It is preferable to have a separation of State and virtue. The Government should not be doing things which are seen as virtuous, like charity. The Government should only do things which give rise to freedom, such as protecting and recognising property rights and defending the territory with as little coercion as possible. There should be no taxation for the purpose of doing good, only possibly to allow further freedom so that the disadvantaged might be helped.
It is not good that the Government seeks to do good, it should not do so. It should only allow people to get on with their lives, which will end up in the best outcome. The best outcome is that the State does little and lets people sort their own lives out, free of impediment.
Thursday 28 January 2010
Sunday 24 January 2010
Deposit insurance is the cause of inflation
Deposit insurance is what enables the banking system to create money and generate inflation. It is what prevents the population from removing their cash from the system. The banks wouldn't be able to dilute the purchasing power of the currency without deposit insurance.
Deposit insurance is the reason why banks are able to cause inflation.
The problem with deposit insurance is that it results in inflation...
Why not let banks fail? Why force people to bail them out? Deposit insurance is malign.
Deposit insurance is the reason why banks are able to cause inflation.
The problem with deposit insurance is that it results in inflation...
Why not let banks fail? Why force people to bail them out? Deposit insurance is malign.
The banking system might be tested if people don't trust the Government to bail them out
Government debt includes bank credit that has been issued by member banks of the central bank system; private banks.
When the banking system issues a mortgage, or typical debt, this is a charge to the taxpayer. Bank debt is bad for taxpayers because it is they who will be the ones forced to pay when the liabilities are due, to the savers. It is reasonable for the taxpayer to object to banks issuing State liabilities in their name.
Has the taxpayer consented to deposit insurance? Should we be forced to pay? If there is no expectation that the State (taxpayer) will bail out the banking system, eventually, then no inflation would have resulted, it is the reason that bank credit remains valuable; a bailout is expected by the market.
The market is expecting a bailout of the banking system...
There would be a widespread bank run of the banking system, if the Government is not trusted to secure the deposits. Trust in the Government explains the absence of a (significant) bank run so far. There won't be a bank run if people trust the Government to bail them out. Lack of trust might result in a (bank) run. A lack of confidence in the Government might result in a collapse of the banking system.
A lack of faith in the Government to secure the banking system might result in the integrity of the system being tested.
When the banking system issues a mortgage, or typical debt, this is a charge to the taxpayer. Bank debt is bad for taxpayers because it is they who will be the ones forced to pay when the liabilities are due, to the savers. It is reasonable for the taxpayer to object to banks issuing State liabilities in their name.
Has the taxpayer consented to deposit insurance? Should we be forced to pay? If there is no expectation that the State (taxpayer) will bail out the banking system, eventually, then no inflation would have resulted, it is the reason that bank credit remains valuable; a bailout is expected by the market.
The market is expecting a bailout of the banking system...
There would be a widespread bank run of the banking system, if the Government is not trusted to secure the deposits. Trust in the Government explains the absence of a (significant) bank run so far. There won't be a bank run if people trust the Government to bail them out. Lack of trust might result in a (bank) run. A lack of confidence in the Government might result in a collapse of the banking system.
A lack of faith in the Government to secure the banking system might result in the integrity of the system being tested.
The value of fiat currency is derived...
The value of fiat currencies is derived from the ability to rent property from the Government.
It is the Government which upholds and arranges property rights, so they too have the ability to evict an householder. They can also allow the tenant to remain settled if they pay rent in the local currency. To have fiat currency means that the Government will accept your rent payment and allow you to retain access to your home.
It is the Government which upholds and arranges property rights, so they too have the ability to evict an householder. They can also allow the tenant to remain settled if they pay rent in the local currency. To have fiat currency means that the Government will accept your rent payment and allow you to retain access to your home.
