It would be better if we owned ourselves

Failure to give someone the right to refuse suggests, or relies upon, the concept that others are owned by the person being aggressive. Aggression is a misunderstanding of property ownership and rights.

It is a crime to be aggressive in this way, to deny someone the right to refuse offers. If the customer owns themselves then to deny the right to refuse is a crime. It would be better if we could refuse taxes.

We can be responsible for ourselves

We have the right to refuse all offers. If we are not allowed to refuse an offer then it is being imposed upon us by force and is criminal, unless there is a mitigating reason. We can be sure there is no crime if we have allowed the other person (or people) to refuse. If everyone can refuse there is no problem.

The ability to refuse means that we are not harmed. We cannot claim a harm has been done to us, that we have suffered a crime, if we have consented and not refused. There is no crime if we can refuse.

Private commercial banks print Government money

If banks are given the legal right to print money then why not let everyone else do it? Why not let everyone print money if the banks can? Why leave inflation to commercial (and central) banks? For what reason is it so difficult to get a banking licence? Why not let everyone print cash?

Socialism is a form of slavery

We have a right to do what we want if it does not harm other people, but we do not have a right to force and threaten other people into doing what we want. This is the difference between owning yourself and owning other people. We do not own other people. To get Government Services means we own other people because we must force them to do what we want to pay for it. Socialism relies upon slavery. Without slavery there is no Socialism.

Why not let people have control over their own life?

Democracy allows Socialists to have control over the lives of other people.

But we do not ask people which is the best system to live under, instead we ask which party is preferred. The jury in a court is attempting to get to the truth. Elections, it is often assumed, are not so much about getting to the truth as expressing a preference, between parties. Why not have freedom instead of a big State? Why not let people make their own decisions, for their lives? Why not let them have control over their life?

Banks can issue digital money

Digital (computer) money has now replaced paper money. Banks don't actually print fiat paper currency, but they do issue extra digital bank credit which causes inflation.

People are unaware that the banks are empty

People don't (seem to) realise the banks are empty.

If everyone took their money out there wouldn't be nearly enough. Assuming people like and value money why would they not want to be first in the queue? Or do they think the Government will pay? By printing money? Or are we at the stage where people consider bank deposits to be money and that banks can issue new currency? If we are not at that stage then it must be true that people are unaware, of the banks being empty.

Governments steal money from the public

Governments steal money when they force people to pay taxes. This is morally equivalent to slavery. Taxation is the special name the Government use to describe their theft. It is not justified because it is not chosen and the victims are blameless, or so it is assumed. Governments steal money and call it taxation.

Taxation is a form of slavery

Taxation is following orders from the Government, this is different from following the Law which we must do to protect peace, but to follow orders is coercive and an expression of false, positive rights. If we are sovereign individuals then we would not have anyone to tell us what to do, we can always refuse and we would only be subject to requests. If there is no punishment for failure to perform (without an associated threat) then it is a request.

Would we want someone to do something against their own wishes? Why do the Government want people to pay taxes? If there must be a ruler then it is best (perhaps) to be that person, but better than that is to have none. A Judge (and associated court) is not a ruler, they uphold the peace and natural laws.

There should be no instructions that cannot be refused without punishment. Should anyone own a slave?

Party List would make sure votes count and we know who we voted for

Party List (either closed or open) is better than Single Transferable Vote (STV) selection because each person will know who they voted for. With STV we don't know who we voted for, it might be that none of our preferences are chosen, or more than one. With Party List we know that our vote has counted. With STV our vote might count, or it might not.

It's not right to force people to pay taxes

Everything is a crime with the exclusion of those actions which we are allowed, permitted to do. We are not permitted to steal. We are permitted to do nothing, to help others and to sell our labour and trade. We are not permitted to do crimes. Is the Government permitted to do crimes? Why is the Government permitted to extract taxation, when an individual may not? If the Government can do it then everyone can do it, for it to be moral, without a contradiction.

It is a contradiction to prevent a person from committing crimes that the Government is able to do.

The Government should not be allowed to commit taxation. If it is allowed, then for what reason are we not allowed to tax each other, or the Government? Why is extortion illegal? Taxation is not (a) right. Using (aggressive) force on people is not right. Being aggressive is not right.

There is no need for taxation; is it enjoyable to tax people or does the Government regret it? Crime is failing to allow others to life as they might expect to be able to do, it is selfishness. If we are thoughtful towards others, kind, then life is more pleasant for everyone.

An open list would allow voters to give information on individuals as well as parties

A good voting system can be achieved by allowing voters to vote for individual candidates but with the parties being represented proportionally. Each candidate is a member of a political party, even if it is made up of only themselves. Voters vote for individual candidates but the outcome of the election is chosen according to how many votes fall to each party. Then the individual candidates which are forwarded from each party are selected according to how many votes are cast for them within the party. So candidates are competing both as a party and against other candidates within their own party.

A better system might be Multiple Winner First Past The Post

Multiple Winner First Past The Post would provide the required fluidity and diversity of winning candidates that is denied by typical FPtP systems. The problem with FPtP which denies proportionality is that there is only one winner, typically. This creates a problem because, since only one candidate can win, we might choose to vote for a popular candidate to keep another out, not the one that we genuinely like. It is a problem caused by the restriction placed on other parties gaining the ascendancy; the gap is too narrow. With Multiple Winner FPtP we would have the ability to make sure the outcome better reflects the voting wishes of the electorate.

For freedom either work in the private sector or do nothing

The public sector relies upon violence.

Between the public sector and the private sector, the private is preferred, it is peaceful. Our choice in (public) life, if we wish to be moral, or at least not immoral, is either to work in the private sector or do nothing. We can do nothing, or we can work in the private sector; all other options are verboten, deontologically.

Poverty is the fault of and is caused by aggression

We do not need to have prescriptive laws, we would be best served with a system of common, or natural law which reacts to events and responds accordingly. And if we do not require laws of this type then what purpose is served by the legislature? At most, the form of Government required (for peace) is a system of courts which can react to crimes and disputes as they occur. This would be reactive and not progressive, Socialist. What is a Government reacting to, or a reaction against? Laws often punish people who have not done anything wrong, because they are badly drawn up and executed. They (preemptive laws) are a problem.

Laws are a list of things we cannot do. What is better is if we have a list of activities which are permitted, anyone that violates this is then a criminal, inactivity is an acceptable action, inaction. We do not need to prohibit things, everything is prohibited unless it is either the defensive use of force, or mutually acceptable and voluntary. Everyone must either be nice to each other, or do nothing. The only useful use of force is defensive. Aggression is not a useful use of force.

To be useful, force must be defensive. And since it is not useful, and is not inaction, it is criminal. Trade is mutually useful. Any action that is not useful is a crime. Theft to feed a starving child may be seen as using force to remove the subject (who has done a crime of some form) from access to the food property. It might be defensive. We might ask: Is it my fault that the baby is hungry, am I its guardian?

We can rely upon no one but ourselves

We could just Govern ourselves. Why must we have a Government? If you don't want to get involved, then don't get involved. What problem does Government solve, what bad problems would result without it?

Only the free market should provide charitable services

The Socialists assume people are not responsible for themselves. Charity doesn't imply obligation. Does it mean that I am obligated to someone if I provide help? Charity should not be a function of Government. We should not force people to do good things, it should be left to the market.

Capitalism is not a problem

Socialism is a form of theft and a crime. Socialism is a crime. It is a crime because those being forced to pay are not doing so willingly, they do it because they are threatened with violence if they do not comply. In a Democracy it is a form of theft justified by popularity alone.

Socialism is not good; something is good if the victim, or subject prefers the action to no other action, and they prefer it to inaction. Socialism is not optimal. Freedom is the best. Socialism is not justified, we are not owned by one another my problems are my own unless someone else is willing to help without being threatened. A problem doesn't justify violence or force. To be justified, it must be shown that the victim is (or has been) a criminal and that we are acting in self defence. The use of force is only justified against (a person who is) the cause of a problem.

Taxes are not due unless you are a slave

If I am not a slave then my body and (the product of) its labour is owned by myself. If someone else owns either, then that must make me a slave.

If I am not a slave then no taxes are owed to the Government from me.

The free market is best at providing charity

There is no difference between the free market and charitable sectors, they both are voluntary and improve the World. The free market provides for our charitable needs much more effectively than Socialism or the Government. The free market is the answer to poverty and illness. The free market would alleviate the problems of nature more efficiently than the State.

Property rights can be arranged on a consensual and informal basis

We can have free market property agencies which arrange and organise the property rights within a region. This does not mean protection agencies; it is an informal agreement to recognise particular property. For example we might find that a group of people adhere to a particular set of guidelines set down by an agency in the locality. To violate this arrangement would mean that the agency does not recognise rights which were previously given to the transgressor. People would no longer support your claim to property, if you didn't play by the rules. Property rights can be maintained on an informal, consensual basis.

Do we all need to share the same set of property rights, and have the same agency, and only one agency? One agency will predominate in a particular region, but we do not need to have the same agency throughout the World. We don't need to vote for property rights, they exist already.

