oil drilling. The people who drilled have to money to fix the damage, but they don't. In Texas, the 'rule of capture' applies to groundwater, meaning people can do whatever they want with the groundwater on their property, regardless of what that does to anyone else.

 

[shanek]

Your private college is a single example, give something more substantive.

Your claim is that it isn't cost-efficient. My example shows that it certainly can be.

Your opinions on business practice aside, different disabilities require different levels of accomodation and private schools have no incentive to accomodate all students, unlike public schools.

I've seen a lot of public schools, and I've seen a lot of private schools. If anything the private schools do a better job of this.

How about a real response. I'll give you an example- a student requiring a feeding tube. Guess what, the parents take care of that themselves at home, but that isn't an everyday activity for most people, and who is supposed to do it for the child at school?

A feeding tube hardly requires a nursing degree. Anyone can manage it by following a simple checklist. I don't know why you think this would require specific personnel to handle. His teacher or the school nurse or someone can do it in a couple of minutes.

New York and the Carolinas wouldn't be considered different societies but different cities within American society.

No, according to the definition you just gave, they're different societies. Sounds like you want to eat your cake and have it, too.

But take the practice of bowing in Japanese society. Not every Japanese person has to bow, and a portion of the population could stop entirely, but the practice wouldn't disappear as a characteristic of their society. There's certainly no physical thing forcing them to bow, but the society seems to exert itself in what behaviors bring the approval and scorn of the averge other citizen.

Okay: In NC, it's customary to make eye contact and even friendly gestures such as a nod to a stranger you pass on the street. Doing that in New York can easily lead to a confrontation.

You're killing your point here.

I pay car insurance because I want to, but I have never benefitted from having it. If I was in a car wreck, then I would benefit. I pay fire insurance because, again, I want to just in case, but I have never benefitted from an unused policy.

Isn't the peace of mind a benefit? What about fire extinguishers and smoke detectors? You buy those in the hopes of never having to use them. Why do you think the free market operates by this ridiculous requirement of yours?

The police don't "keep crime down", they respond to crime.

Ridiculous. Without the police to respond to crime, there'd be nothing stopping criminal gangs taking over.

If my statistics were wrong then you have to prove it.

Uh, no, it's YOUR claim. Stop shifting burden of proof.

The reason people choose to work at private schools despite lower pay is they like the religious nature of the school, they like the environment, they are given discounts on tuition for their own children, etc.

Uh-huh; they're called "benefits." Your point?

Private schools suffer a shortage of teachers too.

Not any of the ones around here that I've talked to. They're not all run like Catholic schools.

There is a well on my parents' property. The water is unusable without reverse osmosis though because it is contaminated with salt from oil drilling. The people who drilled have to money to fix the damage, but they don't.

Can't you sue?

In Texas, the 'rule of capture' applies to groundwater, meaning people can do whatever they want with the groundwater on their property, regardless of what that does to anyone else.

Then that's a problem with the law not properly recognizing property rights.

 

[username]

Your claim is that it isn't cost-efficient. My example shows that it certainly can be.

Shanek,

You are countering statements of fact, backed up with evidence, with personal ancedotes. Surely you realize this is not a valid technique when debating a point?

I've seen a lot of public schools, and I've seen a lot of private schools. If anything the private schools do a better job of this.

Ancedote.

A feeding tube hardly requires a nursing degree. Anyone can manage it by following a simple checklist. I don't know why you think this would require specific personnel to handle. His teacher or the school nurse or someone can do it in a couple of minutes.

The claim was that private schools can charge less for tuition because they are free to not admit students with above average cost requirements. Your position is this is not true. Your personal theories on how things *could* be done aren't relevant to the validity of the claim.

Uh, no, it's YOUR claim. Stop shifting burden of proof.

It isn't his claim, it is mine, made a page or so ago. I stopped discussing the issue with you when you asked for proof that it costs more to educate children with special needs than those without special needs. Simple deductive reasoning can prove this claim so no additional "proof" should be necessary for such a claim. Generally I drop out of discussions where simple facts that are easily determined with basic reasoning are rejected without "proof". It is usually a technique employed to wear someone down with the underlying idea that if a person stops discussing the issue, the one still talking at the end is the "winner".

Now, you are insisting that Kimiko prove his/her claim. (S)he already did. Kimiko backed up my claim with stats from the NEA. At that point a claim has been made and substantiated. If you still reject the validity of the claim then it is your burden to show that the stats presented either a. dont support the claim or b. the stats should not apply for some reason (like they are factually incorrect or something).

