It is for their crimes that politicians are disliked

First Past The Post voting protects ignorance.

First Past The Post enables ignorant views to be protected and preserved. FPTP means that ignorant views held by the controlling powers go unchallenged and are protected. Proportional voting allows ignorance to be challenged and exposed.

The Governing powers are allowed to believe their prejudices are shared, when they are not. It also allows ignorant people to be deceived that they are popular and well liked, again, when the reverse is true. People may dislike the ruling powers because they (the rulers) are prejudiced and yet this may be misinterpreted by the rulers as selfish malice and jealousy.


First Past The Post is a criminal system because it prevents the Democratic voice being heard and protects false assumptions, prejudices. It protects Party Privilege, the privileged status of the incumbent powers.

It's not likely that they will support change; it must come from elsewhere.

Proportional Representation is more rigorous because politicians must work harder to get the votes required for power. They are placed under greater competition.

Proportional Representation is a natural right.

Banking is a fraud if loans are misunderstood

The banks exploit ignorance of the banking system by making loans that don't qualify (by a reasonable definition, in common with the colloquial understanding of the word to mean an object borrowed...) as loans. People go to the bank to take out a loan, they expect money to be taken from elsewhere so that, while they can spend more, someone somewhere else is deprived of the money. If this were the case the purchasing power would be retained. They do not anticipate that their loan will cause inflation.

If people don't understand the banking system, then banking (loans) is a fraud.

Banking is a fraud since people don't understand loans.

Socialism damages wealth

Freedom is damaged by Socialism because it prevents us from freely exchanging goods and labour. Socialist Governments damage freedom and prosperity. Socialism damages wealth.

Socialists are prejudiced against wealth

We know that Socialists hate wealth because they vote for wealth confiscation without justified reasons. Socialism is damaging because it makes living freely difficult. It also makes life unpleasant because we must work much more than otherwise, even when the work is done.

Socialism (defined in this post: Socialism* is cruel) is wanton (unjustified) destruction.

First Past The Post is good for prejudice

Proportional Representation helps to expose false assumptions because it gives the voter the option to vote for another party that is free of prejudice. If the two main parties share a prejudice, of some kind, then those that are threatened have little option. With a proportional system, people can vote for a party that fosters only prejudices common with the voter.

For example, who does the person with perfect teeth vote for if the leading parties are (both) prejudiced against perfect teeth? Ideally, they would have the option to vote for a party without the prejudice.

Proportional Representation helps to eliminate the prejudice of the main parties.

Bank deposits are a form of money

Bank deposits are a form of money as they can be accepted for payment, generally and are good to extinguish debts. People do not discriminate against bank deposits as a form of money... Money is not only cash but also bank deposits, and even Government Treasuries.

The price of cash (as the base form, perhaps?) is altered by the quantity of other forms of money in circulation. More bank deposits leads to less expensive cash.

Anything that causes inflation is a form of money.

Unpopular parties may still win with First Past The Post

First Past The Post means we must vote for a party we don't like. Parliament is not a court: Politics is not about choosing the best laws, it is about protecting interests. If Parliament were a court, then it would be in the interests of the voter to choose the most able candidate, of any party. But instead voters select their representative along partisan lines.

Because the Government has the "right" to transfer, and spend, wealth, voting becomes a matter of gaining the most from the outcome. It is not question of choosing the best laws, but of choosing the balance of a boundary dispute. This is not judgement, it is an instinct; the quality of local candidates does not matter.

So that the majority is not able to exploit the minority, it is best to have proportional representation. To avoid a landslide.

If power transfers to one party, exclusively, the rest of the population is at their whim. With a majority, they rule absolutely. Proportional Representation would mean that even the dominant parties would be required to compromise when in power. And voters would be better able to ensure that the party (philosophy) that they support is heard. Many votes go to the main parties that are cast by persons that do not share complete agreement with the party. Cast reluctantly, with regret in the hope that the recipient, the party, does not act too far outside the expectations of the voter. The vote is cast not with enthusiasm but with a sense of duty, loyalty. We are not able to reject both extremes. We choose one or other ruler, not the party of our choice, from a wide selection. Since we must choose one, we are still vulnerable to their idiosyncrasies.

If Parliament is not representative of the votes cast, it means that the interests of the parties, and Government takes precedence. Parties are able to offer a very narrow choice and yet still get elected. It does not cater for a plurality. If the choice is narrowed to two parties we must make a compromise.

Not quite a Hobson's choice but almost. The country is Governed by one or the other party, no matter if they share common faults.


Proportional Representation leads to better outcomes because there is greater pressure on the parties to improve; there are other places for the votes to go. Bad policies (parties) go unpunished because the voter has no choice but to remain loyal, to keep the other out. We would vote for freedom but we have a dogmatic electoral system. It would be a waste.

We can't vote our principles because we are obliged to vote for the party that will keep the feared opposition out.

First Past The Post does not protect the rights of the individual

It's not the local constituencies that matter, it's what matters happens Nationally...

When we vote in a General Election, most voters are intending to make their views heard on a National level, not local. Whatever the representative may achieve, is shared by all. Laws apply equally across the country. It is of no particular advantage to the voter to have a diligent and intelligent local senator, or member of parliament, since their input is only relevant insofar as it affects the Nation. What the voter wants is for National policies to be affected.

Spending time to chose a good MP is of little reward, we want a representative who will tip the balance in our favour when votes are cast. We are picking a team member, not an advocate. It doesn't much matter if the candidate is capable or not, they are being chosen for their allegiance, primarily. The intention of the voter is to influence the National outcome.

By rewarding the first candidate to gain the majority, plurality, in any constituency, in each case, it is to the detriment of the voters' intentions.

The politicians, of each side, generally vote along partisan lines not on conscience. Individual parties can easily gain an ascendancy this way. Each party will not constrain themselves, they will vote for their agenda in spite of it harming the greater good perhaps. Those under-represented, in the case of a landslide, do not have their rights protected.

Duogarchy is the outcome of First Past The Post

A true duopoly is a specific type of oligopoly where only two producers exist in one market. In reality, this definition is generally used where only two firms have dominant control over a market. In the field of industrial organization, it is the most commonly studied form of oligopoly due to its simplicity. Wikipedia 28th Dec.'09

First Past The Post results in political duopoly because choices are narrowed so as to avoid a wasted vote.

First Past The Post is not Democracy

Voting is a waste of time if you choose to have representation via First Past The Post...

There is no point in voting if you have a system of First Past The Post because the established parties will get in anyway. There is no mechanism to enforce and promote your political views, as a voter, due to First Past The Post.

A country that has an election organised to this model, is not having an election; it is a sham, invalid.

To prevent default the Government can continue to issue Treasuries

The price of bonds does not reflect the likelihood of default since the Government is able to borrow more, to pay off the debt. The Government can continue to borrow money, all the while paying off debts which fall due. This means it is possible for the State to create inflation for all time.

The interest rate is not to do with credit risk, or even Return On Investment, it is to do with the rate at which the bank is willing to make the funds available. The Government is generally willing to borrow at any rate lower than the rate of monetary inflation. The Government can set the rates that it will pay, since there will always be buyers who are willing to exchange bank deposits for (direct) Government liabilities which pay interest.

If the Government can continue to borrow, it will not default.

Proportional Representation devolves power to the individual

Proportional Representation devolves power from the (political) parties to the individual politician because it allows them to act more independently, by choosing a party that suits them. It also empowers the individual voter, because their vote now counts for more; none (fewer) are wasted.

The individual voter (and their representative) is disenfranchised by a system of First Past The Post voting.

Freedom is best for everyone

Freedom is best not only for those that are presently repressed, but also for their oppressor. Why? Because there is always a mechanism by which the immoral repression causes consequences. There is no tyranny without consequences, if not directly felt, then later, manifesting in different ways. When someone defends a tyranny, it is always to defend some narrow interest; they fail to see the bigger picture.

Very often is it precisely what is feared that is caused by the remedy. For example, financial bailouts are designed to provide stability and yet do the exact opposite. Prohibition is designed to provide safer neighbourhoods and yet transactions are forced underground, into the unlicensed economy which results in crime. Vice cannot be contained, if vice is real.