There is no Government

Government is illegitimate when it is aggressive because we are not the same organism and there is no magic connecting us. If we are on the same team, who, or what is the opposition? My safety is not derived from the Government and so they are owed nothing from me.

Gold is not a store of wealth

Bank deposits are valued by people because they might be replaced with cash after a collapse of the banking system. They want cash because they still think it is backed by Gold, and that it isn't just worthless paper. They want Gold because it is shiny.

Why not make taxation a choice?

What is the point of having a Government, if we can help each other and ourselves without one? What does it defend, protect? We do not argue that things should not be protected, but is that Government, it (presently) does more than only defensive actions. Why does the Government do anything other than defensive actions? Is collective, Government spending more virtuous than individual spending? Then will people not choose to have someone spend their money for them? Let people have the choice. We aren't given a choice whether to pay taxes or not. Perhaps it should be a choice?

People can help themselves without the Government

Taxation is not defensive. We cannot justify any action on moral terms unless we claim that the desperation of the circumstances demanded it. For why would there be guilt to steal bread for a starving child? Stealing bread for a starving child assumes a connectedness between the victim of the theft and the guardian of the child. Why can't you raise your own child, by yourself? If you are a victim then make the case, or ask for charity. Would we want to help someone who will damage us if we refuse? Perhaps we should help in spite of the death threat from the State?

Is it because we will be attacked that we seek to help others? Why would a person do charity if the Government is responsible for our illnesses? Do we dare not to help? Does the Government dare not to help? Let people sort things out for themselves.

Does the Government help people? Can people not help themselves without Government?

PR is the most Democratic system

Proportional Representation is the most Democratic system. What system is more Democratic than PR?

Self ownership is the best way to organise ourselves

If a person is content to run their own life, there should be no reason that that ability is taken away from them. If someone wants to delegate their life to the control of someone else, to volunteer to be a slave, then that is not the same and is acceptable because it has been chosen. The essential part is to allow some people to opt out of the programme. Some people prefer to lead themselves. The Government is not owed a debt by the people. We do not owe the Government anything, they should earn their own money. Socialists do not like to earn their own money. What person has the right to the labour of those who do not willingly give it?

The Government makes slaves of its people; we are owned. Unless we are owned, then why do we not own our labour? Do we own ourselves, if we do not own our labour? We are not owned by anyone, even each other. We cannot own each other. No person can be owned.

Socialism violates self ownership.

We are not obligated to others

Taxation is a question of property rights, if everything is owned by the State, as in Communism, then there is no formal tax, because there is no transference of ownership; it was already the property of the State.

If there is individual property then anything that is taken by the Government is a tax, and is theft. If everything is owned communally, then there is no taxation because there is no change. But what group are we thinking of, is there a group? Nations do not exist. We are pretending, we do not really care about the group. A group is suggestive of an obligation to participate with others and to be participated with, cared about. If we are not interested in participating then the group will die.

There is nothing that binds, unites us.

There is no requirement that we are obligated to one another. Unwanted help is not help. There is no we. Act for your own advantage and this will be the best for others, don't pretend to be acting for me, against your own wishes; if you don't want to help me then do something else.

Free trade is not a bad thing instead it is good

The Government relies upon taxpayers.

Without taxpayers, the Government would need to earn its own money to survive, there would be no public sector. This would mean that, in most important respects, the Government would be no different from normal people. Certainly if a person does not commit a crime, then the Government will not treat them any differently; the Government will be no different, to them, from a normal person.

Without the Government there would be no taxpayers, everyone would be free of tax. No one would need to pay tax. Taxation penalises (punishes) work and labour, which are win, win activities and not harmful. Work is a good thing and taxation prevents it. The Government are against work and productivity. Work is a virtuous activity (and pleasurable, fun) and the Government oppose it. The Government are against people having a good time, they punish what is good and pleasurable.

We are not being exploited if we work; if we are able to refuse without violence then there is no (aggressive) force. The free market does not harm anyone, perhaps property rights restrict our freedom but they should be constrained within Capitalism, with a cap or similar disincentive, to promote effective, efficient use of property.

If people are ignorant they will exploit minorities in a Democracy

Why make it possible for some people to be responsible for others; why delegate powers to the State?

We can still have authority when those in the courts system reject entry (to the judiciary) to those who they do not consider suitable. Why should anyone subject themselves to the opinion poll of others. Why do politicians listen to the election? They will get arrested if they do not allow the popular candidate to take over, but why not apply the same law to them as to everyone. To be the Government without the consent of the people, the most popular, is illegal, so why is it made legal when people vote for it? Why do people vote for something they would not tolerate in normal life, which is to say aggression, coercion and taxes?

If Democracy is tolerated only because it allows a means to exploit the minority then it does more harm than good. Who would want to be a minority in a Democracy? The problem with a Democracy is that it fails to protect minorities, unless the electorate are enlightened, not ignorant.

Might a mainstream vote be a protest vote?

Which one of us is not a politician? We are all politicians, we use politics in our everyday lives and negotiate what we want. We are all politicians so then why make a distinction in the ruling political process? Why would it be in my interests to delegate political decisions to a master, why would I want to take responsibility for subordinates? Unless we are a team, this makes no sense.

The division of labour can be chosen voluntarily, we see it all the time in the markets and with specialisation which arises naturally. There are informal teams, communities, companies.

Does voting indicate consent that we are ruled? For which party do we vote if we wish to protest? If the dissident is encouraged not to vote, then is voting only for those who consent to the system? If there is no option to protest, on the ballot, then might some of the votes for the mainstream parties be a protest vote?

Caring for each other will help the species

If we are to protect the human race, then it makes sense to care for others. Do we want the human race to survive? If so, then it makes sense to look after each other, for then each one of us is valuable to the rest.

Is it a good idea to tax people?

Why do we give all our money to the Government?

If we want to force others to give money to the Government (we vote for a taxation party) then we can expect to be taxed (attacked) ourselves. If we do not enslave others, then we ourselves will not be enslaved, or at least we can have a legitimate hope not to be. People want to tax and yet not to be taxed. Tax and you will be taxed; if enough people realise this to be true then it will end.

The Government uses force to make people pay taxes

Why does the Government need to collect taxes?

Why not have a system where the Government is provided by a combination of voluntary work, business and individual action. There is no need for coercion in Government, we can have stable Societies without coercion, which is a form of crime.

If coercion is a form of crime then is Government criminal? Government is not criminal if it is not coercive. In many Societies all that is required is the statement of disapproval to make the problems go away. People want to live well and life allows for peaceful existence.

The Government can be peaceful. Voluntary and cooperative actions can yield a Government. We can still have a Government, even without aggression. A peaceful (without aggression) Government is possible. Society, people can be without aggression and yet still have a Government. We don't need to be aggressive to have (a, the) Government. The Government don't need to be so nasty.

The Government are aggressive.

Taxation is aggressive.

Democracy can be a defence against Socialism

When we are being affected by criminals, we resort to punishment of the type that removes the offender from the environment. In extreme cases this amounts to Capital punishment and the death of the offender, in more mild situations we may use prison.

All the time, we are being attacked by the Government who take our property, not for redistribution, but to provide (unchosen) Government Services. The proper response might be to arrest the Government, but who would do this? We can only arrest the thieving Government if the police allow it and this will happen when people vote for it.

The citizen is only able to retaliate against the Government by voting for another type of Government.

Things would be better without aggressive force

We would be better of without a Government. This is because we are better at making choices for ourselves, because we have better information about ourselves and can rely on trusted sources if we need to make a decision outside of our expertise. Government just makes things worse, and the imposition of force requires justification, it cannot be taken as assumed.

Democracy is meaningless

Democracy is what turns a thief into a tax bailiff, a killer into a military aggressor. It is meaningless.

Without Democracy the thieves would be more cautious

If you want to involve yourself with other people it must be voluntary only. Our interaction with the State should be either to (voluntarily) help the State, or to sell something to it. We can be protected by the State, but cannot expect to receive something that we do not pay for. The State should not be a problem, neither should it be the solution to any of our problems. Other people do not owe each other anything.

We might be owed something if we have paid for it, even then perhaps not, otherwise we are only owed what people choose to provide for us voluntarily. If we have not paid for it, we are not owed...

It is immoral to force others to pay for what we want. When everyone stops working, what is left? Does anyone have a right to the labour of others? Don't we have a right to work, live? Why don't the people provide healthcare for themselves?

Democracy provides sanctuary for our theft.

Can we not be virtuous outside Government?

Wearing a Government uniform, or having been elected is not sufficient justification to defend or excuse a crime. It is not a mitigating factor. Theft doesn't become voluntary giving if the perpetrator is wearing a Government uniform. Wearing a Government uniform does not make the reasons not to commit a crime disappear; killing someone whilst wearing a Government uniform will result in their death just as much, equally.

There is no absolution in authority, for there is no authority.

The best type of criminal to be is one in the Government, your crime is forgiven. Is it still wrong to kill if you are wearing a Government uniform? Do morals and ethics change if we are popular, or elected, or more powerful? Is morality contingent on whether or not we have been elected, what difference would it make?

The Government forces people to help each other

The Government wants everyone to pay tax and it will use threats of force and violence if it is not paid. Are we taxed for our own benefit? They claim to be able to provide good services but there is no reason to believe it.

