Humanities desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 27

us congressional districts

what is the largest city in each us congressional district? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.171.235 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not so easy to answer, because some districts have more than one city, while some cities have more than one district - New York City, for example. The article List of United States congressional districts has a fair chunk of useful info on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

property tax

Can property tax be properly characterized as "rent to the State"? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

No, because the state doesn't own the land, except as a sovereign right. Plus, property taxes are charged on other things that aren't real estate or land, such as cars. Property tax is basically a tax on the existing value of some bit of property, be it land, or a house, or a car, or some such. The state isn't claiming the right to property tax because it owns the land in the same way a landlord does. It claims the right to do so because it has sovereignty over that land (or car, or house, or whatever). --Jayron32 05:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens if you do not pay the tax? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The State will file a tax lien on your property. This can have an unhappy ending. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might eviction be one of those unhappy endings, as in when one does not pay one's rent? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Generally not; since the state does not own the land, it cannot evict you from it. Generally, a tax lien only places a restriction on sale of the land, you need to pay off the lien before you can sell it, but you still own the land you have not paid taxes on. Additionally, the state may place you in prison for tax evasion, but you still retain title to your land you did not pay taxes on. The state can force you to sell your land to the state under eminent domain, but it must reimburse you "fair market value" for that land, so it isn't evicting you from your property in the way that a landlord does. So no, in absolutely no way is a property tax like rent. --Jayron32 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the Fee simple article. Most land real estate is "fee simple owned"--at least in the US, and assuming you are from the US. As that article points out "fee simple ownership" of land is the most complete form of ownership short of allodial title. Fee simple ownership of land is subject to at least four government powers: taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. In other words, if you own land fee simple you truly own it--you do not rent it. But your ownership is not the same as sovereignty. The state still has certain powers, such as taxation. Pfly (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case and for a person deciding whether to build a boat and take up the responsibility of defending it on the high seas against all, versus paying rent to the State (or having to defend real property with allodial title in the event of revolution for instance) the idea of a boat as the superior choice might not be such a wild idea after all. 71.100.6.153 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Well, if your ONLY requirement is to avoid paying property taxes, you may be able to do so. However, your scenario is unreasonable for several reasons:

You will need to make port at sometime to take on supplies, etc. In order to legally use a port, you would need to have a boat that is properly registered. It need not be in the nation of the port you intend to use, but it should be registered somewhere, and the county that you register it with will likely charge you an ongoing annual fee for registration, functionally identical to paying annual property tax.
You could remain entirely unregistered, but the only people that do that are pirates. You could, I suppose, take up with a group of Somali pirates, but that has its own dangers which I would think it would be worth it to pay some taxes to avoid having to deal with.

