Zoran Mamdani’s Campaign and New Tax Law in NYC

Zoran Mamdani successfully campaigned last year, pledging to make life in New York City more affordable by embracing democratic socialism.

Now, the impact of that promise is coming to light.

New York’s new pied-à-terre tax took effect this month, significantly affecting the luxury real estate market. It’s becoming clear that wealthy buyers aren’t just going to accept this change. Many might delay buying, shift their finances, change where they live, or simply refrain from participating in Mamdani’s experiment altogether.

This reality seems to have surprised many in charge of the city.

And therein lies the issue with democratic socialists. They often appear astonished when people act differently than the rather straightforward projections of financial forecasts.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has offered a rather dubious perspective. He suggests complicating the discussion so much that it becomes difficult to seriously engage with socialism.

Recently, on “The Dean Obidala Show,” he claimed that the police are an example of socialism because they are funded by taxes. “When you call the police, guess who pays for them? It’s your tax dollars,” he argued. “What does that mean? It’s socialism, folks!”

He even included firefighters and public services in the mix.

No, that’s not socialism; it’s simply government.

Ellison didn’t exactly provide a robust definition. Rather, he employed a cheap rhetorical trick, expecting listeners to nod in agreement without deeper thought.

When everything related to government is labeled as socialist, it implies that socialism needs no justification. You already support it, whether you want to or not. Welcome to an imagined revolution, unless you plan to extinguish fires, apprehend criminals, and repair roads on your own.

Joe Rogan has also echoed similar sentiments over the years, unfortunately. Just last year, he remarked that the fire department is socialist because everyone contributes to it and thus benefits.

I appreciate Rogan; he’s not corrupt like Ellison. Yet, he seems a bit lost on this topic. It’s not exactly malicious, but given his extensive interviewing of knowledgeable individuals, it’s getting hard to overlook.

Many followers might hear him and think, “That makes sense.”

No, it doesn’t. That perspective is fundamentally flawed.

Even worse, both Ellison and Rogan are unwittingly suggesting the same narrow choice: socialism or anarchy.

The idea is that either the government takes on roles like hiring police, building roads, and ensuring clean drinking water, or individuals must bear those responsibilities themselves.

In simpler terms—it’s not that you can just opt out. It’s a choice.

Understanding Socialism vs. Limited Government

Socialism focuses on ownership and control over resources. Meanwhile, government duties include collecting taxes, enforcing laws, and maintaining order—tasks that were conducted long before socialism became a term.

According to Ellison and Rogan’s reasoning, all historical figures who collected taxes would fall under the socialist label. Ancient Rome constructed aqueducts, and thus it was socialist. Figures like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton employed customs officials, making them socialists too. It seems Louis XIV was simply waiting for a worker uprising in Versailles.

Importantly, the option is not anarchy. It’s limited governance.

Often, conservatives err in presenting government itself as the enemy. But it isn’t necessarily the enemy. I mean, poorly operating government is detrimental. Unlimited governance is a problem. Good government fulfills its rightful role as defined by the law. This notion has deeper historical roots compared to the simplistic idea that all tax-funded services are inherently socialist and that resisting socialism leads to chaos.

Ellison surely knows this distinction. This knowledge makes his statements misleading. He opts to confuse the issues, perhaps to serve his own political agenda.

If police and firefighters are deemed socialists, that suggests there’s no need to defend other socialist policies or programs; if you accept those services, it’s as if you’ve conceded to socialism.

The intellectual backdrop of this movement is currently influencing urban areas across America.

The Language of Politics

Ellison manipulates language for his political surroundings, while Rogan’s indifference to these concepts resonates with many. Meanwhile, Mamdani’s approach neglects economic principles, assuming morality can trump the market’s laws.

These individuals, while not deeply serious, present a real danger.

They wield authority, have a platform, and possess influence that far exceeds their grasp of reality. They often equate applause with valid arguments and soundbites with sound theory. They speak confidently, maybe believing no one will hold them accountable for their errors.

The reality is that homeowners, renters, workers, and taxpayers bear the real burdens—expecting them to just overlook repercussions isn’t viable.

The new proponents of democratic socialism are not merely misinformed about economics; they show a lighthearted recklessness toward the power they possess. They advocate for socialism and chaos, fearing that promoting limited governance could undermine their agendas.

Many cities and states are perhaps not equipped to govern effectively. Shine on, you decaying republic!