Tyranny hurts the oppressor (and their interests) as much as the oppressed.

The tyrants hurt themselves at least as much as the intended victims.

First Past The Post is bad for individual politicians

First Past The Post strengthens party politics because it gives individual politicians less possibility to choose a party that suits them. They are forced into joining one of the main parties, if they want to be a politician.

First Past The Post is bad for individual politicians, as well as for the electorate.

Proportional representation weakens party politics

When people vote, they do so more for the party than the individual politician. This is because politicians generally vote according to the wishes of their party: It is not a free vote, generally. Free votes are described as a vote of conscience, suggesting that the rest of time they are informed by different motives.

The formation of political parties allows politicians to form alliances to better advance their agenda. For example, a politician may agree to vote a certain way on an issue they don't care too much about, in exchange for a vote on a matter they care more about. Collaboration is advantageous to the individual politician and hence parties (allegiances) will form. As a result of this, it becomes more important, to the voter, to select according to party allegiance than the particular positions of the individual politician. The voter, too, acts for their own interests.

Politicians don't vote according to what they might think is the right position, they vote according to the party consensus. They betray any voter that has selected them for their individual views.


First Past The Post fails to protect the subjects from poor political decisions, since they may be shared by the other side.

Proportional representation protects the electorate from bad ideas

Plurality voting tends to result in an accumulation of power among a small number (usually two) of parties. It means that the ruling powers have less incentive to help others and are able to act in the interests of themselves. They are protected from the competitive nature of the Democratic process. It is an Oligarchy of sorts.

First Past The Post, plurality voting is not in the interests of the public because it protects the ruling politicians from being forced to modify their views. It allows prejudiced politicians to escape censure.

Proportional representation makes it easier for the public to remove politicians with which they disagree.

Plurality voting favours the State. It transfers power from the people to the State by entrenching power. If representation is proportional then unpopular views are prevented from being put into practice.


We can't get rid of bad politicians because they are protected.

Socialism is not chosen

Ships that pass in the night and speak each other in passing;
Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness;
So on the ocean of life we pass and speak one another,
Only a look and a voice; then darkness again and a silence. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

The ideology of collectivism relies on the presupposition that we are similar in fundamental ways and that we have common interests. But in many cases our interests are opposed. Certainly in the case of property rights, resource allocation.

Groups require that they are bound together in some way so as to demand their shared commonality, we have no such ties. So collectivism is irrational as there is no group such as this to speak of; a swarm is not a group.

We are not a group.

Proportional representation is more competitive

Plurality voting systems, where the winner takes all as in the case of First Past The Post, tend to encourage the emergence of two distinct parties and no others. This is because votes for smaller parties become worthless as dominant parties emerge. The result is that the voter is incentivised to vote negatively, given the choice of two parties, when they might prefer to be represented by another party. This choice is removed...

So we are not voting for our favourite party out of fear that another party will gain ascendancy. This results in campaigns which focus on the damage that will result from the election of the other party, rather than promoting the virtues of each. We vote for the least bad of a narrow choice out of necessity to keep a more feared party out.

Plurality voting is problematic for the reason that we choose instead (of what we might like) the least bad party. There is little incentive for parties to be the best, only not to be the worst, hence they do not provide good Government. They need only beat each other. In a system of proportional representation the parties compete against all others. Hence proportional representation encourages competition for votes.

To pay tax is cowardly

If land is the only form of money, then Government (to mean unearned spending) is impossible. What does the Government sell the land (in exchange) for? The Government becomes nothing more than an agency which seizes land by force, precipitated by an action such as exchange of labour perhaps, for its own ends.

No services can be provided unless the land is sold to State workers in exchange for their labour. The land is taken in order to provide services for the greater good. The land is taken, sold to State workers who provide a service.

Government is nothing more than an easy way to get rich.

The Government cannot be defeated

It will always be possible to tax trade because the exchange of fixed assets, such as land, must be public.

There must be a somewhat centralised recording agency which confirms which land is owned by whom. Whomsoever has access to this repository is knowledgeable of all transactions that have taken place. It is not possible to keep such an exchange private. It is impossible to earn an income without the State (or at least a central agency of some kind) being made aware of it.

The Government is not required

We can defend ourselves.

We do not need the Government to provide protection services, or any other services. We can defend and protect ourselves in the absence of coercion from the Government. It is natural to want to protect your community. The Government is not required to help.

A Libertarian party would give free reign to businesses

Taxes are popular because we generally do not consider ourselves (to be) rich. We think of others as rich and expect that it will be they that become the target of taxes.

The answer to the question of whether we wish to be taxed ourselves is 'no'. We do not see the Government as a threat to us individually. We would prefer the Government not to spend our money, but often vote for high taxes. We do not delegate the selection of services to third parties generally, unless for their expertise, and yet the Government is apparently popular. We don't like to say no.

We prefer to let others take responsibility for us. We like to let people look after us. The best way for the Government to look after us is to allow us to earn our own money and spend it ourselves, on whatever we wish.

Taxes are not legitimised by Democracy

Democracy enables theft by facilitating the transfer of wealth, under coercion, without penalty. Normally such an arrangement would not be tolerated, but since the Government is legitimised by the electorate it passes.

Democracy pardons theft.

The politician is rewarded by those that benefit with selection, promotion and popularity. The only people who are against this are those that do not want to be stolen from and have no wish to steal from others. Democracy removes the defences of such people. It is acceptable, under Democracy to steal from others. So Democracy is (illegitimately) above the judicial process in this matter.

Lack of rent on money enables Fractional-Reserve Banking

If money (the commodity most commonly traded) has little or no intrinsic value, as in the case of gold currency or fiat, then Fractional-Reserve Banking is possible. The reason being, that if the commodity is loaned out multiple times, the original owner is not adversely affected. They have lost nothing of value. Inability to continue to have exclusive access to, and use of the "money" does not alter their existence.

This arises when the currency has little or no practical use and is a store of value only, desired for its numismatic qualities.

This is not true in the case of rentable assets being used for money as rental income will be lost. The extreme example is land banking where land itself is used as a store of wealth and currency.

Land banking is the practice of purchasing raw land with the intent to hold on to it until such a time as it is profitable to sell it on to others for more than was initially paid. Land is popular as an investment as it is a tangible asset as opposed to shares or bonds. Wikipedia 22nd Dec.'09

To exploit its full advantage, the owner of land will make a rental income from the land at all times. It is not people for more than one person to be the recipient of the rental income, and so ownership cannot be in dispute; it is a true loan.

What is the rental income on fiat money, or even gold?

A commodity that has no significant rental income is prone, exposed to the possibility of Fractional-Reserve Banking since multiple owners can be confused as to whom the money is owned by.

The Government should not regulate markets

The Government should not regulate markets because it has no legitimate authority to say that a transaction is not in the better interests of the participants. It has no right to protect us from ourselves.

The only reasonable justification to intervene would be if another third party is harmed, and since a transaction neither influences others, or affect boundaries, it must always be acceptable. An arrangement between consenting partners hurts no one. We cannot object if our neighbour sells property to someone we disapprove of. If we object it must be due to an impact on the complainant, the plaintiff. Since most transactions do not affect the Government, there should be little, or no, regulation.

There is no crime if there is no harm. If we are consenting, that consent, provided we are not being exploited, is sufficient to remove the charge of harm. We are free to harm ourselves. We have not been exploited if we are consenting and are of sound mind.

The ability to refuse precludes the accusation that we have been exploited.

Deposit insurance encourages risky lending

Risky loans are the result of deposit insurance. This is because when a bank benefits from deposit insurance the customers (depositors) of the bank and not concerned about the viability of the loans being made by the bank. The bank has little disincentive not to make excessive loans.

But what about the risk of non-repayment, to the bank? This is not such a great risk when all other banks are inflating the money supply simultaneously; the borrower can either refinance or the loans are easy to pay back due to the inflation.