Friday 22 January 2010
A land dividend has many advantages
A land dividend is justified because the 'poor' have been (and are) restricted from access to the land, and should be compensated... It is better that those who are excluded from land should be compensated, for they have been disadvantaged by the ownership of others, as we all are. It is a cost to us if we are excluded from land, by a landowner and the State. If we have exclusive use of the land, we owe a debt to others. If we have a modest quantity of land then we are due a similar dividend in return that we owe and so there is no debt to pay.
A land dividend has the advantage of compensating the unlanded for their loss in owning little, or no land. The land dividend is owed by those who control large quantities of land, measured by market value. It encourages the efficient use of land and promotes equality, as far as (the use of) resources are (is) concerned...
A land dividend has the advantage of compensating the unlanded for their loss in owning little, or no land. The land dividend is owed by those who control large quantities of land, measured by market value. It encourages the efficient use of land and promotes equality, as far as (the use of) resources are (is) concerned...
To be protected solve the problems of your enemy
It's crazy to force people to pay for protection services because it is in their own interests, already, to be protected...
There is no reason to think that the 'community' will be attacked if they are not coerced into paying for protection. Are they vulnerable if I do not force them to pay for my protection? What community?
An uncoerced Society is not vulnerable to attack because there is no such thing as a community, we are individual and related to all, not in groups. Are we being protected by the mafia? Will we be attacked if we do not group together, is there safety in numbers? Perhaps, but the safety is removed if the group is coercive. Groups should be chosen. There is nothing to worry about, they're not going to attack a free country; we are not hated for our freedoms!
I can assure you that other countries do not want to attack! They are fairly happy where they are, if we want to protect ourselves then we can make their conditions more comfortable...
There is no reason to think that the 'community' will be attacked if they are not coerced into paying for protection. Are they vulnerable if I do not force them to pay for my protection? What community?
An uncoerced Society is not vulnerable to attack because there is no such thing as a community, we are individual and related to all, not in groups. Are we being protected by the mafia? Will we be attacked if we do not group together, is there safety in numbers? Perhaps, but the safety is removed if the group is coercive. Groups should be chosen. There is nothing to worry about, they're not going to attack a free country; we are not hated for our freedoms!
I can assure you that other countries do not want to attack! They are fairly happy where they are, if we want to protect ourselves then we can make their conditions more comfortable...
The big political parties don't want PR
First Past The Post is not a democratic system of voting, it is undemocratic. For a system to be Democratic requires that each vote counts equally and we have the ability to gain full representation in Government. To be Democratic requires proportionality. Only a (voting) system with Proportional Representation is Democratic.
To be Democratic requires that the voters are represented in a proportional way, according to the parties that they have voted for. Without proportionality, the system is not Democratic.
The big (political) parties don't want voting reform...
Only a system of proportional representation will enable the electorate to get rid of the 'big' party system. Without PR we can't get rid of the big parties. We're stuck with the big parties until PR is introduced.
To be Democratic requires that the voters are represented in a proportional way, according to the parties that they have voted for. Without proportionality, the system is not Democratic.
The big (political) parties don't want voting reform...
Only a system of proportional representation will enable the electorate to get rid of the 'big' party system. Without PR we can't get rid of the big parties. We're stuck with the big parties until PR is introduced.
Thursday 21 January 2010
Borrowing doesn't cause inflation
Borrowing, lending doesn't cause inflation, what causes inflation is when the banks take deposits from (the) money that has been loaned into the system. It is the deposits which cause the inflation, not the lending.
Only inflation (of the money supply) is possible, unless people choose to pay down their debts at a greater rate than new debt (deposits) are issued. Unless the debt is paid back, there will be no deflation. The money supply can only increase, unless the debt is paid back.
There will be no deflation unless the debt is paid back...
Only inflation (of the money supply) is possible, unless people choose to pay down their debts at a greater rate than new debt (deposits) are issued. Unless the debt is paid back, there will be no deflation. The money supply can only increase, unless the debt is paid back.
There will be no deflation unless the debt is paid back...
Why force people to pay?