The Government is not capable to make our lives as we want because they do not know what we want and they don't care. Only we, ourselves, can make our lives better, and volunteers. The Government forces third parties to improve our lives; it forces our neighbour to help us, against their will.

The Government forces our neighbour to help us.

What is the best way to get rid of the Government?

Why don't nations attack one another? Is it fear of harming the respective nations, if so will this not be sufficient disincentive to provide security in a free country, between individuals? Whatever crime we commit, there is always the chance that we are detected and punished, also there is the loss of opportunity in planning and executing the crime; more reasons that peace is better.

Unless there is pleasure in killing and harming others, we would only want to hurt others if they are a threat with the assumption that resources are not scarce.

Why would Society (rightly) punish a criminal? They are taking action to preserve their collective future. We are programmed to (and want to) protect ourselves, and our families and descendants. Does Government help to perpetuate our continued survival? Aren't they a parasitical loss to the community? The Government is an obstacle to progress, always. To get rid of the Government would be a progressive step.

Why retain the Government?

Why have tyranny?

We have only a right to freedom, not to anything else. We have no right to the labour of other people.

Freedom from Tyranny and coercion should be the only right!!

Socialism exploits fear

The Socialists are powerless against freedom, eventually. There is nothing they can do about it. Once freedoms have been established then to reintroduce the enslavement requires a new justification which will not be persuasive. It would be a new entity that attempts to introduce the tax, which people would not recognise; it would have no cachet.

It would be difficult to reintroduce slavery, it would be difficult to reintroduce blasphemy laws. Freedom is resilient.

People don't like slavery, but if they are fearful enough of their neighbours then they will vote for Fascism. This is why Socialist Governments generally make life difficult, because it encourages more Socialism when people become dependent on the State.

People who feel themselves helpless will tolerate Tyranny.

The debts can be paid off by printing money

Fiat debt is a form of money; with a fiat currency all forms of money are a debt of some kind. In the beginning the currency is backed by a hard commodity, this is representative money. When the exchange guarantee is rescinded the fiat currency becomes nothing more than a promise to provide thin air.

A debt owed from the Government is no different from fiat money itself, for that is what fiat currency is. Fiat cash is a debt that has been defaulted upon. Will the Treasury debt be made whole if it is (monetised and) replaced with cash? Has it then been paid?

What harm is Capitalism?

If Capitalism is defined as the combination of trade and property rights, then what is the alternative?

Few people will argue that trade is not a good thing, or at least not harmful, and the argument about property rights is somewhat redundant since this is a matter of opinion more than belief. So, if there is no real alternative why is it opposed when no better solution is suggested?

To react to Capitalism merely by arguing that the Government should be given the money is not really a true argument since there is clearly no justification in doing that. If Capitalism is not harmful (and it has not been shown to be so) then let people be free to practice it, if they choose.

Why use aggressive force?

What is the point of Government? We know from experience that decisions taken as a group (as in a committee) are always terrible decisions and yet we run a country like this, why? Would it not be better to organise the country informally, with voluntary actions and only the defensive use of force?

Why use aggressive force when people will take care of themselves?

The Government uses fear to make people do as they are told

Socialists (people who use the State to initiate violence) rely on emotion but eventually this does not work and rationality emerges.

What rationality is there in claiming that it is better for people if the State takes their money; good for the State, yes but not those who have their assets taken. So the lie (the contradiction, the error) is exposed and dies.

We have not yet asked ourselves, apparently if the State is the best person to spend our money, or do we not care that they are not? Is it wilful ignorance and theft? It is better to be an individual than part of a coercive group?

The choice is between collectivism and individual freedom. We are together alone. Please put the gun down!

Collective defence is chaotic but aggression must be organised

Defensive actions are personal actions; they never need to be anything other than individual. Aggressive actions are collective actions and must be organised.

We can have collective defence organised on a personal basis; people can collaborate to remove something that none of them like. A collective aggressive action cannot be organised as the result of individual (non ordered) actions. We do not spontaneously decide to collect taxes for the Government to spend, there must be a plan.

Are the Government more virtuous than the rest of us?

If the Government cared for us why would they initiate violence against people? Perhaps they don't care? Have we done wrong if we earn money, if not why steal assets (taxes) as a result? What reason is there for taxes?

The deposit guarantee is what prevents a bank run

The deposit guarantee is what prevents a bank run, without the guarantee, since commercial banks cannot actually print legal tender, then only the first few people in the line at the bank would get their money back, the rest would go without, or need to wait.

Courts are acceptable but aggressive Government is not

Just have courts, but no Government. Courts are not aggressive; they seek to resolve disputes and take action against an aggressor, where necessary. Courts cannot be denied, since they do not ask for permission, or justification, unlike Democracy. There is no coercion in courts, we have no choice to reject the findings and they do not seek to deny freedom; a court will only restrict behaviour if the victim (of the court) is doing something wrong, taxes are due from people who might not have done anything wrong.

Courts are better than Democracy because they are defensive and not (in their intention) aggressive.

Why do we force others to give taxes to us to spend?

Socialists are thieves, but so what? Join in!

But do I want to give everything I have to the tribe that I am a part of, for them to return it to me? We are the Government. They are stealing from you. We don't need the Government to hold our hands!!

The problem with Government is placing the choices for all of the economy in central control. One person, or entity cannot make good choices for all of us, it is better if we spend our own money, as we like. Do we want the Government to spend our money for us, no, but many don't mind if it is too capable of spending other people's money! They will make the sacrifice of paying taxes if others must do so, out of wanting to do things to others that they don't want. They would be happier to suffer an injury themselves, perhaps even a more severe one, if others will be hurt. They seek to extract revenge, for something or other.

Socialists try to force people to do certain things

What legitimacy is winning an election? The only legitimate interactions are those chosen voluntarily. An election means the right to allow politicians to force people to act against their voluntary wishes, it means the use of coercion and force.

Socialism is an attempt to use force to make the world as you would want it, and is popular.

There is only one truth and votes don't change that

An anarchist is someone who is against the State, but that doesn't necessarily mean that an anarchist believes in having no State, only that they aren't (yet) convinced of the need...

If we vote to validate aggression, then this is pointless and worthless and, by definition (it is aggressive) damaging. If we vote to sanctify and excuse defensive actions, what is the utility in doing that, we can use defensive force anyway, we don't require permission. Votes only seek permission to do violence.

Property rights are a threat not a debate

With regard to property rights, the statement that an object is the property of someone else is not really a truth statement of the conventional type, it is not up for debate, it is in fact a threat! A claim to property is nothing more than a treat of the preparedness to do violence if violated.

There is little point discussing (considering, thinking about) property rights, unless we are in a position to do something about it by changing the law. Only the politicians can make a significant change to the way in which property is organised and it is only through elections that politicians can be altered. The ballot box is similar to the division of a boundary demarcating property, in that respect. Politicians have exclusive control of property rights.

The poor have nowhere to grow their food

The poor have nowhere to plant their crops or graze their cattle...

Universal (stipulated) law is a falsehood, in as far as premeditated rules are concerned. No situation is exactly as before and we cannot say for certain, in any prescribed situation what action is the correct one, and to what extent it may be criminal.

It is better to take action in response to an event, or crime, rather than to declare beforehand what action will be taken. For example, to make the declaration that if someone is to sell their labour then this will be met with a fine is not the right approach. Nor even, is it right to indicate that trespass will be punished if someone violates entry into land which is claimed by others. It is better to react to the situation to see what damage has been done; the intruder may have beneficial intentions!

A violent attack is not excused simply because the victim was in the wrong place at the time, although it may mitigate.

Property rights (the extent and nature of) are a matter of opinion, a negotiation. Who would want to keep everyone away from the land? Where else can we plant our crops?

The deposit guarantee turns bank deposits into something equivalent to cash

The deposit guarantee means bank deposits are a form of money...

Bank deposits are converted into a form of (valuable) cash because of the deposit guarantee, the value of bank deposits is derived from the value of paper cash and the guarantee creates an equivalency. The deposit guarantee makes bank deposits equivalent to cash.

The deposit guarantee means banks can print money

Banks can make money (income) by issuing deposits which people value equivalently to cash. If people are aware of the distinction, they may still value bank deposits, equivalently to cash, because of the guarantee. If people trust the guarantee then banks can print money. The guarantee means banks can print money.

Why would bank deposits be any less valuable than cash?

Can the price of legal tender be affected by the quantity of bank deposits in the economy? Why do people not differentiate? What is the difference between a bank deposit and actual cash? There is no difference which would make (legal tender) cash more valuable. Why would cash be more valuable than bank deposit liabilities?

If bank credit is guaranteed by the Government, there is no reason to think that cash is any more valuable than bank deposits.

The deposit guarantee makes bank deposits no less valuable than cash; if cash has value they for what reason would bank deposit not have the same value? Does cash have intrinsic value higher than bank deposits? For what reason would cash be valued higher?

Then, cash banknotes (legal tender) are no more valuable than guaranteed bank deposits.