Some people have chosen to live stateless lives, but this again brings on its own set of problems. --Jayron32 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My property tax is far larger than my mortgage, If I do not pay my tax/rent to the state, they will certainly evict me and sell my home to someone else. I scoff at the notion that the "benevolent" state would let me stay in my home if I did not pay the property taxes. Thus the state is effectively my landlord, even though I hold title to my property. Edison (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If your land can be taken away for failure to pay some fee, whatever they call it, then you are effectively renting/leasing it. Saying you "own" it is just a meaningless word. I also say that about those who have a mortgage on their property and claim they "own" it. Stop paying the mortgage and you will soon find out who really owns it. In the US, one family even lost their house due to a water leak, which caused huge water bills to be charged, that, when unpaid, became a lien against the house, eventually leading to forfeiture of the home. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both something else entirely though. If you have an active mortgage, you don't own the house, the bank does. They're just letting you stay there while you pay them back. Failure to pay them back is no different than bouncing a cheque and expecting the store to let you keep the TV. The water leak example is also a separate issue - they incurred a huge debt and couldn't pay it back. In that case, taking the house actually proved the contrary of your point- they couldn't have lost it if they hadn't owned it. Stuff like taxation and eminent domain are the places where ownership becomes much more murky. Matt Deres (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could characterize property tax as "rent to the State", and it is an interesting way to put it. But in everyday speech people make a distinction between, for example, renting a car and owning a car--even if they are making car payments and the true "owner" of the car is some bank. Likewise for real estate--there is a meaningful and useful distinction between renting a house and owning a house--even if you have a mortgage and a bank could repossess the house. The ultimate sovereignty lies with the State, of course. So pedantically speaking no one really and truly "owns" a house, or a car or that matter. So sure, you can characterize property tax as "rent to the State". It is an unusual use of the word "rent" and evokes anti-state, anti-tax connotations. It sounds like rhetoric to me. Nothing wrong with that. But to be pedantic, property tax is tax, not rent. Pfly (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have an active mortgage, you don't own the house, the bank does." That's just not true. You own the house, and you own an obligation to pay the debt that is secured by the house. Collateralizing a property does not transfer ownership; all the obligations and privileges of ownership are with the mortgagee. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This actually varies on a state-by-state level. In title theory states, the bank or other mortgagee owns the property and the mortgagor owns only the equity of redemption (i.e., the right to obtain full ownership upon paying off the mortgage). In lien theory states, which are the majority, the mortgagor retains ownership of the home. John M Baker (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist Internet Archive

Marxist Internet Archive lists 50 volumes of Collected Works here. However, the page says:

Students and scholars should be aware that we have only transcribed most of the first 10 volumes, up to 1851 plus occasional pieces from elsewhere of the Marx Engels Collected Works and that there are 50 volumes in all.

Looking at individual volumes, they look complete with consecutive page numbers. Why do the MIA owners understate the scope of the project? Has anybody noted any missing portion from the 50 volume print edition? --117.204.88.191 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it has been a work-in-progress for some time. The other volumes are incomplete—click on them and you can see that only parts of them are available as links and not just listings. Even Volume 10 does not have its appendices transcribed. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why it's taking so long ? Perhaps they pay those hired to scan the pages regardless of how much work they do, thus removing any incentive for them to work hard ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription =/= scanning. From a brief glance at the linked site, it's evident that the on-line material is not in the form of scanned images of printed documents, but has been transcribed, i.e. re-keyed and otherwise formatted, a much more laborious process, but one which may enable added values such as consistent presentation, editorial commentary, and ease of searching. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler--India--Subhas Chandra Bose---questions

Could / did Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian Nationalist leader , ever actually neet Hitler face-to-face ? Is there any historical evidence / photograph of that ? What was Hitler's personal views on India , especially India's freedom struggle against the British rulers ? Is there anything in writing / in interviews etc ? What was Hitler's personal views on Gandhi and/or Tagore , the Indian National Poet ? ( Moussolini once personally net Tagore in Rome & spoke high of him .) If Subhas Chandra Bose was an ardent lover of democracy , why he repeatedly joined hands with forces like Nazi Germany , Imperialist Japan & Stalinist Russia ? ? where can i get answers to my above queries ? d chowdhury , Calcutta , India <email deleted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdpnkr (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Indian history is poor, but it looks like it is a classic case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend": Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were all three opposed to British Imperialism (not necessarily for the same reasons, though). Bose saw them as convenient Allies to overthrow the British yoke. Bose did not intend that Germany, Japan, or the USSR should ever rule India and was not endorsing their political systems. He was simply looking for ways to marshall military force against the British. (Similarly, the USA and the UK did not ally with the USSR during World War II because they loved Stalin or wanted his system of government.) See also, realpolitik—pursuing politics with a focus on practical aims, not ideology. There are many, of course, who see this approach to politics as morally problematic and practically dangerous, as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netaji (i.e. Bose) met with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Note that he had first travelled to USSR, and sought Soviet aid for a rebellion in India against the British. Stalin has rejected the request, and Netaji then travelled to Berlin (this was during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Germany and Japan were more eager to support his endeavors. Netaji was transported from Germany to Tokyo through German and Japanese submarines. Japan in particular support gave military support for the INA, and the Provisional Government of Azad Hind was generally recognized by the Axis powers. Clearly, Netaji fought on the side of the Axis in the war. However, it is said that he condemned the German attack on the USSR (the sole person to do so publicly in Germany at the time), his speeches issued whilst in Tokyo are clearly socialist, etc.. There is little to suggest that Netaji would have taylored his political profile to suit Nazi or Japanese imperialist ideals.