Even if the bank is eventually made bankrupt, after a credit contraction, they will have made considerable (non-refundable, retained by the owners of the bank) profits in the interim. If there are no guarantees from the Government, the bank will be more cautious because it would be a breach of contract to make loans without the consent of (deposit account) customers.

Deposit insurance enables price inflation

Deposit insurance causes inflation because (the quantities of) demand deposits affect the price cash and banks are able to issue liabilities in excess of their reserves as a consequence of the Government guarantee. Because the market expects monetisation, the bank is able to issue many liabilities without apparent consequence.

In free market circumstances, the deposits would not be allowed to rise above the available reserves because deposits (accounts) would be withdrawn and deposits would diminish. Government intervention prevents this process, allowing deposits to rise. There is no incentive for the customers to act early, in withdrawing funds, because the latecomers will get the same. It prevents a bank run. Deposit insurance enables the banking system to cause inflation.

To trust banks is irrational unless we expect monetisation of debt

The problem of Fractional-Reserve Banking is possible (only) when money* is used.

When money is not used, as in the situation when all that exist are property (land) and tools, Fractional-Reserve Banking does not arise. This is because a loan does not deprive the other (the lender) of the item's use. I am deprived of a tool when it is loaned to others, as is the case with land. Money, being a symbol of wealth only, has the property that many people can be considered (by themselves at least) the owner and this does not cause a conflict.

We find out that there is a conflict if more than one person assumes themselves to be the owner of land, or a tool. In the case of bank deposits, if more than one person is assumed to be the owner, by them, if not the bank, then there is no immediate conflict.

We do not, generally, discount the possibility that others might make a claim on the money we consider to be ours. Everyone thinks they are rich (have lots of money) but due to the inherent nature of the commodity used as money, it is possible to be unaware of the potential conflict. If only one person is able to own an asset (and would be immediately aware of a claim from a third party) then Fractional-Reserve Banking would not be possible. An example of such an asset might be jewellery worn on the person, not left in a bank.

Banking arises from the need for security which is provided by the bank. If we are able to provide our own security, banking inflation would not be possible. Permission would be sought from the depositor, before the money is loaned, since the customer will be deprived of the money for the duration of the loan.


When we make a deposit, in the present system, this is slightly deceptive to the new customer because they are given the impression of their money being safely held in the bank. In reality, the bank is only providing a promise to the customer to provide equivalent currency on demand.

It is not generally a problem for the true owner of the money, if another considers themselves to the owner. It can then be thought of as a shared tool which is typically returned to the bank. But we are not really as rich as many of us imagine ourselves to be, at least not those tardy in a bank run.

For what reason would a person want to borrow money which has no function? If I pay to borrow land I do not have the land as an asset. If something different may be returned (let's say we "borrow" a barrel of oil, which must be repaid, but not necessarily the same oil, or similarly grain...) then it is not strictly a loan. It is not a loan if we are capable to repay it with another item. If something is loaned, ownership of the object does not pass from the lender to the borrower; it is temporarily rescinded.

The true comparison is between a normal loan and being able to pay someone with bank liabilities, increasing the claims on the deposited money, which is not (strictly) consented to by the original customer.


Ownership of land means the exclusive ability to eject all others from the premises. A person with a bank deposit does not own the money in the same way. They are able to exclude the others, only if they get there first. No one would (pay, get into debt to) borrow something if they are unable to use it. In the case of Fractional-Reserve Banking the "use" derived from the loan is the purchasing power transferred from the remainder of the population.

Fractional-Reserve Banking would not be possible in a free market (with good information) because there would be a bank run. We assume fiat currency would be impossible also. There isn't a bank run because the money is possible to print.

The banks are wealthy because no one bothers to withdraw their money (fearing a bank run) because the money can be printed and subsequently the banks make huge interest revenue whilst not being able to meet their liabilities without Government support. Lenders pay (get into debt) to be able to make a purchase that is funded by a reduction in purchasing power for the other users of the banking system. Temporarily, wealth is taken from the rest. The banks have the ability to reduce purchasing power for their other customers, selling inflation, diluting deposits.

The counterfeiter is rich even if (s)he must sell the new notes for the debt of borrowers. They sell (new) bank deposits in exchange for the future repayments of the borrower; selling money.


Banks reduce purchasing power for everyone else holding the currency. Only actual printing would reduce the purchasing power? Banks are rich because they can sell demand deposits at parity with cash. Banks dilute the price of cash since deposits are generally accepted (in the market, currently) to be equivalent in value. Because, if it is rational, we expect the money to be replaced with fresh cash in the event of a crash; monetised. The rational explanation (for the inflation) is that the market expects monetisation, otherwise it is not rational, there is no rational explanation.

That banks cause inflation is irrational unless we expect the monetisation of bank liabilities by the Government.

*Money being distinct from other objects due to it being valuable for its own sake only; multiple claims on it each have value. It can be inflated.

Taxes enrich the State

Why not let people leave the tax group? The free rider problem is a problem for the tax group, not the victim.

Why not withdraw (Government) services from those that refuse to pay? And if they cannot be withdrawn (such as defence) then there is (must be) no burden to pay.

Is it right that a person is allowed to starve when there are others with food? Should we be forced to feed a person who has no food? We can steal food from others when circumstances justify it, but since there are sufficient resources, it is not justified. It is only when the victim of taxes is responsible in some way, for the hardship and lack in others that force is legitimate, as it is not initiated. For example, my hunger does not create an obligation in those around me.

We are not obligated to help others.

Who is to say which of us has provided the greater service? So then does the Government owe a debt to me for what I have done?

Government services are bad because subjects are forced to give up their assets or labour for something not chosen. It makes them do something (purchase goods) that they don't want to do. Why force people to pay for Government services? It is bad for the subject because they lose assets (land) which they would prefer to keep. If we have no land, we become subordinate to the State.

Government spending is aggressive

The Government does not need to spend money.

It would be best if the Government spends no money at all. This would mean no taxes. People can be relied upon to choose for themselves how best to spend their earnings. If the Government solution is to provide a service of some kind, rather than to restrict freedoms (defensive rights are acceptable; locking up criminals) then it is worse than doing nothing. Aggression makes things worse always. Only defensive force is effective and useful.

Taxes are a bad idea

Taxes should be voluntary, with the exception of circumstances where the subject has committed a crime affecting others. In other words, aside from a boundary dispute, if a person has not acted aggressively, they should be free of taxation.

If they are voluntary they would not be taxes. So then, why have taxes?

Taxes violate property rights.

Taxation is criminal. It's better not to have taxes.

Land is better than Treasuries to store wealth

Land is used to store wealth not Treasuries.

The role of Treasuries (Government debt) in the financial markets is very similar to cash. It is cash that provides a modest return, in exchange for being unavailable for a short time. So the question of the reliability of Government debt is not so significant, for the saver.

The Government can continue to print Treasuries and Bills because the cost (risk) of default is not a significant factor in their purchase. If the saver is concerned about default, the money will instead be invested in land.

Savers aren't worried about Sovereign debt default because they have their assets (wealth) tied up in land.


Further, since the reliability of bank deposits is dependent on Treasuries (Government debt is safer than bank deposits) then land is also superior to bank deposits (not only Treasuries) in storing wealth.

The market is either irrational or expects monetisation of debt*

Government debt is safer than bank deposits...

If the banking system remains intact, then so too would be the Government debt market. The banking system relies on Sovereign debt; banking liabilities are valuable only because they are guaranteed by the taxpayer.

The Government debt market must be sound, if bank deposits are sound. If there is a bond market crash, the same applies to the banking system and in this scenario, the only protection will be to withdraw cash and place it under the mattress. In this event, it is likely that cash too would be worthless since we would then question why it cannot be redeemed for anything of value (since Bretton Woods). If Government debt fails, the entire monetary system is exposed.

There won't be a bond market crash without a banking collapse.


People are (apparently) of the view that there is no particular advantage in holding cash in the event of a financial collapse, perhaps because of its inherent worthlessness. There is no reason then, if cash is not wanted in that scenario, for the banking system, or bond markets to collapse.

