No, they don't. When it comes down to it individuals posess two things, property and freedom.
To collect on a valid debt, they can take your property or they can take your freedom and make you some form of indentured servant.
So taking some form of property is the only real alternative.
Are you suggesting that they should take a different type of property before taking someone's home? Sounds reasonable enough except then you're allowing the government to decide what they take which could be even worse.
Then the county can take property in excess of $100k for just a few hundred dollars of unpaid taxes.
You're ignoring the fact that the property is only being forfeited after the person has been given a reasonable opertunity to pay that debt/
That means that all those other reasonable options like borrowing money against the value of the property are available to the property owner. The property owner gets to decide how the debt is paid, unless they are unwilling or unable to do so.
The punishment far exceeds the 'crime', wouldn't you agree?
If the punishment far exceeds the crime, why isn't the property owner not paying their debt to avoid that result?
I agree that forcing the forfiture of property must be a last resort. The property owner needs to be given an opertunity to pay those debts in another way within a reasonable period of time. But if they don't pay them, the state does need to have the power to collect that debt.
In this particular case the Supreme Court ruled that the state did not give Mr. Jones a reasonable oportunity to pay the assessed taxes before confiscating his home, and ruled that the taking was unlawful, and after reading the opinion through more throughly and getting a better understanding of the situation, I believe agree with their reasoning.
Do you own your property or do you lease if from the government?
If part of your definition of owning property is that it cannot have it taken from you to pay your debts, then I agree that by that definition no one owns property in the United States or probably in any country for that matter.
The fourth ammendment protects us against unreasonable property seizures. It is not an absolute protection against seizure.
Property rights of individuals are a fundamental pillar of a free society. A working society requires responsibility on the part of the government and the people. A society has to be able to force the payment of legitimate debts. The individual needs to have the responsibility to pay those debts has to be given the choice of how those debts are paid. However, when the individual is given the opportunity to pay those debts and does not, the government has to force the issue.
To protect the rights of the people it's important to try and limit the government's flexibility in what they sieze to things related to the debt, such as the property on which the taxes were assessed.
I do agree that it is possible for exessive taxation to create a situation where the government is making payment of those taxes impossible and is effectively stealing property from the people.
I don't accept your premise. It certainly is not the "only" solution available, nor is your assertion that the only alternative is anarchy.
My premise isn't that it's the only solution, or the best solution, or that it should be used before until after genuine attempts to avoid using it are attempted first. My premise that it has to be within the power of the government, or you don't really have a government.
In less restrictive governmnets personal property rights are stronger and the government's ability to take property are more restricted, however you really can't have a government that doesn't have the ability to take property at all.
I quit reading after that line since your words prove that you believe we OWE the government our property and freedom.
It is unfathomable to me that you cannot come up with any alternative to property confiscation for a relatively minor 'debt'.
If we contract for work and services and you don't pay, I can put a lien on your property but I cannot take your property. Why should the county or state confiscate property when individuals cannot?
Calling you a statist is an insult to fascists so I won't do that.
Now having read more of your thoughts, your view of property, rights, and liberty seem pretty twisted.