What you did was counter with another ancedote and now you insist Kimiko provide proof of the proof while you yourself have not provided any proof for anything you have asserted other than personal ancedotes and claims to have sufficient knowledge in this area that your words should be viewed as authoritive.

Dude, in all seriousness, if your desire is to have meaningful discussions you are going to have to start offering something meaningful. Your debate style isn't debating at all, it's asserting stuff with no supporting evidence and then you flat out disregard evidence presented to you by countering with ancedotes.

So let's go back a bit, shall we?

The claim is that the lower average cost of private education in comparison to public education is partially due to the fact that private schools can refuse enrollment to kids with special needs while public schools cannot. The average cost to educate a student with special needs is significantly higher than a child with no special needs.

The point you have expressed disagreement with is that it costs more to educate a special needs child. Kimiko has provided you with numbers from the NEA.

Other than ancedotes, what evidence do you have that the NEA numbers are wrong?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay, a more general question: what constitutes damage to someone else's property? Can it mean anything that might decrease the value of the property?

Suppose I have a house and I paint it bright pink. Few people want to live next to the ugly pink house, so the property value of the neighbours homes is decreased. Could I have damaged their property so much that they have legitimate claim against me?

This actually happened in my neighborhood when I lived in a rather pretentious little city in Tennessee. It wasn't even a particularly upscale subdivision (evidence: I lived there), but people really hated the pink house. It wasn't even "bright" pink, just regular, though non-pastel, pink. (It was about FF99CC, if you know your web colors.) The neighborhood association raised a fuss, and there was talk of a lawsuit, but it fizzled out because of how much the lawyers would charge. The city was rather notorious for ordering businesses to modify their appearance--they made BP change to a more subdued green-- but they declined to get involved over people's houses, at least for the color.

The neighbors certainly felt they had a legitimate claim, anyway. Who knows how the case would have gone? I think they might have won.

Didn't Madonna have this issue when she had one of her houses painted white-and-red stripes?

 

[Beth]

Username,

I just wanted to bring up one point here in regards to your discussion. Generally, I agree with you. Overall, I like the liberatian philosophy, but I do feel that it doesn't handle certain types of problems (like pollution) very well.

However, in regard to education and public schools, there is a commonly held assumption that public or tax funding of schools is tantamount to government operating those schools. Certainly it currently is, but vouchers - a much debated alternative to public schools - allow separation of funding from operation of schools thus allowing society the benefit of a well educated populace while simultaneously allowing market forces to find and provide the most cost effective use of the funds available.


The problem of special needs children comes up frequently in discussion regarding vouchers, but it's not actually much of an issue. In fact, in my local area, which does not have vouchers generally available, public schools contract with private providers who can handle severely disable children more effectively. It's still expensive, but presumably less so than the public schools trying to handle those children themselves.

 

[shanek]

I just wanted to bring up one point here in regards to your discussion. Generally, I agree with you. Overall, I like the liberatian philosophy, but I do feel that it doesn't handle certain types of problems (like pollution) very well.

Well, considering the complete and abject failure of government in this area, it wouldn't have to solve the problem very well to be better than what we have now.

However, in regard to education and public schools, there is a commonly held assumption that public or tax funding of schools is tantamount to government operating those schools. Certainly it currently is, but vouchers - a much debated alternative to public schools - allow separation of funding from operation of schools thus allowing society the benefit of a well educated populace while simultaneously allowing market forces to find and provide the most cost effective use of the funds available.

No, vouchers would only open the door for the government to start attaching strings to the funds once private schools become dependent on the money. That's how it happened with government funds to private colleges. Educational tax credits are a much better way.

The problem of special needs children comes up frequently in discussion regarding vouchers, but it's not actually much of an issue. In fact, in my local area, which does not have vouchers generally available, public schools contract with private providers who can handle severely disable children more effectively. It's still expensive, but presumably less so than the public schools trying to handle those children themselves.

The real problem with the concern of special-needs students is the insistence that it costs more to educate them, therefore private schools can't do it. Ridiculous! So what if it costs more? If there were no government schools, there would be a buge demand for this service which could easily overcome the costs. Maybe not every single private school could cover them, but there's no reason to think they'll be left out.

