February 2014 Archives

It was in 1978, after property taxes had doubled in less than a decade, when Proposition 13 was proposed and passed in California.  It is well known that politicians have never seen a tax they did not like; hence, Prop 13 has suffered from finger pointing and criticism every year since.

Ted Harris wrote a piece in the Nevada Journal entitled The Property Tax: The Unfairest Tax of All (Aug. 27, 2005).  He asked the question "What can a property owner do to defend against ever increasing assessed property values and tax rates?  The answer is "Not much."  He points out that Nevada law allows a tax system with virtually no limit as to what cities and counties can extract from the home owner each year.  "Property taxes," he goes on to say, " have become confiscatory."

Prop. 13 applies a 1% tax on the selling price of homes.  So every time a home is sold, the property tax is adjusted.  A survey here reveals the average period of time a homeowner holds a piece of property is five years; hence the property tax has been adjusting itself accordingly.  So, when your local politician criticizes Prop 13, you might ask:  "If you bought a $10-million home in California, is the  $100,000 in annual property taxes simply not enough?!  

A person is driving at night on an empty and desolate road but is forced to stop because a traffic light turned red.  There is no car in sight and, apparently, not a creature stirring anywhere.  The question occurs: "should the driver be allowed to proceed through this light even though it is still red?"

Federal law prohibits the possession, use or sale of marijuana within the boundaries of the United States.  The question arises: "should individual states be allowed to pass legislation allowing its use or sale within its borders?"

Existing law prohibits anyone from obtaining a driver's license if unable to provide satisfactory proof his or her presence in the U.S. is authorized under federal law.  But many California Legislators argue that illegals may well be poorly trained to drive which creates a hazard on the road and unlicensed drivers cannot obtain insurance.  And, of course, the fear of being arrested results in constant anxiety for illegals while driving.  The question arises: "should illegals be allowed to acquire a driver's license in violation of federal law?"

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Because this nation is faced with the threat of massive murder and mayhem by terrorists, the question arises: "should the National Security Agency and other policing agencies, be allowed - without first obtaining a warrant - to listen in on telephone conversations, e-mails and other types of correspondence in violation of the Fourth Amendment?"

To add a bit more levity to this issue, let us peek at Athens in the year 399 BC.  Socrates spent much of his time offering to Athenian youth his brand of Socratic logic.  His anti-democratic views along with his persistent questions in pursuit of wisdom resulted in younger students questioning the decisions of their elders.  It did not help his case that two former students, Alcibiades and Critias, had twice briefly overthrown the democratic government of the city.   

Many Athenians became outraged at the impudence exhibited by these young students which led to a charge by the city that Socrates was corrupting the youth as well as failing to accept the gods recognized by the state.  Incredibly, Socrates was convicted and sentenced to death in what would appear to be minor offenses.

Taken from Plato's "Crito," Socrates was offered an opportunity to escape to a neighboring country.  He responded by asking, "Do you think that a state can exist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of the law are of no force, and are disregarded and set at nought by private individuals?"

And so it would appear the act of running a red light in the middle of nowhere with no one around to witness this minor crime is of no consequence . . . or is it?

And where does the overthrow of law end?  Can a society ignore some laws but accept others merely because they fit into current plans?  

In the end, it is a matter of integrity!