If you are interested in more literature on Netaji, the Forward Bloc office on 49/C, Chitaranjan Avenue, Kolkata has a small book shop, with collections of Netaji's speeches and biographies. Their website, has some of the material also ([1]). --Soman (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a host of frequently-debated Wikipedia articles on Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian National Army, the Indische Legion, Azad Hind, etc. (look at each article's own "See also" and "External links" sections for more). George Orwell's wartime broadcasts, essays and journalism frequently discuss Bose (Orwell's branch of the BBC was directed to India specifically to counter pro-Axis propaganda). The Aryan theories held by Hitler and the SS, following various 19th and early 20th century philosophers, saw a racial connection between the Hindus and the non-Semitic European races. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Politics makes strange bedfellows." Charles Dudley Warner, 1829-1900. Despite their being brown skinned, the Nazi's might have seen some Indians as being "true Aryans." Edison (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article Honorary Aryan, but I think that most such professions were fairly insincere. The Japanese had disciplined economic and military power which the Germans could respect, but what did the Indians really have which would appeal to them (beyond being the objects of a vague linguistic mysticism centered around the word "Aryan"?). The Germans also strenuously tried to stir up trouble among the Arabs in British-dominated areas (Hitler met with Haj Amin Al-Husseini, and Germany was involved in the Rashid Ali coup in Iraq), but I doubt that most prominent Nazis had any very meaningful respect for Arabs... AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the original poster puts some interesting questions, which are so far unresolved. Much has been said about Gandhi's letter to Hitler, but what was Hitler's attitude on Gandhi? Did Hitler (or any other prominent figure of the Axis) comment on Indian politics? (bear in mind that Gandhi and Bose belonged to opposing sides in the Indian national movement, did the fact that the Axis put their weight behind Bose/INA impact on how they commented on the other streams of the Indian national movement?) How did Axis media comment on the Quit India Movement? --85.228.202.72 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Mein Kampf, Hitler referred to Indian freedom fighters as deluded 'Asiatic jugglers', and argued that they would never be able to end the British rule in India. Also:

...I, as a man of Germanic blood, would, in spite of everything, rather see India under English rule than under any other.

Halifax would later report on a November, 1937 conversation with Hitler in which he suggested a solution to British problems in India: first "shoot Gandhi"; if that didn't work shoot a dozen leaders of Congress; if that did not suffice, then shoot two hundred more and so on until order is established.

Hitler was jealous of British rule in India, and in August, 1941 would state:

The basic reason for English pride is India....What India was for England, the territories of Russia will be for us. If only I could make the German people understand what this space means for our future.

—eric 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography question - another

please help me identify the place which

Because of the local topography , has a unique claim to fame, a claim that revolves around altitude
and a familiar metallic element.

I have looked at highest places and gold and silver or similar metals but could not zero on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.89.250 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is really enough information to go on. There are a lot of high-altitude mines in the world—of gold, copper, etc. It could be a whole host of places. It could be other planets. It might not be about mining at all. Who knows? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And all the other very similar questions that get asked on this desk. Is there some weekly riddle in a newspaper or something that gives very vague clues about a place that you have to guess? --Tango (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds very much like the kind of questions asked on PRI's The World's Geo Quiz. http://www.theworld.org/geo-quiz/ Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potosí is claimed as the highest city in the world and is home to a famous silver mine. Matt Deres (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leadville, Colorado. Pfly (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compton, California. From what I've gathered, it's very high and full of lead. --M @r ē ino 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]