Property rights will emerge naturally once the State goes away

For what reason would we want to exclude someone from our house? For what reason would we not want to share our food with others? Provided someone is not following us around and being irritating, there would seem to be no real reason to push them (a stranger) away.

There is plenty of food, let's not worry too much about where to get food from if it runs out. Let's not make the attempt to store wealth in the form of food, this will be wasteful and can exhaust the planet. Your fridge, or storeroom is no different from the tree in the forest which bears fruit, it will get replenished. If someone is pushing you away from a source of food your choice is to either attack and kill them or to move away somewhere else to harvest food. Unless you are prepared to attack them, then have no malice, it is all or nothing, and we hope nothing.

Do not be annoyed once you have made the decision not to attack someone for their violation of what you consider your (property) rights to be.

Boundaries indicate a premediation of attack, better to wait until you actually run out of space before making the attack, otherwise you are (would be) taking (defending) more than you require.

To vote Libertarian is a defensive act

Government is not helpful, it harms us because we do not chose it, we cannot reject it in the manner that we can walk out of a shop without buying something (not stealing, just refusing to buy) and we will not be violently attacked, in this situation, usually.

Is the Government a good thing?

Is it good to have a Government?

Is Government helpful to Society? How can they be helpful if they are of a privileged class, above other people, the votes, apparently, give them an extra status which makes them special, and above the typical laws. Democracy enables us to restrict access to the hierarchy and keep bad people out, to an extent. Why tolerate the hierarchy, the rules? It is not the rules that are the problem, we can do nothing about them, the courts are defensive, it is the coercion.

But with Democracy we can keep bad people from office, but they are replaced by someone else, who might not be as bad, but they are still the ruler and may be stupid. Can't we keep them all out, and allow the truth to be the best deciding factor and not the identity of the person issuing the belief? What does it matter who made the decision; the facts are unaltered?

Who do we vote for if we cannot choose a candidate with a chance of winning that will not steal from us? What choice is a choice between thieves? Theft (by the Government) is popular. The only vote that might count would be a vote for one of the high taxation parties...

The burden should not be on the voter to prevent theft, theft should be justified if it is to take place. It is not right that we are vulnerable to the theft in the first place. The theft will take place if a defensive Government is not selected. To vote for a Libertarian party is to organise a defence.

Why have leaders, can we not lead ourselves?

Why would I vote? Do I want a leader, or do I want a person to (negatively) control my life? If a leader, then presumably this is intended to assist me in some way? Having voted for a ruling party gives them (confers) no legitimacy over me.

If I do not want an assistant and do not want to be ruled, then what reason is there for me to vote? What reason is there for anyone to vote? Why does anyone (do we) vote? What is the point of elections? If to place a constraint on the ruling class, then why tolerate the ruling class to begin with, they should be removed from society, in gaol. The Government should be locked up.

Why do they ask for our vote? Why do we have a Government, formed this way? It's not my fault that the Government steals money, it is not my responsibility to constrain them, that should be for the police (free market?) or their own consciences. Why do the Government constrain themselves to the strictures of a Democratic vote?

Why doesn't the Government ignore the Democratic vote?

Why do we need leaders, do we not rule ourselves?

Hyperinflation will be the end of coercive Government

A form of money cannot be imposed, it arises spontaneously; the reason we now value fiat is that we recollect, collectively, that it was once valuable and it was so for its redeemability into gold.

Since money cannot be imposed, when (fiat) money goes the Government will resort to demanding the food, or labour of its citizens which will be more difficult. People will not see a compelling reason to provide these things since the nature of the arrangement will be more apparent and familiarity (with authority) breeds contempt. What will the Government demand after the hyperinflation? It will be an attempt to impose a form of money and will fail. The Government will be in a situation where they have no choice but to find something better to do. To try to use the Government as a cloak to justify coercion will be useless and a waste of time, people (formerly in the Government) will get on with their lives instead.

The crazy Government and politicians will find something else to do when people wise up to the trick of fiat currency and the (modern) lack of redeemability. By then it will be over.

Taxation is a form of slavery

Taxation is a form of slavery because it enables the Government to extract labour from the people without offering anything (refusable) in return. It is the antonym of a free market transaction.

For as long as people are willing to provide their labour, in fact an extension of themselves, in exchange for cash (the asset demanded by the Government to satisfy a tax demand) then taxation is equivalent to a form of slavery. Taxation is equivalent to slavery for so long as money can buy labour.

Poor people have no land of their own

Poor people are (able to be) exploited by their lack of land...

A lack of land means that we have no choice to live independently, we must either rent a field, to grow crops, or sell our labour, presumably to those who own land. If someone has no land, and they want to live, they become the slave of those with land. They will do anything to get food, for they are not able to provide it for themselves. These people, without land, are free to leave, but where else can they go, and for what reason should they be driven away?

Those without land have been excluded unnecessarily and to no good effect. Why exclude the poor from (having their own) land? Poverty is a choice, not of the victims, but of the Government who choose to exclude the poor from the property of the rich, most importantly the land. The Government exclude the poor from land. Why prevent the poor from using land? The poor are prevented from having use of the land; they have no means to grow their own food because of this. The poor cannot grow their own food because they have no land.

Why does Democracy defend the property rights of the rich?

The Socialist is not helping others when they use force and violence to make third parties 'help' the poor. There is no virtue in coercing others to do as you wish even if it appears to be benign. Forcing someone else to be charitable is not charitable. If we threatened our neighbour with violence unless they give to charity, have we been virtuous? Might the beneficiary of the charity prefer that violence is not used, for they do not use it themselves...

The only acceptable use of violence in this scenario, when we have a (problematic) discrepancy in wealth which we want to remedy, is to point the gun at the Capitalist and instruct them to divest of their assets; to give (the bulk of) their assets away, or to sell them cheaply. We can force people to sell their belongings if their ownership is preventing the legitimate use, by others.

The difference is between forcing someone to give away their assets (to pay for, to spend the money on charity) and forcing them to actually do the charity. It is more acceptable to force people with assets to spend them on charity, than to force them to actually do the charity themselves.

If people have spent enough of their money on charity and do not claim too much property, they can have done no more than that for others. It is no sin to not have actually done charity yourself, spending is equivalent, if money is still in use and valuable and can (still) provide security.

If someone is not preventing others from accessing their land, or space, or other property, then they have done no crime. Property is defined by action. If ownership of space is mapped out at a central authority, it can be for the central authority to decide what to defend for people; there can be no argument from the person who wants to be protected if others do not (want to) provide that service. It was the Government's fault for defending too much land on their behalf!

We can inform a rich person that their second and third homes are no longer being protected by the State and the police and that they are now exposed to poachers and squatters.

What we choose to (help others) defend must be contingent on our opinion of where the merits and virtue lies. We can say that we have changed our mind about what is owned by whom, and who would be the aggressor in a border (boundary) dispute.

Is it better (in the first place) that the (arbitrary) lines are drawn on a map, in abstract? It would certainly seem to be pragmatic.

It is the responsibility of the ones who are responsible for determining the boundaries to make sure that there is not too much poverty, by preventing people from taking so much land that they have not left enough to others, for the commons. The State must refuse to defend the rich to such an extent as they do now, and inform them of this fact, of course.

A free person is a victim only of themselves

A bully or tyrant is similar to a slaveowner in that they take advantage of the situation of other people who are (being) unable to get away. When we would prefer not to be around someone, but for the fact that we must earn a living, or get an education, or for some other reason, then that person may be acting as a bully, because in some sense we have no choice to avoid them. They (the bully) are exploiting our lack of freedom. They think we cannot get away and as a result will treat us not as we might wish. We cannot be subject to bullying if we are free.

The bully and tyrant exploits a lack of freedom, for some reason. They are an idiot.

Who has the greater claim to property, is it not arbitrary?

Who has a right to own the space around us, that is to say, who should be allowed to exclude all others from space, if they so wish? If we assume that some particular space cannot be utilised by more than one person at a time and that to prosper we must use space, such as land to farm or a place to live, then we must devise a methodology to determine who has the most high claim to the space.

Can we argue that to use the space effectively will yield the best outcome and is therefore the metric under which to determine ownership?

Clearly there is utility in preserving ownership through time, if we plant a field of crops we do not expect that someone else will plant another crop directly on top of our crop a day later. We also do not expect our ownership of the space encapsulated by the walls of our home to be threatened each night, before we go to sleep. So we assume that, one derived, we can expect ownership to continue, at least for while...

The space contained within a home is put to more effective use by the person residing there, for they have built the home and know how everything works, they also derive greater pleasure, which has utility, since they have everything just as they want it.

The barometer against which relative utility is measured is not against the one making the challenge, it is against the population as a whole. We are not required to give up our space to every challenger who has sold their assets, presuming it is possible to sell space, only to justify it against the wider population. This is how we measure whether we have left enough land (or space) to the commons.

Is it even legitimate to defend space? Perhaps not but if it is possible to defend our labour then we can say that we have planted grass on all of the land, which is our labour and walking on it will be damaging, or that we have perfumed the air with our breath. So then we can be said to have built the space, in effect.

...but to what extent has the intruder damaged these items, or prevented the use of them, surely enough has been left for the original creator?

