I understand the logic of it, my point is that this is a trust/honesty based system which leaves you cornered. Here are some problems with it:

• placing a low value on my house to pay less taxes exposes me to a hostile buyout
• placing a realistic (e.g. around average for the region) price doesn’t solve the previous problem. I’m still in danger of a hostile buyout, while also paying higher taxes. What’s more, even if everyone else plays fairly, this additional % someone else paid to take my house is now the minimum added on top of their own valuation, driving prices up.
• placing an unreachably high price would bankrupt me as I can’t pay the taxes, so there is no scenario in which this works out for me
• given a realistic and unequal economy, there will be those who can’t afford to place a higher price on their house, i can just go and buy them out on sale, then rent them back to them (that one might sound familiar)

The fault in your assumption is 1. that this would discourage corporations from buying up; and 2. That you live in an equal and just society;

That’s not how this works. A better solution would be to tax more aggressively second+ homes and severely limit what corporations can invest into.

Why should a company be able to profit off of second hand housing? This isn’t a commodity, but it’s treated as such. Companies should be able to build new housing (for sale) and own housing only for the purposes of, say, housing their employees if they so wish. I simply see no benefits to allowing companies trade living spaces like stocks.

My example was about how people get together to make revolutions happen, not wether they were good/bad or what ended up happening after. I chose those examples because in both cases a revolt was long time coming but people couldn’t do it until they were organised

Look at history. You need a tipping point, but more importantly, you need organised masses and a vision/visionary to get behind.

That’s how Lenin got in power. It’s how the French decapitated their king. That’s why there was a rally at the White house when trump lost the previous election but nobody is doing anything against him now at the states while he dismantles the country.

Thinking that individual European countries have local identities and states or others don’t is absolutely a lack of understanding and not a lack of context.

That’s not at all what I said. It’s in fact the opposite and because of that I said I can’t argue with most of your previous points.

On your latter point, I do lack some understanding on the native reservations, but as far as I know they’re still under the governance of the US to some extent. My assumption was they can at least participate in the ‘democracy’ which affects them immensely. It’s very sad that’s not the case…

I can’t and don’t want to argue with your point, however in the faceless internet space unless you specify you speak from the name of a specific subgroup, the blanket ‘American’ is implied. It’s not a lack of understanding, it’s a lack of context.

Contrary to that Europe doesn’t have one cohesive identity, your example of Orban is multiple country borders removed from me personally. I don’t have the power to vote for/against him or influence that country in any way, where that’s different in your case.