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.