 

[username]

Username,

I just wanted to bring up one point here in regards to your discussion. Generally, I agree with you. Overall, I like the liberatian philosophy, but I do feel that it doesn't handle certain types of problems (like pollution) very well.

Agreed. I favor libertarian philosophies as well. It is my private belief that most people who are aquainted with libertarianism (as opposed to some socialist web site's caricature of it) prefer it to other political philosophies most of the time.

However, in regard to education and public schools, there is a commonly held assumption that public or tax funding of schools is tantamount to government operating those schools.

True.

Certainly it currently is, but vouchers - a much debated alternative to public schools - allow separation of funding from operation of schools thus allowing society the benefit of a well educated populace while simultaneously allowing market forces to find and provide the most cost effective use of the funds available.

I go back and forth as it relates to vouchers. On the one hand it could allow market forces to improve the efficiency of the educational system, but on the other hand as long as it is government who hands out those vouchers it could also serve as a means for government to exert increasing degrees of control over both public and private education. It all depends upon how it is implemented and I really distrust the politicians to implement it in a way that deprives them of some measure of control. Also, most private education is religious in nature and so vouchers present a potential church/state seperation issue. So, I agree that vouchers can be good, but it all depends upon how they are implemented.

The problem of special needs children comes up frequently in discussion regarding vouchers, but it's not actually much of an issue. In fact, in my local area, which does not have vouchers generally available, public schools contract with private providers who can handle severely disable children more effectively. It's still expensive, but presumably less so than the public schools trying to handle those children themselves. [/B]

Well, I agree that many public school systems do not handle special needs kids very efficiently. In the place I used to live every school was set up to handle special needs kids. This was very expensive and didn't produce great results because the budget was split among all the schools. This resulted in every school having outdated, barely functional equipment. School A would have large class sizes and school B would have only a few kids per teacher. Where I presently live the setup is a bit different. We have several schools, but only one gets the majority of the budget for special needs kids ranging from those who do not speak English to those with learning or physical disabilities. The school district allows parents to send their kids to any school in the district on a first come/serve basis rather than the more common model of assigning a school based upon where the family lives. Naturally those parents with special needs kids send their kids to the school set up for them.

This is very efficient in most regards, but one downfall is the busing system. All kids in the city are picked up by a bus, delivered to a single school parking lot and are then segregated into groups based upon what school they go to and get on the appropriate bus and are then dropped off. This means that the bus trip to and from school is about an hour whereas it could be about 15-20 minutes with the more common model.

As a result the busing system is not as well used as it would be. Oh well I guess.

So, I agree that the public school system could be improved by greater cooperation with the private sector, but I get the sense from those who buy into the libertarian philosophies hook, line and sinker that they envision completely replacing public schools with private ones.

This is not something I would favor because private schools can refuse students for reasons of handicap, religion, economic class or whatever factor they wish (to an extent). Public schools cannot. In order to ensure that every child has the opportunity to receive an education I do not believe that private schools alone can be counted on to do the job because they are by nature exclusionary schools while public systems are inclusive.

Both systems could stand to benefit from greater cooperation, but moving to having just one rather than both is not a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Beth]

I go back and forth as it relates to vouchers. On the one hand it could allow market forces to improve the efficiency of the educational system, but on the other hand as long as it is government who hands out those vouchers it could also serve as a means for government to exert increasing degrees of control over both public and private education. It all depends upon how it is implemented and I really distrust the politicians to implement it in a way that deprives them of some measure of control. Also, most private education is religious in nature and so vouchers present a potential church/state seperation issue. So, I agree that vouchers can be good, but it all depends upon how they are implemented.

Certainly, there are some big potential problems depending on the implementation. No solution will be without problems. The main issue for me is one of governmental control. Personally, I have no problem with people using vouchers at religious schools if they so choose but I realize it is an issue for many people. However that problem will be settled, one way or another, by the supreme court.

So, I agree that the public school system could be improved by greater cooperation with the private sector, but I get the sense from those who buy into the libertarian philosophies hook, line and sinker that they envision completely replacing public schools with private ones.

This is not something I would favor because private schools can refuse students for reasons of handicap, religion, economic class or whatever factor they wish (to an extent). Public schools cannot. In order to ensure that every child has the opportunity to receive an education I do not believe that private schools alone can be counted on to do the job because they are by nature exclusionary schools while public systems are inclusive.

Both systems could stand to benefit from greater cooperation, but moving to having just one rather than both is not a good idea in my opinion.