There is no de facto (in spite of what others might say) reason to feel that we have an obligation to others. People should not be forced to pay back their debts, but equally, there is no ongoing debt. We do not have (have not incurred) a debt to Society but equally we do not have an ongoing obligation. Are we obligated to serve others? Why? To do no harm must be the first thing.
We have no obligation to serve. Although, it may be in our interests to do so, and we may want to do so...
We should not be forced to help. What reason is there to think that we will fall as a Society, if we are not compelled to make a contribution? Wouldn't we want to anyway? Why force people to pay for a service? Should we be forced to do anything? We can negotiate with our enemies...
It would be lonely without other people around. The more the merrier... no reason to kill people. Isn't it great to be here? Why advocate freedom, unless life is enjoyable? Why would the foreigner want to attack us? We are lucky to be among others.
Are you lucky to be my neighbour?
Foreigners (others) are not to be feared... it is better for them (usually) to leave the land to you because the more of us that there are, the more efficient becomes the division of labour and the better we do as a species. Humans should collaborate, not fight... we're on the same side, we share a common burden. Let them attack, if they want to be silly. Why would they attack us?
We aren't threatened... you will be left alone if you do not threaten others. If you leave them alone, they will leave you alone, usually.
People generally want to be kind, overall. Most people are kind...
We have no obligation to serve. Although, it may be in our interests to do so, and we may want to do so...
We should not be forced to help. What reason is there to think that we will fall as a Society, if we are not compelled to make a contribution? Wouldn't we want to anyway? Why force people to pay for a service? Should we be forced to do anything? We can negotiate with our enemies...
It would be lonely without other people around. The more the merrier... no reason to kill people. Isn't it great to be here? Why advocate freedom, unless life is enjoyable? Why would the foreigner want to attack us? We are lucky to be among others.
Are you lucky to be my neighbour?
Foreigners (others) are not to be feared... it is better for them (usually) to leave the land to you because the more of us that there are, the more efficient becomes the division of labour and the better we do as a species. Humans should collaborate, not fight... we're on the same side, we share a common burden. Let them attack, if they want to be silly. Why would they attack us?
We aren't threatened... you will be left alone if you do not threaten others. If you leave them alone, they will leave you alone, usually.
People generally want to be kind, overall. Most people are kind...
Why not let everyone increase the money supply?
What's wrong with counterfeiting? And if there is nothing wrong, why not let everyone do it? Surely nature should be the (natural) deterrent against copying something, as in the failed science of alchemy?
Why is it only companies with a banking license that are able to increase the money supply?
Why is it only companies with a banking license that are able to increase the money supply?
Wednesday 20 January 2010
There isn't as much money as people think
Unless people understand the banking system, which they don't, the money that they think is there, isn't. When the money gets loaned and deposited again, this creates more deposits than previously... but people who make these deposits think that they have normal money, when in fact only a small number of them would be able to get their money back. More people think that they have money than is in fact the case.
More people think that they own the money than in fact do. There is much less money than people think. The banking system allows (multiple) people to think that they have money, when they do not. The banking system is a trick in this respect.
More people think that they own the money than in fact do. There is much less money than people think. The banking system allows (multiple) people to think that they have money, when they do not. The banking system is a trick in this respect.
We are forced to pay...
We are forced to pay for Government services. Without force the interaction is voluntary.
Land should not be sold for all time
An economic disincentive against owning an excess of rentable property would be provided by making the ownership of all property similar to a rental contract. We should not be able to own something for all time, everything should be a leasehold. Once it has been occupied, at the end of the lease it should be sold into the market again and the proceeds distributed to the Government and those with insufficient land. The Government should auction land for temporary periods in this way, only.
Coercive protection is justified only as a deterrent
The free rider problem argues that unless people are coerced into paying for public goods such as National Defence or public television, then those services would not exist. But do they really need to exist? Surely they, generally solve a problem that doesn't exist?
It is clear that we do not need a public television service and that we would survive without it...