Government debt is not valuable as a consequence of the Government's ability to accrue the money from taxpayers. It is valuable because the Government has promised to repay it (at some point) in the future. The promise itself (on demand, or otherwise) is valuable. The value of Government debt relies on the possibility to print the money. The possibility that the Government might monetise the debt, by printing, is where Treasuries derive their value.

The credit rating of Sovereign fiat debt is always reliable, since the Government has the ability to print the required sum. The debt of countries with a fiat currency generally has a high (safe) credit rating.


The low credit premium (high safety) of Sovereign debt indicates the end of the currency itself because it suggests the investor is indifferent to the apparent illogical pricing if we do not expect monetisation, or that monetisation is expected. The investor either expects monetisation, or doesn't care; in the latter case, having deduced already that fiat will be worthless and isn't bothered to exploit the temporary value, until the collapse.

Anyone that cares about fiat (doesn't think it worthless, already) must either expect monetisation or is waiting for others to act. An expectation of monetisation is the only rational explanation for the price of Sovereign debt.

*Within the context of fiat money being worth more than zero, which is itself irrational, unless we expect (some kind of) redeemability to be restored.

Fiat currency is a monopoly currency

Fiat currency is not free market as a consequence of the Truck Acts which outlaw company scrip being paid to employees. It is because employers are prevented from paying their employees in this way that the official, Government scrip predominates. Other currencies are driven out of the market.

As a consequence, the Government is then able to inflate the currency with Government debt, banking inflation and directly with money printing. All of these inflations are made possible by the Truck Acts which create currency monopolies.

Taxes are violent

Taxation is a violation of property rights. If a person owns their property then taxation deprives them of this right. People pay tax not through choice, but because they have no choice not to do so and remain unharmed. Taxes come with a threat of violence. This results in coercion. We don't pay out of choice (this is the free market paradigm) but instead, out of fear.

The Government violates the Non-Aggression Principle

The Government does not help people.

The Government is a problem because it is violent and aggressive to its subjects. Most taxes violate the Non-Aggression Principle, as do most regulations, certifications, prohibitions and barriers to entry.

The Government is a problem because it violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

The Land Value Tax is a defensive tax

In praise of defensive taxes...

Defensive taxes are preferable to the alternative, aggressive taxes because they discourage unwelcome behaviour. Aggressive taxes punish innocent behavior, such as the Income Tax which punishes the exchange of labour and collaboration. The Sales Tax is also an aggressive tax.

An example of defensive taxes might include: a tax on pollution, speeding fines, parking fines, penalties for noise pollution. A charge for disorderly behaviour. The Land Value Tax would also be a defensive tax. Defensive taxes do not penalise innocent behaviour.

If we must tax, tax aggression and bad behaviour. Or at least help defend the people at the disadvantaged end of the spectrum by taxing things a careful and conscientious person might avoid.

We require only a property database

We don't need the Government. We need a database of property ownership, regulating infringements where a person has exceeded the (global) cap.

Provided we have the means to deprive someone of (ownership of) property which (the exclusion from) is adversely* affecting others, and the group, then Government is not required. If someone owns too much property, that is a risk for them. Property should be limited, for each individual across the globe.

The sale of property must be contingent on the purchaser owning no more than the Global Cap. If someone can demonstrate that land in multiple jurisdictions is owned by a person exceeding the cap, then the property owned by that person is reduced. There would be a central database.

A database of property ownership, that restricts harm to others (by hoarding property) is sufficient for a peaceful Society.

*More than is commonly acceptable.

A property cap would protect the poor

Property ownership is subject to the approval of the community. Limits to the quantity that may be owned by an individual can be derived from the opinion of the population. For example, the Society might be invited to suggest an appropriate upper limit on land ownership, according to value. Or it might be more general: a limit on the natural resources of the planet, be it land or any other.

The poor can be protected from the rest of the population with a property cap applied according to the greater wishes of the population, or the courts.

Government Services are illegitimate

The Government should not spend any money, because to do so will mean that it has violated the Non-Aggression Principle.

There is no reason to take taxes by force if the motivation is to provide services.

We assume the money has been collected under duress, not earned. If the Government has any right to transfer wealth, specifically to reduce the property held by the rich and allow it to fall into the hands of the poor... this does not extend to the provision of services.

If services are being provided by the Government it means that the wealth which pays for them has been taken from someone else. This is unfair. We should not be forced to help others.

Government spending is illegitimate and we should not have Public Services.

Treasuries are a form of money

People spend their bank deposits on Government debt. This increases the money supply, because, being a Government promise, Treasuries are a form of money. The Treasuries are now held by the person investing and the bank deposits are spent into the economy by the Government. The bank deposits remain and new Treasuries are held by the (former) depositor at the (commercial) bank. Deposits have been swapped for Treasuries and the deposits remain.

The saver swaps deposits for Treasuries and the deposits are returned into the economy.

Imagine the Treasuries are used to pay a debt (owed by the Government) to the saver. In this case, since the Government returns the deposits to the saver, this amount is unchanged. All that changes is that the saver now also has Treasuries. The saver is, in effect, paid with new Treasuries.

What would be the point in holding cash after a bond market collapse?

The bank deposits are passed onto someone else and remain in the system, affecting prices. They have been pushed out by the Government debt.

Taxation is illegitimate

Altruism is selfish... I care about you because I care about me. We care about each other for biological reasons, certainly, without the need for recourse to superstition. We needn't worry about whether, left alone we would look after each other since the species would not have reached this point otherwise.

Altruism, for want of a better word, is a feature of the species and is instinctive. When left alone we will generally help each other, certainly to an extent sufficient to ensure that everyone within a Society is protected.

People will look after each other, when left alone. It is because we care for one another that the Government (which initiates violence) is destructive. It is because we care about ourselves, that we care about others.


Forcing others to do as you wish, is not only selfish, but worse, destructive and intrusive.

Aggressive virtue would be preferable if the subject is able to choose the beneficiary of their funds; the Government would force a certain sum to be given to charity each year. If it is forced it is not charitable, and not virtuous. The (possible) virtue of the outcome of the spending does not make up for the harm caused by the theft. A benevolent thief remains a thief, unless they, or some other party, were wronged... Government spending is the outcome of theft.

It's not right to tax people. Taxation is a bad idea and a bad thing to do.

The Government are thieves

The Government use force and coercion to deprive the subjects of their belongings, and in exchange provide Public Services. This is theft.

It is easier to steal from others when you are in the majority and have more power than the rest. The rest of the population is the victim of this action. But even the top thief would be better off in a peaceful world. It is not advantageous, for you, to force others to your will. It is better to let people be. And make offers only.

Public Services are expensive

Public Services are forced upon customers.

We don't want Public Services... We don't want Public Services, because they are defined by their means of payment, which is coercion. Something that is wanted, at the right price, is offered voluntarily to the customers.

Any service that is forced upon customers will be less efficient than one that is chosen. There is no incentive for Public Services to drop their price.

The Courts are superior to Democracy

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Winston Churchill

Better than democracy would be a system where no one is violent unless in defence. This is best, and usually arranged, with use of a system of courts, organised by those prosecuting, voluntarily. The aim of the courts is to discover the truth and fairness. This is the best way to govern, without prescription.

Votes don't count in any other question of life, so why in the matter of government?

Persons are able to have contradicting views only if one or the other has made, or carries, an assumption which is not valid. If the assumptions are discovered and removed the truth remains and will be agreed upon.

We start with prejudice and end with acceptance.

Inflation results from Government intervention

The Government intervene in the banking market, by guaranteeing deposits, which gives investors confidence to trust the banks. This enables the banking system to accommodate repeated recycling of the cash deposits, thereby increasing the quantity of bank deposits, which affect prices.


Bank deposits are a Government liability.

The taxpayer guarantees bank deposits. The problem is deposit insurance not Fractional-reserve banking, which might exist in a free market.

Everywhere in life there are risks, we are free to take risks and to suffer the consequences if the the rewards aren't commensurate. The problem arises when those risks are externalised to third parties that were not aware of, and did not consent to becoming liable. The risks of banking should be borne by the customers of the bank and no one else.