Is it a risk to be near other people, or for them to be allowed to be near you? If we assume there is no risk of being violently attacked then what reason is there to keep others out of your house? What is it that you are being prevented from doing by their presence? What does a violation of your property prevent you from doing, what is it preventing? So does a crime of property violation actually exist or can we say that only preventing others from doing what they (legitimately) want is a crime?

What have you been prevented from doing by their presence?

So then we have no arbitrary claim to (spacial) property, only that we cannot, might not be prevented from doing actions which we would legitimately like to do, specifically to use what we have made. To be prevented from using property the defendant (defending property) must show that they have been, or are, being prevented from doing something, which they have a legitimate right and claim to engage in. So we can use anything (and go anywhere) so long as we do not hurt other people.

What is the harm if we sleep in an unoccupied house undiscovered for many years?

Harm can take a different form to that of the conventional use of the word, in Law, so we can harm someone not only by being aggressive but by preventing them from using something, so if we take up too much land, this is aggressive, if we sit on someone's toilet, preventing them from doing the same, this will harm them, if they either purchased, or created the toilet. We harm others by occupying (or using) their (any) property to the extent that it prevents them from using it when they would like to do so.

The use of any property harms others, for it prevents them from the use of it, when they might want to do so, but the judgement (to be made) is to work out who has the more legitimate claim.

Does ideology serve the people or the State?

One of the failings of Socialists (those who use the Government to excuse the initiation of force) is that they will place ideology above personal interests, and those of others. For example they will place something called the 'National Interest' above the concerns of an individual. They will say that some injustice is for the greater good merely because it endorses and upholds some principle of Law. We might be made an example of...

There is never any instance where a crime is worthwhile in preventing a greater injustice, is there? And since that is the case then no ideology worth keeping is strengthened by the prosecution of an unjust Law. And hence no ideology is worth keeping.

Ideology is derived from authority alone and has no legitimate function. It is required only where there is no legitimate reason to continue an action but the action is defended anyway, on these grounds.

Ideology is used to defend unjust actions.

Using banks means that we run the risk of the money not being printed

The deposit guarantee enables banks to print money out of thin air because it means that bank deposits are no worse than (other forms of) cash, as a store of wealth.

Because fiat cash is entirely symbolic (of what?) and has no intrinsic physical worth, it is possible for other nebulous forms of money to affect, influence their price.

Because of deposit insurance, it is possible for the market to value a promise of the issuance of a unit of currency equivalently to the actual currency itself. If people doubted the reliability of deposit insurance, they might take their money out of the banks and create a discrepancy (in price) between the two forms of money. But people value the promises equivalently to the actual cash, perhaps even because they are not aware of there being an implicit promise only, and not actual cash. They might think deposits are real money, but they are not they are merely a promise of cash from the Government.

To rely on banks and to trust that deposits are safe there means that we are trusting the Government to provide and print the required banknotes in the event of a bank run.

If the deposit guarantee is not a lie then banks are printing cash

What we don't know is whether the central bank would print all the required money in the event of a systematic bank run. How would they behave? Would a bank run result in all of the bank deposits being replaced with (conventional forms of) cash?

There is uncertainty surrounding what would likely happen in the event of a bank run.

How would the central bank react to a bank run?

If we assume the deposits would be replaced with cash then, currently, commercial, private banks are issuing currency. This would be consistent with the deposit guarantee...

If there is no replacement of deposits for cash, then many people will be disappointed and will have been tricked by their banks. That is not to say that they have not been tricked in the alternate (printing) scenario, for many people do not realise that the banks are inflating the currency when they take a loan, only that the deposit guarantee will have been a lie instead. Either the deposit guarantee is a lie or banks are printing cash.

What is morality?

There are no oughts, there is only existence and we will find often that people contradict themselves when they discuss what should be, particularly concerning the State; from David Hume...

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

Moral nihilism cannot be falsified, as no form of nihilism can be falsified. We cannot make something true unless there is a phenomenon which gives rise to the truth, something in nature, but what is there in nature that we might identify as demonstration of an instruction on how to live; we cannot trust our senses on this, surely? For what reason (from what type of phenomenon) would we ever deduce a true morality?

Perhaps the existence of life itself suggests a morality; if we attack life by being aggressive, this is immoral? Unless nothing truly exists, there is only nothing and this is a dream, then can we say that life exists and then so does morality, selected by Darwinian evolution?

Is the World not moral? Nature would appear to select for a particular type of morality, in that we must collaborate, to a degree, to do well. If we aren't moral, as a group, we will fail, this is the prisoner's dilemma in life. Collaboration generally works, not always, but most of the time, which is why we have an affinity towards it, mostly. What reason is there to be immoral? There are only reasons to be moral, from what I have found...

There is morality in nihilism, not nature, cause and effect are a form of morality, are they not?

Taxation is invalid since it is aggressive

What is the point of taxation? Since it is coercive, it can only be described as aggressive, there can be no argument that it is defensive, for what is the crime of the citizen, that they are alive? If it is not a crime to be alive, then taxation must be aggressive and, unless aggression is not invalid, then tax is invalid.

Government Services compensate tax

Anything that isn't a crime is a right, so the person who wises to commit an act must ask themselves whether they are committing a crime. And anything that is not permitted is a crime. Before any action we should ask ourselves, do I have a right to do this, or is it a crime.

But if we assume everything is a crime, unless shown otherwise, how can we prove that what we are doing is not a crime, perhaps by showing its virtue? Can we prove that our actions are good?

Rather than to use force, it would be better if people were to provide a service (which may be refused) to others, or even to donate their efforts freely.

It's not a service if it cannot be refused without punishment, it becomes something else, a form of compensation for the act of taxation. Government Services are compensation for having been taxed. There would be no obligation to provide the services if the taxpayer is not forced to provide the money.

Democracy is our only protection against the theft of the Government

Why force people to pay for Government Services, is this not equivalent to being forced to pay for a protection racket, extortion scheme? If we assume the service is valuable to the people, will they not buy it themselves? How can we be certain that they are getting what they need?

If someone cannot be trusted to spend their own money in their best interests, how can the Government be relied upon to do it for a third party? If the service is not valuable to the people whom it is being provided for, then what is the point, other than to enrich those who take the money? Is the purpose of (unfair, aggressive) taxes and Government Services only to enrich the State?

Because the Government has a (legal) monopoly on power, they are able to forcibly extract money with no judicial consequences. The Government take money from the citizens because they can, but we should vote against it.

Why make an exception for the Government?

Why make an exception for the Government?

If we would not tolerate a specific action perpetrated by a typical person, such as forced payment, then why allow it when it is popular, or committed by the Government? Kant's Categorical Imperative requires that we "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." and yet we do not make this requirement of the Government.

It is a waste of time to be aggressive

Why bother being aggressive, why not just let people get on with their lives? We generally excuse aggression with the appeal that it is for the greater good, even to the advantage of the victim.

Prohibitionists will seek to deny drugs to people who choose freely to take them, for the benefit of the person being restricted, or licensed. How can it be to the advantage of the victim to suffer the initiation of force, surely, perhaps the beneficiary is the one imposing the violence? The aggressor likes to see the world reflect their own prejudices and ignorance. They do not like to be made aware of the contradictions to their thinking provided by reality and they seek to impose themselves on others as a consequence.

Being aggressive takes effort and is a waste of time.

Aggressive taxation is a Crime of the State

In what aspects is a War Crime different from a typical crime? It would appear that the only differentiation to be made is that it has been perpetrated by the State, so it might better be described as a State Crime. For example, the aggressive and illegal invasion of another country is an act of War, but is also, and further, a State Crime.

So, in that sense, we might say that other acts of aggression perpetrated by the State, such as unfair taxation, is (are) also a State Crime. Illegal requirement for licenses, such as medical or legal restrictions might also be described as being a State Crime.

We might say that aggressive Socialism is a crime of the State.

We feel ashamed when we do something wrong

What does it mean to be aggressive?

If we take advantage of our neighbour in a situation where there are insufficient resources to sustain both of you then any arguments concerning the right thing to do will break down. It is everyone for themselves. But if there are sufficient resources, might it not be reasonable to suggest that there is no need then to do violence? And if there is no need to do violence then is to do so then wrong?

We might take the attitude that if we can dominate someone, then we will but how is that to our advantage? That type of behaviour is uncivilised. If we cannot leave our house for fear that it will be stolen from then we must take extra precautions all the time, which is a waste of time. For what reason would we want to harm others, there is no de facto reason.

If I have the right to be free of violence then that right is extended to others, by me.

To work and have an income is no threat to the Government, it is not harmful.

In spite of the desire that some may have to do violence, such as the State, it is not right, the victim has done (us) no harm. Why make people pay unfair taxes? Perhaps, eventually people will feel ashamed.

Socialism is aggressive

Is it right that we are permitted to vote for violence; should there be a judiciary to decide if the Democratic mandate has failed? We cannot make aggression, Socialism illegal so how can we address this issue? Perhaps to indicate to people that Socialism is aggressive, or to point out where, in their policy, that they are violating peacefulness, would this be a good tactic?