What would happen without taxes to fund National Defence? Would people protect themselves anyway? Would they be attacked? Surely that is a problem for the population to resolve, not by force. Do people need to be forced to look after themselves? Are we obligated to help? We have a personal obligation to look after ourselves, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we must join together to accomplish the goal that has been set. Why would giving money to the Government help? Just because we don't give money to the Government doesn't mean nothing will be done...
We are more efficient on our own. We don't need to be forced to contribute. We are helping, and defending the country already... The Country would be better defended under an anarchist system. Anarchy would provide a better defence. The more anarchistic and Libertarian the Army, the more potent the Army. Free people are more fearsome. An anarchist country is a dangerous country to attack. Coercion threatens safety. Coercion (even to pay for an Army) is dangerous and weakens a country and its people. Forcing people to pay for the Army makes them poor and unable to defend themselves.
Coercion (high taxes) makes a country weak. People are better able to defend themselves if they are free of coercion. Coercion makes people vulnerable. People have a natural inclination to protect themselves. Do they need to be forced to protect themselves?
Must we be forced to protect ourselves? Without the Government would we be vulnerable to attack? People don't need to be coerced in order to collaborate, Armies will form spontaneously, without coercion. We do not need to be coerced to join together and fight, if there is a threat. An Army formed under coercion is a threat to others. Who do we need to fear? Which country would attack us, if not for our Army? Do they want to retaliate? To decommission takes bravery in this respect...
Coercion in providing Armies is justified only if there is a reason to fear attack, which in their eyes would be retaliation. If no one wants to retaliate against the country, decommissioning is possible. So then, it acts as a deterrent. For as long as a deterrent is necessary, then coercion is justified...
The only justification for a coercive Army is as a deterrent.
It is clear that we do not need a public television service and that we would survive without it...
What would happen without taxes to fund National Defence? Would people protect themselves anyway? Would they be attacked? Surely that is a problem for the population to resolve, not by force. Do people need to be forced to look after themselves? Are we obligated to help? We have a personal obligation to look after ourselves, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we must join together to accomplish the goal that has been set. Why would giving money to the Government help? Just because we don't give money to the Government doesn't mean nothing will be done...
We are more efficient on our own. We don't need to be forced to contribute. We are helping, and defending the country already... The Country would be better defended under an anarchist system. Anarchy would provide a better defence. The more anarchistic and Libertarian the Army, the more potent the Army. Free people are more fearsome. An anarchist country is a dangerous country to attack. Coercion threatens safety. Coercion (even to pay for an Army) is dangerous and weakens a country and its people. Forcing people to pay for the Army makes them poor and unable to defend themselves.
Coercion (high taxes) makes a country weak. People are better able to defend themselves if they are free of coercion. Coercion makes people vulnerable. People have a natural inclination to protect themselves. Do they need to be forced to protect themselves?
Must we be forced to protect ourselves? Without the Government would we be vulnerable to attack? People don't need to be coerced in order to collaborate, Armies will form spontaneously, without coercion. We do not need to be coerced to join together and fight, if there is a threat. An Army formed under coercion is a threat to others. Who do we need to fear? Which country would attack us, if not for our Army? Do they want to retaliate? To decommission takes bravery in this respect...
Coercion in providing Armies is justified only if there is a reason to fear attack, which in their eyes would be retaliation. If no one wants to retaliate against the country, decommissioning is possible. So then, it acts as a deterrent. For as long as a deterrent is necessary, then coercion is justified...
The only justification for a coercive Army is as a deterrent.
Tuesday 19 January 2010
Why force people to pay back their debts?
Debts are illegitimate for the reason that it is supposed that the good of Society is in contradiction to that of the individual. If someone doesn't want to repay a debt, they should not be forced. To incarcerate a debtor is to initiate violence.
If something has been loaned, then it is acceptable to remove them from the property at the end of the lease, but this is different from coercing them into paying off a debt.
We should not be forced to pay back debts; contracts (of this kind) are invalid. If we do not want to pay we should not be forced.