The banks cause inflation

Deposit insurance causes inflation because, as a consequence, people don't differentiate between cash and bank account money, at least not in value. They trade at parity, which otherwise they would not. Without deposit insurance, new (bank account) credit would not affect the price of cash in the same way.

Deposit insurance allows people not to worry about the safety of their bank. This gives the banking system the ability to dilute the value of cash.

Banks don't lend money

It's not a loan if the lender still has use of, and access to, the money. It's a contract of a different type. In exchange for being in receipt of a deposit, the customer must agree to return a sum equal to the principal plus interest. This is establishing a debt on the part of the customer, but it was not established by the granting of a loan. Banks create credit in exchange for the debt instrument.

We owe the banks in spite of not having been loaned any money.

Discovery does not equate to ownership

Intellectual Property rests on the right, or ability to interrupt someone from copying or issuing material which contains particular information. It is concerned with the medium containing the information as much as it is about the information itself. To what extent do we have right, or ability to stop plagiarism? Clearly if the (type of) knowledge is easily communicable, such as a scientific discovery, that is more difficult to retain. Information that is less difficult to transfer, such as the skill of a craftsman or surgeon is restrained to the locality of the practitioner.

There is also the question of whether something can be considered the property of the one who invented it. For example, if I am the first to discover that tickling my toes makes me laugh, do I have the right to punish others for doing so without payment to me? And surely all information is a discovery of some kind?

Is it time to repeal the Truck Acts?

Fiat currency has no intrinsic value and so it is the same as a fetish for something that is appealing but ultimately worthless. How did we come to acquire this fetish? It originates from the times when paper currency was symbolic of the ability to redeem the paper for material goods. Naturally, its value is dictated not only by this desire (but is reliant on it) but also the quantity of the notes and coins available. It relies on the assumption, also, that others will continue to hold the same fetish.

It started out when a very reliable source of fiat (the Government) issued a currency that was redeemable for hard assets. Because of the reliability of the currency, the difficulty to copy it and the punishments for doing so, this chosen type of fiat, Government fiat emerged.

Now there is no reason not to value similar currencies issued by other agencies, provided they are secure against imitation. We can just as easily use store credit or tokens, provided they are reliable. Perhaps companies will begin to issue credit against their company as payment in the future, a reversal of the Truck Acts?

Deposit insurance was a mistake

Fractional-reserve banking is worse than counterfeiting because not only are extra bank deposits created in the process (when loans which have been spent are returned into the bank) but we also get the debt and the interest as well.

Counterfeiting is damaging because the purchasing power of the rest of the currency is diminished, through no fault of the owner. Fractional-reserve banking has exactly this effect when new deposits are made.

To create the deposits the bank must also arrange for someone to pay back the money with interest. This places a burden upon the borrower which otherwise would not be there if the money was instead printed directly.

In effect, the counterfeiters are punished with the interest payments and that if the money is not returned to the bank it must go bust. But why allow a crime (if it is a crime) provided certain burdens are overcome, to disincentivise it? They will do it anyway, it is free money after all, so why make the extra hassle of interest and repayments, why not issue a printing press to the whole population? Because they wouldn't (have) allow(ed) it if they had been aware of the implications of the deposit guarantee and re-deposited loans. They would not have transferred the power to issue currency to the banks.


If they had understood the implications, the authorities would not have agreed to guarantee the deposit liabilities of the banks. It was a mistake on their part.

Inflation is inevitable

It's easier to get into debt than to work and yet the rewards are remarkably similar; if inflation does not solve the debt, it can be written off, or funded by the taxpayer, or the fixed assets (housing, land) returned to the bank. The key, for most of the population, is to be a suitable candidate to be in receipt of debt, so to have a good credit-rating.

This reality threatens the integrity of the currency since, if it is easy to come by, then its value must be insignificant. Bank deposits enter the world with the swish of a pen. If "money" (or whatever definition you choose to describe the medium of exchange) can be so easily acquired, and buy so much, it will soon become worthless because genuine producers of wealth will reject it. No amount of (this type of) money will buy a house. There is no sufficient disincentive to get into debt.

What is there to pay back? Debts can easily be repaid by getting into more debt.

So long as this type of currency predominates, with everyone effectively able to create their own purchasing power at negligible cost, inflation is inevitable.

A new currency will emerge

Deposit creation causes price inflation because the quantity of bank deposits affects the price people are willing to pay (the goods they are willing to give up) to receive cash. Someone with a large number of bank deposits will pay less for cash.

Bank deposits mean that, certainly in normal circumstances, the owner is able to gain access to that particular quantity of cash. Their attitude to (the value of) cash will be unaffected by considerations of what might happen in the scenario of a banking failure because (perhaps, we can only guess) they don't think it is worth taking precautions... More precisely, there is not yet a credit spread between cash and bank deposits.

If there is a banking failure we might speculate that even physical cash would then be of little value.

If cash (we anticipate) retains its value in a post-crash situation then there is less reason for deposits to cause price inflation. If there is a significant credit spread between credit and cash then extra credit would not affect the price of cash to the same extent.

So then, why does deposit creation affect the price of cash? It can only be because we assume that if the banks fail, then even cash will be worthless; or that the system will never be tested.


That deposit creation causes price inflation suggests the banking system will never be tested, although it may be replaced; made obsolete since nothing can stand forever. This suggests a new currency will emerge.

Socialism* is cruel

Socialism is cruel because it exercises the initial use of force without justification, often only making recourse to vague notions of the collective good, not being properly defined. Any use of (otherwise aggressive) force can only be legitimate if there is an explanation and, effectively, a crime. To punish possession, or defence of an excess quantity of resources, such that others are needlessly deprived will not be aggressive.

If the victim (subject) is not given sufficient and satisfactory explanation of their wrongdoing, or the demonstration of how force serves the greater good, then they have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Without a harmed complainant there is no crime. To be (legitimately) subject to force, there must be a complainant whose grievances must have been found to be justified. Who is the complainant? What's wrong with the situation pertaining without force?

What's wrong with no aggression?

*Used here to mean either one or both of: i) forcing people to use certain services, ii) punishing them with taxes for an action or activity which is not in itself harmful, such as sales tax or income tax.

Socialism destroys society

Socialism destroys society because it removes the right of the individual to protect themselves, and thereby hinders their ability to help one-another. A flourishing society relies on mutual support, for what else does life require, and so this relies on individual strength to fulfil their preferences.

Powerful (derived from being free from aggression) and free individuals are required for the strength of the group. If you leave people alone a healthy society will form.

The group thrives when the individual thrives

The best way to arrange a healthy society, even species, is to allow, as far as possible, individual freedom. This is defined by the lack of aggressive, or uninvited actions. Aggression is not a requirement for a healthy society. And if society requires violence, then is it really something that we want to preserve?

The absence of violence will lead, we must assume, to good outcomes.

There is no conflict between the individual and the group, when one is served so is the other. Since no one seeks to harm the group, the only aspect in which we must desist is in harm to the individual. We must look after (protect) the individual.


To paraphrase: Take care of the individual and the group will take care of itself.

A Land Value Ceiling is defensive

A Land Value Ceiling, or Cap would not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. It would provide the means for the remainder of the population to defend their right to (gain) access to resources. This is the nature of a boundary dispute.

A Land Value Tax with sufficiently high personal allowance would provide the same outcome.

Taxes make less room for charity

Taxes remove wealth from individuals that might otherwise have been used for a charitable pursuit. This is damaging because, generally, money spent by an individual by choice goes much further (is more efficiently spent) than that spent by a third party.

From a certain perspective, every penny spent is charitable spending which (then) makes Government spending hard to justify.

The Land Value Tax encourages more efficient use of resources

The Land Value Tax encourages a more efficient use of the resources available because to hoard assets is penalised. There are only a limited quantity of resources on the planet and they should be used sparingly. The best way to effect efficient use of resources is to have a (legal) mechanism by which assets can be removed from the wealthy on grounds of access. Taxes generally rely on pursuing those who have engaged in an activity such as selling labour, or trade, before they suffer tax. The Land Value Tax enables resources to be transferred from those who are inactive, save for their defence of land.