People can vote for violence

What greater good is served when we permit an action which would otherwise be considered (to be) a crime, under the protection of Democracy, when we vote to allow aggression? If the majority of people (want to) perpetrate the crime is it then absolved, for the fact of it being popular?

Is it only the number of votes which determine whether an action is aggressive?

It is not only the number of votes which determines if an action is aggressive, it is also, entirely, the nature of the action which defines the distinction. If we take taxes from someone who is selling their labour, (as in the Income Tax, or VAT) then we have initiated force as a consequence of the act of engaging in free trade, it is not because of some prior behaviour perpetrated by the victim, the taxpayer. Clearly, by the definition of the tax, it is not even making the case to be considered anything other than aggressive, there is no pretence.

It might be said that some people have not left enough land to others

The problem which creates issues to do with land rights is that other people own the land, to excess. If we are born into a world where all of the land is owned by someone else and they choose not to sell any of it to us, then we have no choice, if we want to eat, to either rent a field, or to work for one of the landowners in the hope that we will be able to purchase food.

The problem is that such a person is not being granted their natural rights to land which is being denied by the ownership held by other people. The Earth is finite so there is no way around this without restricting the ownership of the aristocratic (as far as land ownership is concerned) class.

The issue is not that others own too much, we are not jealous, instead that not enough land is left to the remainder, as has already been suggested by John Locke...

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.

But to what extent is one person able to feel guilt for taking too much land when so many do the same, and so many take much more? It is a 'class' of people who are at fault? The individual feels no particular remorse because they are surrounded by so many other people doing the same, or worse. If accused, they will point to the others around them who take more land than they themselves are taking.

A sufficiency of land must be left to those who have none, to allow natural justice to take place.

Rather than to accuse those with an excess of land of having too much we should say that they have not left enough for the rest of the population, for it is not their fault, but that of God, or should we say Nature, that there is only a finite amount.

If we have not left enough land for others, then we might justifiably be encouraged to divest some of it, either by giving it away, or selling it for a cheap price.

What have you lost? Nothing!

What crime is it to have failed to do enough for others?

If we have not done enough to help our fellow man, or even other species of animal, is it right that we are harmed as a result for punishment? Would this provide encouragement, if so, to do what and for what purpose? If others are not compelled to do good for others then would we cease to act in that way? If others are allowed to be free then what would we choose to do with our own freedom, would we not serve others, at least in some small way?

What will be the consequence of our immorality in not sufficiently helping others?

We might choose to help others only so that we can demonstrate, in that way, the type of Society in which we would like to live. It might hurt our feelings to be made aware of how indifferent other people are to others, by their inactivity, but that would not justify the use of force to compel aid.

We should not be offended that no one might want us to be around, there is no reason to take this personally, it is simply the nature of life. The good news is that, generally, we are valued by others, at least for our utility...

What reason is there to expect help from a good Samaritan, a helpful passerby? We can rely only on ourselves, if that.

If we are lazy enough we get thirsty and then to drink feels refreshing, which keeps us alive.

If we are not earning enough we can go elsewhere

Employers compete for their staff...

We can make money by helping someone else, but is there money to be made from someone who has no wants? What do the poor have to give?

If we can provide for a person, so that they may spend their time on a more pressing need then we have served the market.

For example, if we provide the tools which a craftsperson requires to do their job then we will make a profit, mutually. We enable others to better accomplish their goals. If we sell the tools to the craftsperson who serves us then both people gain from the arrangement. We help each other to remove problems.

But our assistance may be contingent on reciprocation. This differs from charity in that there is a cost to us performing our leg of the trade. We would rather retain our tools and the craftsperson would rather do nothing than perform the task we request of them. We do not mind giving to charity, but we would prefer not to be compelled to show up for work.

The volunteer is doing work which they value, they might not value the (other, normal) work they perform for pay, at least not to the same extent as it is valued by their employer. If the work is valued by the one performing it, then we are working for ourselves. We can think of our pay as a donation in gratitude, paid to encourage us to continue...

If your work is valued then people will compete to acquire it. They are paying you to do it again, in a sense, from the point of view of the worker but the work is already done. In most types of work, where we are not selling a product, but our expertise or effort, it is too late to withdraw our work once we have completed it. In this case we require our employer to pay a premium for good work to retain us, not to make us do the work in the first place.

If we have nothing to give, then we rely on charity, which is to say that we rely on others valuing (the thought of) our continued existence.

Taxation is wrong

We respect politicians because they have the ability to punish us if we displease them. We are a slave to their (role of) master. This defines evil; it is the act of taking advantage of a position of superiority that is not earned, or warranted.

To attack someone who is more powerful than you, or at least of equivalent strength, is not so bad. The best is not to attack anyone at all and live under one's own means, if possible.

Socialism is a violation of human rights

Socialism is a violation of human rights because we have a right to be free and own our own property, which includes (the product of) our labour. What have we done to deserve this imposition?

It is best if people are left to make their own choice

Socialists do not have the intent to do harm, they want a good and nice outcome but the results never match this. Trying to help, if it cannot be refused, often leads to a worse outcome.

Conservatives generally use defensive force, but often in a misguided and misdirected way; they might seek to regulate a voluntary activity. Socialists often use aggressive force, but with the justification that it is to do good. They will ask, am I not spending this money in a beneficent way? They do not ask how the money would have been spent, had it not been taken in taxes.

The crime of Socialism is that the money is wasted and is not able to be used by ordinary people to resolve their problems.

People are best at solving their own problems, not the Government.

Socialism hinders our ability to provide for ourselves. Why not let people pay for their requirements themselves?

Socialism makes life more difficult

Socialism makes life worse.

Life is difficult enough already with disease, hunger and death but Socialism is yet another burden for us all. The Libertarian does not necessarily say that life is easy and good, only that Socialism makes no positive difference.

All cash is a trick

It's not debt if it causes inflation; it's money, or at least it is cash.

Debt doesn't cause inflation, in the private sector, unless there is an implied threat of a bailout from the Government involving printing more notes.

What differentiates money and cash? If money is what we desire, then cash might be something different, it might even be IOUs for money. We don't want cash, we want money so cash might be symbolic of money. Cash and banknotes aren't money, they are cash which is different because it's only a trick.

Socialists lack empathy for those that are violated

Does it matter if our companion doesn't want to hear us talk, if our correspondent doesn't want to read our letters, if our customer doesn't want to purchase our product? What is the harm if we impose ourselves on others?

Surely it is cruel to impose ourselves on others in this way?

If we have empathy for our audience, or our customer we will not impose ourselves on them and allow them the possibility to remove themselves from our presence. Socialists lack empathy for others.

Socialism is nasty and aggressive

For the use of force not be false (a crime) we must show that the thing being punished is wrong.

If it is wrong to strike a person physically, then it might be reasonable to retaliate with force. To be justified, the use of force should only be used against (someone who has perpetrated) an activity which is wrong.

It is wrong to punish something that is not criminal, if we are free. So Income Tax, the Minimum Wage are both false, they are wrong. Socialism is wrong.

Socialism uses force, that much we are aware of, accept and know about, but for it to be correct (defensive) it must be shown that there has been a prior crime.

We are owed nothing but land

We have no entitlements, except perhaps land.

We are not entitled to a free education, or to free healthcare or to roads, or to any other service. If we have been wrongfully excluded from land then we are owed redress, but in no other circumstance has a crime been done to us. For other people to have been lazy in not helping us is never a crime on their part. Other people do not owe us any service.

We do have the right to force other people to give us their land, if we have an insufficient quantity and have committed no crime. A person in prison has no land because they have done something harmful to others, but if that is not the case then we are owed a piece of land.

Since 1971 all cash is fake

Banks print fake money out of thin air.

Money isn't what it is widely presumed to be, that is, little pieces of paper with pictures of dead people on them. People value money, not for their attractive design, but instead because it has the legacy value of being redeemable for a hard asset, such as gold. When the central bank is issuing more cash, this is in fact issuing fake money. Bank credit is also fake money, but of a slightly different form.

Ever since Nixon closed the gold window, all cash is a fake form of money.

People with too much land should be forced to sell some of it into the market

Some people have an excessive quantity of the means of production, including land. If some people have too much land it means that the rest of us have little choice but to survive on a paucity of land, or to attack the people with too much. This form of attack might be characterised as defensive, or retaliation for prior attacks which established the land rights.

People with an excess of land are taking advantage of prior aggression. Perhaps we should prosecute for this aggression, or give the landowners the choice to return the land to the rest of the population? Sell the land or get locked up...

People with an excess of the Means of Production, including land, should be forced to get rid of some of it, to sell some into the market.

Banks would not be trusted without the State

The effect of deposit insurance is that people are not concerned with the solvency of their bank and are not really worried about a bank run. They feel protected from any loss and do not consider it prudent to take preventative measures to take their savings out. This is possible, to provide the insurance, because paper money may be issued in any quantity and there is no (material) limit on how many notes can exist...

Without deposit insurance it would be more difficult for a bank to lend imprudently because depositors would be wary and look out for any bank making loans and subsequently, withdraw their funds. It would not be possible for the bank to make any loans, because people would want their money available on demand, for everyone. A rumour that a bank is loaning money might be disastrous for the bank if, as a result, they lose all their customers.