We might say that since the two sides of any transaction are not instantaneous, there is a debt here but that is not the same. The aim and intention in any trade is to make it simultaneous, and we can rely on a third party to adjudicate.
We are not entitled to enforce debts because to do nothing is never criminal; the creditor is not owed. It is not to the advantage of the creditor to incarcerate another person so what use is it to enforce the debt? Since a person never wants to get into debt, the creditor must have exploited them in some way... If the debtor cannot afford something important like food, should they be allowed to go hungry? If they can't afford something expensive like a new house should they be allowed to take on the debt?
Is to enforce debt a good thing? Should people be forced to pay back their debts? Why not allow the repayment of debts to be voluntary?
If something has been loaned, then it is acceptable to remove them from the property at the end of the lease, but this is different from coercing them into paying off a debt.
We should not be forced to pay back debts; contracts (of this kind) are invalid. If we do not want to pay we should not be forced.
We might say that since the two sides of any transaction are not instantaneous, there is a debt here but that is not the same. The aim and intention in any trade is to make it simultaneous, and we can rely on a third party to adjudicate.
We are not entitled to enforce debts because to do nothing is never criminal; the creditor is not owed. It is not to the advantage of the creditor to incarcerate another person so what use is it to enforce the debt? Since a person never wants to get into debt, the creditor must have exploited them in some way... If the debtor cannot afford something important like food, should they be allowed to go hungry? If they can't afford something expensive like a new house should they be allowed to take on the debt?
“The best way to keep one's word is not to give it.” - Napoleon BonaparteHow can we prove that a debt is owed? Is debt a good idea?
Is to enforce debt a good thing? Should people be forced to pay back their debts? Why not allow the repayment of debts to be voluntary?
Taxes deny freedom
We are forced to provide goods and services to each other that nobody wants... we would rather be (relaxing or) doing something useful. Taxes are a hindrance and get in the way; they hold us back. Taxes prevent us from providing a better service to others. The Government (in effect) forces us to do certain work for someone else for a percentage of the time that we work. For example, we must provide health services for others on two days of the week. It prevents collaboration. The harm is that it delays progress and may even prevent us continuing to live. It is a crime of holding others back, if not attacking them directly.
Is the Government owed anything?
Is the Government owed anything?
Taxes are a waste of money
Taxation is a violation of property rights which is bad because without (the right to) exclusive use of property, it becomes hard for industry and commerce to prosper. If we keep what we make, we are more inclined to make more...
The problem with State provision is that we don't know that what is being provided is in fact what is desired. It is best to let people choose how to spend their own money. This enables the incentive to improve to be retained. There is no important reason why the State would not provide the worst services. Government services are not very good quality.
Taxation is a waste of time and effort.
The problem with State provision is that we don't know that what is being provided is in fact what is desired. It is best to let people choose how to spend their own money. This enables the incentive to improve to be retained. There is no important reason why the State would not provide the worst services. Government services are not very good quality.
Taxation is a waste of time and effort.
The voting system results in similar parties
A First Past The Post voting system results in political parties which are much the same. It is not possible to have unpopular or controversial views and for a party to get representation, so everything becomes the same, bland and dull. Politics becomes tribal and not about issues as a result...
The main parties are similar because of the voting system.
The main parties are similar because of the voting system.
Taxes aren't a good idea...
Are taxes a good idea? Do we even have a definition for something being a good idea? A good idea is something that solves a problem, or at least doesn't harm others. Enjoying yourself is a good idea. Taxes aren't a good idea because other people suffer; they must pay under duress.
Monday 18 January 2010
Is the purpose of Government to protect us?
There is no such thing as defensive coercion. Being forced to do something is always against the interests of the person, since the interests of the person are derived from their willful actions. But coercion does not argue that the subject is in fact criminal; has done anything wrong. It then must (apparently) be in the interests of the one doing the coercing... or so they might think, if they are ignorant.
There is no reason for coercion, unless the perpetrator seeks to cause harm. Is the purpose of taxation simply to hurt people, what other reason is there? Society would be better without taxation...