Property taxes allow the Government to control the use and hoarding of precious resources. The Land Value Tax allows the population to retaliate against those who exclude others from too great a quantity of resources. It allows the poor access to under-used resources.

Those who fail to make good use (at a fair price, to others) of their resources should suffer the Land Value Tax.

Property taxes encourage freedom

Property taxes, such as the Land Value Tax encourage freedom because they reduce inequality. The disparity between rich and poor is (perhaps) the primary, and justified, motivation behind high taxes. When inequality is reduced by placing a limit on property-ownership, with a property tax, there is less argument for high taxes, such as income tax, which means greater freedom.

Taxes such as the Income Tax are justified (to a greater extent than they otherwise would be) when inequality is so stark. Property taxes would reduce inequality and reduce the demand for high income (earnings) taxes, which would then be less popular.

The Government should not be aggressive

Government services are not needed.

We don't require the Government to provide anything for us, we have charities and voluntary organisations already. We also have friends and family networks and the free market. If someone wants to provide a service it should be done with the option of customers to refuse.

We should be able to refuse Government services.

Aggressive taxes should be resisted. The Government should not provide services and should not be aggressive.

The Government should comply with the Non-Aggression Principle, which should be its Constitution.


We should have a Government that doesn't initiate violence. People should not be forced to pay for Government services.

There should be no fee for working

Income tax penalises labour.

Why should people be penalised for selling their labour? Why must a person pay more if they sell their labour and earn an income, than a person who does nothing? The first person has done no greater harm than the second, in fact the purchaser prefers them.

There is no reason why a person should pay a levy, or fee for the right to work.

We should be free to sell our labour, and to trade.

Only fines, not taxes are legitimate

Not even the State should initiate violence.

It would be better with no taxes at all, unless there is a reason such as retaliation against harm. But is defensive force ever a tax really? More accurately it is a charge, or fine.

So this could be the definitional difference, where used defensively, taxes are instead either a charge or a fine, no longer a tax.

People should be free to refuse all services

Only defensive taxes are legitimate.

Some taxes may be considered to be defensive, such as a tax on pollution, or anti-social behaviour; noise pollution. A property tax may be considered a defensive tax from the point of view of those who would otherwise like to have access to the property.

Fines for speeding, or other dangerous behaviour (that must affect others) might also fall into this category.

If the activity or process being taxed cannot be said to be harmful or detrimental to others, then the tax is entirely arbitrary; a forced transfer of wealth. If this is the case (the justification) then only taking from the rich is suitable, not from those who participate in any other activity.

These arbitrary taxes in fact are an obstacle to the natural re-balancing that occurs; the rich are less hungry for work and so will be less capable to earn. Income tax impedes the natural equalisation of wealth.

Government services are illegitimate in all cases.

On what grounds, why is it that we are forced to pay?

The State should never be aggressive

The Non-Aggression Principle would be a suitable Constitution.

The Constitution should require that the State not initiate violence.

The Constitution should restrict the State to only the defensive use of force. The Non-Aggression Principle shall be the whole of the Law. Merely by being the governing power, by virtue of Democracy, or birthright does not legitimise the initiation of force. The Constitution should prevent the State from initiating violence.

The Constitution should prohibit aggression.

People should be free to work without being taxed

Aggressive people are anti-freedom.

Freedom means the right to do pretty much anything provided you aren't mean to others. If you are damaging to others, this is a natural crime. Provided you have not committed a natural crime, anyone who seeks to prevent you from doing what you want is aggressive and anti-freedom. In fact they are anti-life.

A natural crime is the use of force without any justifying reason.

Unless an activity impacts other people in a negative way, as perhaps in the case of property ownership, it should not be taxed. For example, we should be free to work and trade without being taxed.

Aggressive taxes destroy life

Force must only be used defensively.

Unless force is used in a defensive fashion, it is illegitimate. For example expulsion (of others) from your property is defensive, although ownership may, of course, be disputed. Repelling an attacker is defensive. Intervening against the thief is defensive.

Any aggressive use of force is a crime (even if it is perpetrated by the State, under democracy) and is best made illegal.

It is always legitimate to ask why the Non-Aggression Principle must be violated, for example "why have Sales Tax?" since we know the subject prefers not. If you are being mean, or hurting someone, it is reasonable for others to ask for an explanation.

The simple desire to harm others, if it is present in the offender, is not sufficient reason because this is evil. And we are left to conclude that this disgusting desire is the reason, unless another explanation, justification is offered.

Unless the Non-Aggression Principle is being violated out of nothing but spite, which is not valid... then there are no mitigating circumstances.

If someone is being hurt by someone else, it is reasonable to ask for an explanation or justification. And since, in abundance, there is no justification for aggression, to initiate violence, then doing so is (evil and) a crime.


Unless Income Tax is evil, there must be some justification for it, and since none exists, it then is evil. Locking people up in prison for failure to pay Income Tax is cruel and evil... Income Tax is a cruel tax.

To define cruelty and evil; it means something that destroys life.

The only legitimate taxes are property taxes

The only legitimate taxes are property taxes because all others, based on a transaction, or activity, violate the Non-Aggression Principle. The only "peaceful" tax is the property tax because it offers the chance to retaliate against someone who has claimed property, in a border dispute.

Property taxes allow an expression of the negative rights of the community, against the individual. The person who is subject to property taxes is not coerced into so doing, the threat is direct.

Property taxes do not violate the Non-Aggression Principle

Property taxes do not violate the Non-Aggression Principle because they are an expression of natural, negative rights on the part of the remainder of the population.

Property taxes are not aggressive.

Only property taxes are not aggressive. Only property taxes fail to violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

Natural rights are negative rights

Natural rights are negative rights, that is the right to be left alone unless you have done something wrong. Positive rights rely on the right to coerce, for example the right to Government services.

Property tax is a negative right

A property tax enables the remainder of the population to enact negative rights on property-holders. The important distinction between negative and positive rights means that we are entitled to repel others when they are not invited but never entitled to coerce. Excessive property ownership affects the remainder of the population. To repel this unwanted arrangement the population may use their natural negative rights to reduce the property held by the offending party.

Property taxes do not violate the Non-Aggression Principle, since they are in response to exclusion.

Property taxes are an expression of a negative right.

Property taxes allow the remainder a voice

There should be no tax on anything but property...

A property tax is a lawful way to restrict the property rights of others without prejudice; it is not personal, it is the same for everyone. Property rights should be restricted because it is better to leave sufficient property for others. If you choose not to leave it to others, a property tax is a way to take the property back or to reclaim it for nature. The rest of the world has a right to property as well and this would address that.

A property tax is a means by which the "collective" can reclaim land. It is not only the choice of the person selling the land that the purchaser acquires it, it is also relevant to the rest. This is a way to involve the rest of the population in the decision of acquiring land, and property.

It is reasonable that the remainder of the population get to express a view, and if necessary limit acquisition of property. Property taxes allow the third party in all property transactions to get involved.


Property, but is nature involves everyone in the world, because they are prevented from going on your property if you refuse them. This means everyone is involved and so it is not the choice of only a few people to restrict the remainder. A property tax is a way to limit the extent of this impact on others.

The public have a right to restrict others from owning too much property, since we are all born of the land.

The Government should refuse to defend surplus property

Rich people should be forced to give their money to charity. Owning more than a certain amount should not be legal.

People who own a large quantity of property are not innocent, they restrict other life from occupying their land. This is detrimental to the well-being of the environment. To remedy this, they should be forced to release some of their property above a certain limit to others... They would have the choice on to whom it should be given.

Unless they give their assets away, the Government should not recognise ownership. The Government should not defend the property rights of those who have wealth above a certain limit.

The Government should defend only a limited sum of property for each person, and should refuse to defend anything above that. An "excess" of property should be defended privately.


Property ownership should be limited to reduce inequality.

There should be a limit on how much we can own

It is reasonable to suggest that beyond a certain level, it is no longer legitimate to claim ownership of property such as in the case of a dominant landlord. In every situation there is a natural upper limit on what can fairly be claimed so we should introduce a "cap" on ownership of property. This would restrict people to (have) access to property more in accord with those around them.