I agree. I don't think one system would be adequate. We need public schools just as we need public funding of education. On the other hand, I think the combination of both public and private funding for both private and public institutions works quite well in our secondary educational system to provide an array of options at various levels of quality and price.

I would like to see more government support of individuals wishing to further their education, but our current administration seems to be cutting back in this area rather than increasing it.

 

[Beth]

Well, considering the complete and abject failure of government in this area, it wouldn't have to solve the problem very well to be better than what we have now.

The 'solutions' that I've read proposed by libertarians regarding pollution strike me as being worse that what we're doing now. I do agree that we haven't got a particularly good system now to deal with such problems, but I'm reluctant to endorse an approach that seems even worse.

The posts I've read in this thread regarding the relatively simple issue of smoking in a public restaurant have only confirmed my opinion that the Libertarian approach is not a particularly good one, even though I agree that laws forbidding it are undesirable.

Beth

 

[shanek]

The 'solutions' that I've read proposed by libertarians regarding pollution strike me as being worse that what we're doing now.

Really?

First of all, we'd stop the biggest polluter of them all: the US Government, which pollutes more than the top 5 chemical companies combined.

Second of all, we'd employ a system of property rights to protect pollution allowing for organizations similar to the Anglers Conservation Association in England.

Third, we'd get rid of as much government land as possible, as that's where most of the pollution takes place since companies have an incentive to take care of their own property.

How would that be worse?

The posts I've read in this thread regarding the relatively simple issue of smoking in a public restaurant have only confirmed my opinion that the Libertarian approach is not a particularly good one, even though I agree that laws forbidding it are undesirable.

Why is that?

Oh, and I don't think I've said this to you yet: welcome to the Forum!

 

[Earthborn]

You would have to show actual damages. In addition, anything that would directly endanger the property or anyone on it.

Okay, since apperently a drop in property value does not count as actual damages and is too subjective and silly, how are 'actual damages' measured then? How is the property actually endangered and when is it not?

 

[shanek]

Okay, since apperently a drop in property value does not count as actual damages and is too subjective and silly, how are 'actual damages' measured then?

How about actually doing an appraisal?

 

[Earthborn]

How about actually doing an appraisal?

That changes just the person deciding the value of the property, but it does not tell us which criteria can be used to decide what constitutes 'actual damage'.

So here we have some kind of official assessing the damage. What criteria can s/he use to decide what is actual damage and what is not?

 

[kimiko]

Isn't the peace of mind a benefit? What about fire extinguishers and smoke detectors? You buy those in the hopes of never having to use them. Why do you think the free market operates by this ridiculous requirement of yours?

Ridiculous. Without the police to respond to crime, there'd be nothing stopping criminal gangs taking over.

This was the statement I was responding to : "Taxes become necessary to pay for things like courts and police/fire services, road building, maintaining public property and all the rest. This taxation, some libertarians would argue, is theft.
So, taxation itself, is depriving a person of their right to property and in some cases the taxpayer is paying for something they derive no direct benefit from. This is how modern societies, every last one of them, operate. They operate this way out of necessity. If there was another way to handle things surely there would be an example somewhere."

I have explained how I do not benefit directly from fire and police. Criminal gangs already exist, and even if they were to "take over" as you say, that is no guarantee I would ever be a victim of them. Perhaps I benefit indirectly from police in that I haven't been attacked when I might otherwise have, but that is only speculation. As it is now, my money goes to assist other society members who do need those services.

Peace of mind is not a benefit unless you suffer anxiety from thoughts of possible misfortunes befalling you. I am not so burdened, so I derive no benefit from insurance policies; I have them in case I ever need them, which I haven't.

I don't know what you meant by this statement "Why do you think the free market operates by this ridiculous requirement of yours?" as I have put no 'ridiculous requirement' on anything other than applying the definition of 'benefit' to public services and insurance policies. Having them doesn't necessarily mean I benefit from them in any form.

According to libertarian ideals, I am being robbed. You said earlier this thread "If there's ever an ambiguity, just ask: who owns the property?". If my money is my property, and I am being deprived of it for taxes on services I do not directly benefit from, perhaps you could explain how libertarians would justify this.

 

[shanek]

That changes just the person deciding the value of the property, but it does not tell us which criteria can be used to decide what constitutes 'actual damage'.

An appraiser is a trusted third party used by insurance and mortgage companies. He's not an "official" as he's not with the government. But his findings are admissible in court.