We would be better off without taxes. It would be better to have no taxes because we know best how to spend our own money; we know what we want to buy and we should not be hindered in selling our labour to others. Taxation hinders the free exchange of goods and services between those who have chosen the exchange voluntarily, it is not a criminal matter. We don't require the Government to provide any services which are paid for through coercion.
The Government forces us to do work for others, that we might not want (safe to assume don't want) to do, by providing Government services. We are forced to provide a service to others. We are forced to help each other, why? We don't need to (force people to help each other) because, by a mechanism of prices and nature, they will do it (more efficiently) anyway. It is in our interests to help each other out, a wealthy person is a better neighbour because they are able to offer us services or agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement. It's good (for poor people) to be surrounded by rich people ...or at least better than to be surrounded by no one. We do not need to be forced to look after each other. We can look after ourselves. We don't need the Government to look after us...
Do taxes pay for our protection?
Being forced to pay for our protection contradicts the pretext because it is not chosen. Having been provided protection is not a reason not to allow refusal of the service. There is no reason not to allow refusal. Protection is not a reason to disallow refusal of payment because you have not been asked to take the risk... their protection has not been chosen. We don't need the Government to look after us.
There is no reason for coercion, unless the perpetrator seeks to cause harm. Is the purpose of taxation simply to hurt people, what other reason is there? Society would be better without taxation...
We would be better off without taxes. It would be better to have no taxes because we know best how to spend our own money; we know what we want to buy and we should not be hindered in selling our labour to others. Taxation hinders the free exchange of goods and services between those who have chosen the exchange voluntarily, it is not a criminal matter. We don't require the Government to provide any services which are paid for through coercion.
The Government forces us to do work for others, that we might not want (safe to assume don't want) to do, by providing Government services. We are forced to provide a service to others. We are forced to help each other, why? We don't need to (force people to help each other) because, by a mechanism of prices and nature, they will do it (more efficiently) anyway. It is in our interests to help each other out, a wealthy person is a better neighbour because they are able to offer us services or agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement. It's good (for poor people) to be surrounded by rich people ...or at least better than to be surrounded by no one. We do not need to be forced to look after each other. We can look after ourselves. We don't need the Government to look after us...
Do taxes pay for our protection?
Being forced to pay for our protection contradicts the pretext because it is not chosen. Having been provided protection is not a reason not to allow refusal of the service. There is no reason not to allow refusal. Protection is not a reason to disallow refusal of payment because you have not been asked to take the risk... their protection has not been chosen. We don't need the Government to look after us.
Taxes ruin lives...
I'm scared that if I don't pay my taxes to the Government (that) I will be incarcerated. If we are sufficiently fearful, we will pay. Taxing people is wrong. Because you can do something is not sufficient reason that it should be done. If you can kill an ant doesn't mean that it is right to do so. It is cruel. We should have respect for each other and not force people to do things against their will. The Government should respect the individual...
We do not have a right to violate the individual, even if it is desired by the group. If the majority want to make slaves (or victims in any other way) of the minority, this is wrong for the same reasons. The minority has not committed a crime and so has a right to retain their freedom.
To violate the peaceful way of life is wrong because it damages life itself; to destroy life for no reason is wrong. Aggression opposes the natural growth of life... Humans have great complexity and are an advanced form of life on this planet... it is the natural way of life to form complex animals. There is no reason to oppose life, it is a waste of (your own) resources. Collecting taxes is hard work and a waste of time... Why bother collecting taxes?
Collecting taxes is too much hard work, the Government should not bother since it is not needed. The main problem for the subject is the profitability of collecting taxes... Tax collection is an easy way for the Government to gain money. It is easier than offering a service which may be refused. Allowing people to refuse your services makes earning an income more difficult, it is easy if you can force them to pay...