An example might be that no one should be able to own more than three or four houses of typical size. Or it might apply to land...

No one should (under law) be able to own more than an amount according to what is reasonable in the circumstances. There should be a limit on what (how much) we can own.

We are responsible for the poverty of others

Taxation should be based on assets not income because earning money doesn't affect anyone not involved in a detrimental way, although it may mean that they have lost a customer. Only property can affect others since we exclude people from that which belongs to us.

If someone owes the rest of Society it is because of something that they have done against others, not something that was engaged in voluntarily.

The poor might be owed money by those who have considerable property wealth, but not by those whose earnings are great.

The poor are owed access to resources.

The State should not provide services

The State should not be authorised to spend tax receipts; the money should be given directly to the poor.

Let the poor decide for themselves how best to spend the money, don't leave the decision for the State. We cannot know what is in the best interests of someone else and if a person is owed compensation, of any form from the State, or others, then it should be for them to decide what it should be spent on, for themselves.

Democracy is not enough to justify force

The state is only legitimate if there is an unwilling victim. The State has a right to act only if the actions of an individual are detrimental to others, not himself, or herself. Unless I have hurt someone (or something, property) then I should be free of uninvited interference by the State.

I should have the option to refuse always, unless I have done wrong.

We should impose ourselves on criminals only.

Unless I have hurt someone, then I should be able to refuse any interference by the State. The use of force is illegitimate until guilt has been shown. The actions of the State must be justified by something more than and above Democracy only.

Income tax should be illegal

Governments steal in exchange for a vote.

The voter will generally vote for the best thief, that they think will steal in their interests, or if they fear being stolen from, will vote, perhaps, for the non-stealer. It is a useless message for a political party to say that they will steal less because the votes that count are those that want more stealing; we aren't inclined to vote for lower taxes.

"Vote for me and I will lower taxes", is not an appealing message because people who dislike taxes wouldn't be voting in the first place. We assume the politicians already know that we prefer not to be taxed. The best message here is to say that services will improve but at the same cost; things will be done more efficiently, which is a weak argument and only an appeal to competence. This seeks to re-assure the voter.

The voter is holding the free market to ransom and will repeal it if they are not served.


Voting does not legitimise a crime; certain things should be illegal, even if they are popular. Just as there are crimes defined even in the circumstances of War, equally the State should be restricted in its powers.

The Constitution of any State (if written) must be designed to limit the powers. The State doe not have a right to tax income, for example.

In the end the State will give up

Provided the source materials are owned by the labourer, then the product too is owned by the labourer. If there is disagreement about ownership of the source materials then ownership of the product is in dispute. For example, discovery does not equate to ownership.

If I discover a seam of gold in what is shared territory, and we assume discovery does not equate to ownership then incorporating the gold into a piece of jewellery that I make does not confer ownership.

If we assume that to dismantle the property and separate the original materials into constituent parts, so that they may be returned to the original owners, is not the chosen approach, how do we best settle this difficulty? Surely the courts would require that compensation be paid to the others, if the material is not to be dismantled.

So how do we know if the source materials belong to the one who produced the product? Well, before any claim of compensation can be made (by someone other than the labourer) they must first identify which of the source materials they claim... The burden is on them to show that not all of the source materials were owned by the one producing the good(s).

If a payment of compensation is to be made it must be shown that the labourer has been using shared, common goods, that are not his (or her) own. It is better, naturally, if this (challenge) occurs prior to the work on producing the good, and is not retrospective.

For the labourer to have used goods that belong to others can only have happened if they (the claimants) were not aware of the action. For example, if someone (the labourer) secretly produces a crop on a disused and distant field, that goes unnoticed by the landowner. In this case their claim is retrospective.

A thief that steals gold and melts it into some new jewellery can claim to be the legitimate owner of the new piece? Do we own only what we are able to keep? Naturally, yes, what else is ownership?

If we own only what we are able to keep then there can be no tax or compensation for someone who claims ownership of goods that were used in the construction of a product. And equally the product belongs to the labourer only so long as they are able to retain ownership.

Ownership is a matter of pragmatism. There will always be those who claim that the land is theirs or that the sky is theirs, the trick is to avoid and evade these types. There is no such thing as theft, if the victim is unaware.

Taxation, unless the Lockean Proviso has been violated, is stealing in plain sight.


This why the State will fail; they will be too slow, always, to get in the way of those who choose to produce and work. The poacher is quicker than the gamekeeper, for the poacher needs only be in one place to succeed and yet the gamekeeper would need to be everywhere.

Taxes won't last for long. And there is a natural danger in owning too great a quantity of resources because of the risk of reclaiming those from someone who has taken them, such as a squatter.

In the end the State will give up.

People are entitled not to help others

Not helping other people is not a crime and does not necessitate a punishment. To have suffered a crime, the victim must have been actively harmed by the perpetrator. To do nothing is acceptable in all circumstances.

We may later come to regret that we could have done more, but that is a private grief.

There is no such thing as a collective will

The voters do not want the Government to do what it does, we act individually. There is no such thing as the public, or the people.

The individual is sovereign and self-owned

Irregardless of the number of people who have a different opinion, what I decide to do with my life is a decision for me to take alone.

I am not owned by anyone but myself.

Why deposit insurance is not free market

Deposit insurance relies on the taxpayer being forced to compensate depositors who have failed to bank at a reliable institution. This is not a free market principle because others are being forced to suffer for your mistakes.

In a free market it is not my fault if others fail and I would suffer no consequence. Deposit insurance is a subsidy like any other and is anti-competitive.

Poor people should not be forced to pay tax

Poor people (defined as holding few valuable assets, ie property) should not be forced to pay tax by the Government. The Government should not force poor people to pay tax. The only reason to suffer taxation is if you have affected others by claiming an excess of property, and thereby failing to leave sufficient for others. Unless you have done this (and are then rich, in this sense), then there is no reason that you should be made to pay.

Poor people should be free of State (and all) taxation.


Only rich people should pay tax, and only then if it is clear that they have not left sufficient ("enough and as good") property and resources for others.

The inevitability of State failure

The ingenuity of the people to retain their belongings is ultimately higher than that of the State. That is not to say that, for long periods, the State can thrive as we have seen through history, but ultimately it will fall.

The hope is that it does as little damage as possible before its failure.

Access to free trade is a natural right

If I am able to accumulate resources or tangible goods by fair means, then it is legitimate for me to be able to exchange them voluntarily with others who have behaved similarly. By definition, neither of the participants can have been harmed because we have chosen the arrangement freely and there can be no higher authority on what is good for each of us than ourselves. We know what is best for us.

If there is no harmed party who is able to reliably show that damage has been perpetrated to them or some property of theirs then it must be permissible.

It is not in the interests of either, or any participant, to be restricted from acting freely with others.

There should be no tariffs on trade.

For the Government to be owed money is not a given, or an article of faith, to claim that a debt (or taxes) are owed it must be shown by the claimant why this is so. We are innocent of debts (to the State) until proven guilty.

There is no reason why the State, simply by virtue of being such, is owed an unearned income when everyone else must earn their keep.

The two functions of Government

The two functions of Government are as follows and are only these:

i) The Government should make sure that the Lockean Proviso is being observed and that "...there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use."; that people are not restricted from (legitimate) access to resources by an entity that does not have sufficient claim to them.
ii) The Government should make sure that people are able to have access to a free market at all times, unburdened by tariffs, taxes and (illegitimate) barriers to entry.

If the Government follows these two rules and provides for its citizens access to resources and a free market, then it can do no more than that. The Government is not able to make sure the people are safe and provided for if they themselves are not able to accomplish the task, and if anything is a luxury, ie not essential, then what justification is there for it be imposed by force?

It makes no sense to value paper currency

The value to people of most tradeable items is obvious: drink quenches a thirst, food satisfies a hunger. Paper money, however, does neither of those things and neither does it perform any useful task. It cannot be redeemed for anything of value, unlike in the past when it was redeemable for (and representative of) gold.

When people wake up from the delusion of valuing bits of colourful paper, they will return to trading items of actual value.

Would it be a good idea to restore redeemability?