Deposit insurance enables banks to keep their deposits even though they have loaned the money to someone else. Without deposit insurance, and without the enforcement of the contract to take good care of the deposits, people would not trust to use the banks. It is because of this contract that people are willing to 'trust' the banks, in fact this is the reverse of trust, if we rely on the threat of violence to provide confidence.

If there is no enforcement of contracts, as there should not be, then no bank would exist; the reputation would not be sufficient for people to think it a good idea to hand over their belongings.

Those who have too much land are trespassing

Taxation is a violation of property rights, we have a right to retain the produce of our labour and to retain a sufficiency of land, and other assets, if such are (to be) owned by others.

To demand taxes, against the threat of physical punishment for refusal to pay, is not legitimate, and to enforce the punishment is aggressive. If we cannot retain our property, from theft by the Government, then to what extent can something be said to be owned at all? If the Government can take something from us at any time, then to what extent is it our property? By what right are taxes taken from us? Our only right, in these circumstances, is to withhold services from those who will not pay. If the Government is of the view that too much property is owned by a particular person, they (the Government) are entitled to refuse to protect it from (private sector) theft...

Property is protected by a person attacking people that intrude onto what is considered, by them, to be their territory. There can be no collective consensus on what is an appropriate quantity of land for a person to own, for themselves. If we are witness to one person attacking another, in a dispute over property, then we might form in our minds an opinion of whom (which of them) has the greater claim, and whether the attack can be said to be defensive, or if it is aggressive. We might forgive someone who appears to be defending a suitably modest sum of land.

If someone is using force and violence to defend too great a piece of land then we might choose to prevent their use of force; they are being aggressive. The measure of this dividing line is one of balance.

The best mechanism, to prevent a grievance resulting in violence is to allow someone without a sufficiency of land (who feels their rights are being constantly violated) to make a complaint about this (perceived) violation; they report a crime of failure to recognise legitimate rights. To be in ownership of too great a quantity of land (any natural product of the Earth) is a crime; they are trespassing on the land of others.

To be in possession of too great a quantity of land is to be trespassing on that land.

Why force people to help others if they do not want to?

If you want to help people, a good idea is to open a business, or to become a Capitalist. A Capitalist, in this instance is differentiated from the businessperson by having Capital which is made available, the Means of Production, so that it may be exploited by the workers for profit.

We can, almost, be sure of doing no harm if we are either a Capitalist or a businessperson since we always allow people to refuse without imposing physical harm. We are not a protection racket, or the Mafia. The only possible complaint against the Capitalist (against the businessperson there are none, unless they commit a generic crime) might be that they are in possession of too great an extent of the means of production, but this complaint is more effectively addressed at those who uphold the property rights, usually the Government.

We are even more helpful to others if our service is offered at a reasonable price.

We can only be doing harm if we prevent another person from doing what they want to do, or if we seek to coerce others into doing what we want them to do. If we do not feel an obligation, a debt to others, then none exists. There is no utility in imposing, forcing others to help the community. Being forced to do good will lead to resentment and is (to suffer from) a form of tyranny.

Forcing others to do good will not result in good outcomes and will lead to harm, and even violence.

The taxpayer is forced to provide Government Services for the rest of the community. We are forced to provide for others, but why?

The problem with FPtP is that we have no choice to vote negatively

People, politicians will vote against their particular interests to protect the party and to damage their opposition. They will vote for measures which they don't fully approve of because no better alternative is on offer. They will vote for a bill, or law which they do not consider to be very good only because it is better than no law.

Political parties are more of a threat to individuals than they are of assistance. This means that people will be willing to vote for a politician if they are able to provide protection from the feared and hated party. For this, we will vote only for someone who is loyal to the opposition party. We vote for the Republicans to weaken the Democrats and the reverse is true. This is why political parties will form and individual politicians will join them.

Given this fact, does it then not make sense to allow voters better means to protect themselves, as clearly they wish to do. Politics is confrontational, we do not want to vote in favour of propositions, we want to vote in opposition to them...

The principle behind First Past The Post is that we choose the candidate we most like, but the truth of the situation is that people vote for the one that will provide them the best protection. We do not seek a (positive) representative it is a shield that is sought. Immediately we see that it is advantageous to collaborate; if we seek protection, then any group which organises together will drown out the minority politicians. If we don't know how the representative will vote, and we do not know that others will also choose that candidate the vote is split. A group can seize power by working together and only the formation of another group in response will provide a protection. Individual representative politicians are useless in protecting the electorate against a political party because even if the best opposition candidate in each constituency is a clear choice, a stand out candidate, they may not all collaborate n Parliament; they may side with the Government and betray the voters.

The small Government party must promise to provide enough Government Services so that they will attract votes to win. They must appeal to, and appease their enemy, in political terms.

The problem with FPtP is that we are not able to vote against, only positively. Proportional Representation offers a chance to vote against certain principles, in a way; we can protest.

We have no choice but to work with others to get money

It is impossible to store wealth, so that we are protected from hardship. We must always be vigilant against threats. We can store food, but we cannot store the wealth derived from holding assets desired by others and we cannot (permanently) protect ourselves from working for others.

How can we store money, whatever it is that we store can equally be collected by other people, so they will not want it and we will have no advantage to employ them. We cannot store something that we can be sure will be desired by others, they might not like to continue to buy it. There is nothing (no asset) that others can be sure to value in the future.

We are at the mercy of other people and must collaborate with them, to get what is the most desired currency of the day.

The misanthrope and recluse is not able to remain that way for long, as their savings will run out.

A business makes it easier for people to look after themselves

In what way is a business similar to a charity?

In a charity we pay to have services provided to someone else, in a business we pay for services to be provided directly to the customer. In a business the customer receives the services, in a charity someone else does.

Are we not doing good if we reward ourselves, is it more virtuous if we have provided a service for others, than ourselves? Perhaps, but there is no shame is preserving our own life. Is it better that we put others before ourselves, for what reason would that be preferable? To be considerate of others is of course desirable, but to put others above ourselves is not our obligation.

We must love ourselves.

Disregard paper currency acquire something else

It is not the quantity of fiat money that provides its value, for what is the source of the scarcity when any quantity of new cash may be printed? Instead it is derived from a legacy attitude to printed money, which was once representative of redeemability for a commodity, as well as the changing quantities of money held by individuals.

If people like paper money, and a have a feeling of wealth when they possess a high number of notes, then more notes will heighten this feeling and reduce their particular demand for more notes. It is the changing quantity of notes which affects price, not the absolute number, for on that there is no limit.

It doesn't matter how many notes there are, they have no scarcity.

Selling labour, or other property for paper is a bad trade, it is better to be the one selling the pieces of paper.

FPtP provides little choice to voters

Proportional Representation would remove the ability of politicians to be deaf to the complaints of their critics.

With FPtP there is no loss in one of the ruling parties, provided they are not worried about being beaten by their main rivals, being completely ambivalent about the reasons people will not support them. With PR a party will seek to gain every vote since there may be similar parties occupying a similar range of policies which can attract the votes, and hence power.

With PR political parties are concerned to hear and discuss with their critics because otherwise they will not prosper as a party. Being deaf is not a good tactic in a PR system. With FPtP what reason is there to listen? A FPtP party has no incentive to listen to criticism of policies which are shared by their putative rival, they are concerned, always, with what their opposition rival will say, not what is best. It leads to an obsession with the rival party and they end up talking to each other.

The FPtP parties don't care what you say because there is little choice to vote for anyone else.

For property rights to be valid the unlanded are due an income

Since we are overwhelmed by their power, and the law, we have no ability to refuse the directions of the Government to stay away from property.

If the Government instructs us not to be a poacher, or a squatter, we have no ability to refuse, unless we can evade detection and arrest. If we are not able to refuse this direction, what is our reciprocal right?

If others have land then we must have land.

We may consent to stay away from other property if we have been granted a patch of land from which others will stay away. Property rights are only justifiable if they are beneficial globally, for the group as a whole, not only for the one with the most to gain, there is no justification in a single, powerful person instructing everyone to pay rent. If we must pay rent to those who have land, then rent is due in return.

To be observant of property rights is equivalent to paying rent to the person with property. To stay away is to grant a price. If we are paying rent, to stay off (most of) the land, what is it that we are receiving in return? If we have no land of our own, this is not a fair price.

Naturally, we would be issued with an invoice for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we do trespass and are a poacher, or squatter, then we will be issued with a bill for the inconvenience. The payment of that invoice will be enforced by those who wish to do so, this is the cost to violating the property laws.

We might seek to impose such a cost on someone who is walking in a public place, but we would only have the capacity to extract a charge if we were in possession of the power derived from, and the consent of the remainder of the population.

Those who occupy a large portion of the land should not have so much. Rather than to impose a tax, we can withhold the intersubjective consent that the invoice to trespass will be enforced, for the wealthy.

A failure to enforce, defend property rights is different from imposing a property cap. We can withdraw the consent to defend property which is deemed excessive to the extent that it negatively affects others. If the tax is not paid then the property will no longer receive protection, or instead, the Government becomes a voluntary protection service, which can be safely refused.

A property tax becomes a protection service, which, if legitimate, will have the possibility to refuse. So then, there would not be a tax.

The ability to have exclusive access to a piece of property is granted to the individual by the remainder of the population. If we want to have property then we owe a debt to the rest, and may too be owed a payment from them for their property rights. If we are to be in receipt of no payment, or property, then for what reason are we obligated to recognise the property rights of others, that would not be fair. If others are to have property then we are owed either a payment, which is a rent to stay away, or some property of our own. If we are to have neither of these, income or property then what obligation do we have not to be a squatter? If this is the case then property rights are good for some and not the rest, and should be discarded.

If we are to have property rights then anyone with no property is due an income to stay away from the property of others.

To be a Capitalist we can be a prostitute

There is no such thing as a request, only an offer or an instruction.

An instruction is when we are invited to do something but with the contained and presumed addition that our failure to perform the task will result in some forfeit. We may lose our position of employment, or failure to comply may lead to a punishment of some kind as in taxation.

An offer is clear, it means we are able to refuse with no negative consequences.

A request tends to associate itself with an obligation of some kind; if the request is denied, or refused, the disappointed party, it is supposed, is entitled, for some reason, to feel that they have been slighted. To make a request, and not an offer is to suggest or imply that some obligation is due to the one making the request.

We should not make requests of others, only offers.

If we make a request under the presumption that failure to comply entitles us to think less of the other party, we have made a mistake. No one is obligated to help us, or is in our debt, for any reason. If a refusal does not alter our opinion of the person refusing, then we have made a legitimate request, or we have made an offer, so to speak. In this scenario, the offer to provide assistance has been extended, and perhaps refused, with no ill-feeling as a result.

If we might feel disappointed that we have been refused then we have made a mistake in our thinking, to hope for something (from another person) is a false position.

We can give the opportunity to others to help us and provide assistance.

We can also place a restriction on our cooperation with them, so we might place a price on our labour, as in an employment contract. So, if someone wants to have use of our property, then we have the right to refuse and this is not, should not, result in bad feelings to us from the other party. If we are able to (legally) deny permission to property then we are also able to place a price on altering that declaration. We can make money by letting people have access to our property, as a whore will know.

To use fear does not make us safe

To be alone is not dangerous, it is perfectly safe and we have no need, derived from security, to stick together.

We can be safe as autonomous agents who act collaboratively and protect ourselves according to our wishes. It is fun to protect ourselves and to chase criminals. If protection is not provided voluntarily, or by a charity then we must do it ourselves, either by paying for, or working for a security company or by protecting ourselves. Or we could take the risk of being unprotected and see if the fear of retribution, from whatever source, is sufficient disincentive.

All crime is a folly on the part of the criminal, even if they mistakenly believe themselves to be deriving pleasure from the activity. It is only ever wise to commit crime, or to employ force, in the most dire and drastic of circumstances, when our lives are threatened...

It makes no sense to use force unless we are in danger and there is no utility in contracting others to help us, if they have no other desire so to do.

Security is not to be derived from obligating others to have a debt of protection to ourselves.

A slave will not make an effective guard, or detective. We are not protected by someone who has no choice in the matter, for fear of punishment, only by being surrounded by loving and willing people are we truly safe. Forcing others to provide our security is an ineffective approach. We are not made safe by employing the use of fear, to encourage those around us (pour encourager les autres) to provide protection.

Anything that is not essential is not owned

If someone doesn't want us to engage with them, in the manner that we are doing so, then we must desist from doing so unless our actions are seen as being essential and in defence. Even the justification that our actions are defensive is limited, if it is not essential; what would be the point to avenge a past crime if we are no longer threatened?

For the use of force to be legitimate it must be essential in protecting our existence. It would then not be legitimate to reclaim land that has been stolen if we retain a sufficiency.

If land is used as a store of wealth then it leads us to the problem of others being prevented from having land to grow crops, when we derive no particular (justifiable) advantage from the land. The landowner wants to keep others from using the land, not to retain their own use of the land, but instead so as not to lose wealth. The landowner could rent out a field, or let others use that land, but will not want to do so to avoid the ownership being placed into dispute.

The use of force is only justified if it is essential, even against someone who has done a crime.

If we own an excess of the Means of Production, be it instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) or subjects of labour (natural resources and raw materials) then it makes economic sense to continue to produce goods, even if there is no personal demand. It is a consequence of our ability to store wealth, in a fashion, that creates this demand for unbidden production. It is because the demand exists in an ongoing way, in the form of the market, that we are able to discover a demand for all production.

If we have more land, and other assets, resources, property than we require then we have an incentive to drive consumption above what it must be, to meet our needs.

If we have no right to defend land, and other possessions, beyond what is required as a necessity to live with then the rest of the land becomes common land. And we would have no right to lease out the Means of Production in the way that many do today...

We contest the right of the landowner to claim the land that currently they control.

If we have no assets, or property, we will not be able to survive (so we can claim to own some land) but can it be owned if it is not required by the freeholder? The default would, should be that the land is owned by no one, not that it is owned by a person, whoever that might be.

To be legitimate, if we can only use force when we must, then all claims to property are valid only if the land is essential for survival. If we have more Capital than we need, then that should be left to the commons.

A right is any action which is not a crime

Everything that is not a crime is a right. There is no middle ground on this issue, or on any issue, if examined closely enough. The middle is excluded...

We have a right to do anything that has not been shown to be wrong, a crime. We have a right to breathe the air, to sing, to play chess. If any of these things can be shown to be harmful then we no longer have that right. It has been shown that stealing is harmful to the efficient progress of a Society, so we do not have a right to steal and our punishment is often imprisonment.

If we are not sufficiently protected from a criminal after their punishment, if they continue to have criminal inclinations then we have a right to separate ourselves from the delinquent individual.

We do not have the right to do something that has been shown to be harmful, assuming infallibility in those who have made the decision. Ignorance of the Law is not relevant, it is only used to defend those who punish against charges of aggression. If we arrest someone and we can show that they have committed a crime then we have made a lawful arrest. It does not matter whether the criminal is knowledgeable of the law or not. The strictures of the law are used to constrain those who impose the law, those who have done the arresting and punishment. The law answers the question, is it right to retaliate? It tells us what is defensive and what is aggressive, it differentiates...

We have a right to act defensively, we have a right to lock people up if they have done a crime, otherwise how would behaviour change? What else would alter behaviour?

The definition of a right: A right is any action which is not, has not yet been shown to be, a crime. It is the antonym of a crime.

Slavery is not a right

The Government has no right to a share of my labour, or that of anyone else who does not give it willingly.

Similarly, no one has a right to education or healthcare that is provided coercively, under duress, since this violates the ownership of labour. It is not a right to be able to secure the labour of another person, that is slavery.

We have a right to do anything which is not harmful

If a lack of harm means no debt, then anything which is not harmful to others is then allowed.

This means we have a right to trade whatever we want, so long as the recipient is responsible and has the ability to refuse. We can earn whatever we are capable to earn and employ whomsoever we like. We can engage in any activity that doesn't harm others.

The Government and the State only has the right to prevent us from acting in this way if we have caused harm, or perhaps if our actions will lead us to cause harm. Harm can include damage to property such as pollution.

Freedom is a right defined as the ability to perform any action which is not harmful to others. Unless we are not free, then we have a right to do any action which is not harmful. If we are free, then innocent actions are a right.


We have a right to sell our labour, without taxation, if we are free. To be free means we have the right to do what we like provided it doesn't harm other people, or property. We have a right to do anything which is not harmful, unless we are a slave.

The Lockean Proviso is more important than the labour theory of property

The labor theory of property or labor theory of appropriation is a natural law theory that holds that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources. (This is not to be confused with a labor theory of value). [Wikipedia 13th March 2010]

For what reason is something owned? We might argue that there is a pragmatic arrangement in property rights, that if resources are allocated appropriately we have the best outcome for individuals and, by necessity, for Society.

But is there a moral argument to say that some things are owned by a particular person, we might say that our bodies are owned by their own person as a matter of faith.

If we own what we make, that would suggest that we have a right to dispose of it at our will. We might build something that blocks the rights of another person and this would suggest that ownership under those circumstances is not pragmatic. If I place a carpet over a pathway am I entitled to charge compensation to all those who walk over it? Does building a fence around a piece of land entitle me to charge rent to all those who reside in it?

To have built something is not sufficient to have conferred ownership of that object to the one who has built it.

There is no reason to argue that because we have constructed a thing, that it is owned by us. To have built something does not confer ownership; it must not unduly restrict the rights, access and abilities of others.

To own something we must show that we have not violated the Lockean Proviso, if we build something that violates this then it is not owned by us, the Lockean Proviso supersedes the labour theory of property appropriation.

Socialism is doing harm all the time

There is no Easter Bunny.

It has not been shown that Socialism works, or is true. This is directly analogous to claims that there is magic in certain things, without evidence. If we are doing something wrong, such as persecuting a minority as a result of our false (unproven) beliefs then we should stop until proof has been shown.

We should stop Socialism until we have some demonstration that it might work, or some argument that it might do so. Socialism is doing harm all the time that we use it to destroy property and labour.