Would it be a good idea to make currencies redeemable again into hard assets, such as land? Since 1971 (the Nixon Shock) no major currency is exchangeable into gold or other hard assets. This means that either Governments, or the banking system, are able to inflate the currency to such an extent that it loses tangible value.

To restore redeemability, the Government could commit to handing over assets held by the State, such as land, in exchange for currency. This would enable the currency to hold value and provide a severe disincentive against weakening the currency.

Arguments in favour of redeemability

Sweeping up the banknotes from the street after the Hungarian pengo was replaced in 1946

Is it time to reintroduce redeemability?

Since the end of the Bretton Woods agreement, currencies around the world are no longer redeemable into hard assets. This means that there is no physical restraint on inflation. One way to salvage this situation is to reintroduce the redeemability of currencies by making them redeemable for assets of the State.

For example, the State is the owner of land and other municipal, public institutions. The land (or public body) could be sold off in portions as the currency is redeemed so that each unit is granted tangible value once more.

If currency is redeemable into hard assets, such as land, uncertainty surrounding the currency will be assuaged. This would also prevent further currency inflations and restore stability to the economy.


So then, should State assets supplant gold now that the Bretton Woods arrangement no longer applies?

Caveat

As so often, the statement that "Taxation is a crime" must come with a caveat, in this case it is that the statement is true only so long as the Lockean Proviso is not (has not been) violated.

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

If a person has failed to leave "...enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use." then they have affected their neighbour and can expect some reaction. It is justified to tax someone if they have accrued property to the extent that others are left with insufficient resources to live reasonably.

Taxation is a crime unless the Lockean Proviso has been violated.

Only redistributive taxes are valid

Only redistributive taxes are valid because any Government services provided publicly are not chosen by the taxpayer and so are unwelcome. The only justification for imposing yourself on an innocent citizen is if their actions are affecting others in a bad way. This is a penal matter, resulting from a crime, except in the case of property which may only be a boundary dispute and not strictly a crime.

Unless someone has too much property, there is no reason why they should suffer taxation.

It is legitimate for the Government to penalise people for owning an excess of property, such that it is detrimental to the rest of the community.

Supporting failed banks is a waste of money

Supporting failed banks is a waste of money because it is not the fault of the taxpayer that banks have made poor judgement. If someone makes a bad business decision, be it the depositor, or bankers, Capitalism requires that they suffer for their mistake. If someone else must always protect entrepreneurs from their mistakes, they are not entrepreneurs, the are Government.

It is best to let the banks fail and protect the taxpayer. If the depositor has made the mistake of trusting a risky bank, that is not the fault of your neighbours, the fault lies with your decision alone.

Why there are more bank deposits than cash

If we think of the cash in the economy as the typical form of money, the banking system, collectively, has much greater quantities of deposits than exists cash in the system. This is because each time money is loaned out, a new deposit is likely to be created by the borrower, or the person who receives the funds used by the borrower for the purchase, in which case deposits increase.

The banking system recycles the money which allows a new deposit to be created, hence reducing the reserve ratio.

Taxation is theft

Taxation is theft because there is no legitimate authority to say that wealth or property should be handed over to another entity without justification. The only justification for confiscating wealth would be if the wealth itself is problematic, for example monopolising property.

Unless there is an argument of monopolisation of resources, then taxation is theft.

Why bank deposits cause inflation

The market does not differentiate between bank deposits and other forms of money such as cash. They trade at parity; there is no credit premium. It is for this reason that there is no preference in holding particular forms of money so an increase in one type will have a similar outcome to increasing cash.

If more bank deposits are issued, this will have the same impact on behaviour as adding an extra quantity of cash to the system. When a commodity is in greater supply, the price will fall and hence extra bank deposits cause inflation.

The advantages of an ownership tax

An ownership tax is preferable to other forms of taxation because unlike, for example, income, ownership affects other people. If I own a field, it means that others do not have the right to use it themselves. Equally, if I own a house it gives me the right to instruct the State to eject squatters. This affects other people.

The means of production (instruments, not only subjects of labour) are a form of property and too could be subject to such a tax. Lack of access to a factory makes it more likely that the owner will profit from the production that someone else.

Ownership, whilst not bad in itself, affects others and if left to get out of hand, through accumulation of property via landlordism, can have a detrimental affect on the community so we should introduce an ownership tax in the case of accumulation of property being a problem.

Volunteers would do better than Government

Public services are nothing more than an excuse for the Government to tax people, volunteers would do much better. Volunteers act to improve their environment because they care. People that are working on something that they care about perform much better than those who do so only for the money or because they have been forced into it.

To make sure that people are acting with the best intentions, we should not force people to do anything. People should be free to volunteer and to make charitable payments, to operate in the free market and not be taxed.

If people are motivated by money they won't be doing a very good job. If I can be helped only because people have been forced to do so, I would rather leave them alone.

An arrangement can only be collaborative and beneficial if neither party is reluctant, in which case the outcome will be better.

Public services are possible without taxes

We see many examples of people working without apparent reward. Especially so in the digital age with free-to-use open-source software and information. We also see this in charitable institutions and voluntary community organisations. There is no reason to think this principle cannot extend to services which are currently made available by the Government.

We don't need taxes to have public services.

We have got enough problems without Socialism

People would quickly vote for a Capitalist or free Government if they were forced to pay the relevant taxes themselves, it is because it is shared that they vote for Communism. We don't pay for Government services by choice so we know that people would not pay for them if chosen individually. No one would chose to have money taken from them by force, by definition.

Why does everyone have to abide by the outcome of the vote?

The State should not look after the poor

The role of the State should not have anything to do with looking after poor and vulnerable people. If it is the responsibility of anyone to do so, it is each other. Aside from the fact that the State has claimed responsibility for the poor in the past and has done a disastrous job at it,also people should not be forced to help.

If we feel that the poor should be in receipt of assistance, then that responsibility falls on ourselves.


Forcing people to do good is not a good idea; they might not want to. They might have a better idea or they might not care. If I need something, should someone be forced to help me... how can we judge where the greater need lies?

Forcing people to help others punishes self-reliance.

Welfare is similar to a Land Dividend

A Land Dividend should be paid so long as there is property inequality...

Until land is more equitably distributed, citizens should be in receipt of a Land Dividend which is paid for by the wealthy landowners. It is unfair that so few have come to own so much of the land in most countries and those without land should be compensated.

Payment should be made by those whom the State recognises as being in ownership of a significant quantity of property which is then distributed among the rest.

This would be a temporary measure, to the point where land is better managed. Ultimately a Property Cap would restrict the likelihood of further Landlordism, but until that time a Land Dividend paid to the poor is justified.

For as long as the means of production is unfairly (past crimes or pragmatic observation of inefficient use of resources) distributed, the poor should be in receipt of a Land Dividend.

Everyone should earn what they spend

The (main) problem with Governments (other than illegitimate Authority) is that they don't earn what they spend. They also provide for their constituents services which have not been paid for by those receiving them. This is a problem because it means someone else has been made to pay for the service with force. This is a form of stealing and is detrimental to a healthy Society.

This does not rule out charitable giving, of course.

The arguments in favour of a property cap

A property cap, similar to the Land Value Tax would encourage those with disproportionately large quantities of property to divest of it. This would place more property into the market and allow others to gain a more equitable share. Unless we have this, there is no other mechanism which allows people to reallocate property in a lawful way. Although property taxes are one of the less bad taxes, along with pollution tax, it is still less good than outright transfer of property, to the poor, since the State gets in the way.

Resources on this planet, whilst plentiful, are limited and it makes sense to argue that ownership by any individual must come with the consent of the remainder and that sometimes some people have been allowed to gain (legal) ownership of too much.

The name of this blog

taxation is a crime: Why that name? well, it succinctly makes the point that I don't like taxes. Kant's categorical imperative makes the case that we should do only that which we would be prepared to tolerate universally, and since we can't tax the State it is invalid, under those rules. I don't like taxes; they rarely seem to achieve much good, be it Wars or subsidies neither seem conducive to a civilised way of life.

Inaugural post

First post to get the ball rolling... hello