Tax collection is an easy way to make a living, for some people. But it is actually worse for you because it is bad for everyone around you, and they will leave you. Tax collection is a bad idea because it makes everyone hate you which is bad for you... it ruins their life, which is not something you want to do.
We do not have a right to violate the individual, even if it is desired by the group. If the majority want to make slaves (or victims in any other way) of the minority, this is wrong for the same reasons. The minority has not committed a crime and so has a right to retain their freedom.
To violate the peaceful way of life is wrong because it damages life itself; to destroy life for no reason is wrong. Aggression opposes the natural growth of life... Humans have great complexity and are an advanced form of life on this planet... it is the natural way of life to form complex animals. There is no reason to oppose life, it is a waste of (your own) resources. Collecting taxes is hard work and a waste of time... Why bother collecting taxes?
Collecting taxes is too much hard work, the Government should not bother since it is not needed. The main problem for the subject is the profitability of collecting taxes... Tax collection is an easy way for the Government to gain money. It is easier than offering a service which may be refused. Allowing people to refuse your services makes earning an income more difficult, it is easy if you can force them to pay...
Tax collection is an easy way to make a living, for some people. But it is actually worse for you because it is bad for everyone around you, and they will leave you. Tax collection is a bad idea because it makes everyone hate you which is bad for you... it ruins their life, which is not something you want to do.
Sunday 17 January 2010
Taxes initiate the use of force
Surely we have a right to freedom if we have done no wrong? Surely we have a right not to be attacked if we have not hurt other people and do not threaten to do so? What's wrong with freedom? What's wrong with leaving people alone, until they have done a crime or there is some other reason to suspect that they might be a physical threat to others...
Violence begs the question, it does not offer any rationale in the sense that the use of force is arbitrary. It begs the question if there doesn't need to be a reason. Taxes are aggressive.
Violence begs the question, it does not offer any rationale in the sense that the use of force is arbitrary. It begs the question if there doesn't need to be a reason. Taxes are aggressive.
Nothing is owned forever...
We own something that is made by our hand, but why? It is owned, not simply because we produced it, but for the further reason that to own what we produce is efficient and better for the community. It also gives us an incentive to produce.
If we are not entitled to own that which we produce then we have little incentive to make anything. It is better for Society if we retain that which we produce. We do not own it because we made it, instead because it is advantageous to own that which we produce. We can own something if the constructs of the Society find it helpful that persons are permitted to own such in those circumstances. Ownership is derived from utility, not action or authority.
It is advantageous to own that which we produce because if we do not derive the benefit of our actions, Society does not prosper. If the outcomes are removed from the labour poor results will follow. It is better to do nothing in circumstances such as these (where everything is shared) so to conserve energy. If we don't keep what we make, it is better to do nothing and be (apparently) idle.
Communism fails because it is better to do nothing than to have your labour wasted.
We own that which it is expeditious for us to own and since for a productive Society, we must own the fruits of our labour, then we own what we make. Unless we allow people to keep what they make, there are bad outcomes. If someone else made it, it is not owned by us and we must respect the distinction; others must stay away. A prosperous Society respects work...
It is efficient for people to stay away from something that you have made, or caught in the case of hunting, yourself. It is also efficient to stay away from land if it has been allocated from others, and you are accorded a suitable patch of land yourself, or compensated for being deprived of the land.
Land, and other items, can, may be owned if we (Society) instruct others to stay away from the property and have justification for doing so... it is not a question of "proof" only the opinion of the dominant group. Whilst a justification is not strictly necessary since property rights are determined by force, the justification for land ownership is that the Society thrives if we each own our plot, and similarly if we each own our labour. We do better if property rights are respected...
We need ownership to retain the incentive to work and to be able to exclude others from land so that crops may be grown and harvested, without ownership Society fails. Without land ownership we have Communism and everyone dies because there is no incentive to work; it is better to conserve energy and do nothing.
Property is defined by expedience and if we do not allow others to own land we can have no privacy and no (private) farms. Collective land ownership leads to failure. We can solve this by reference to rent, not ownership. If someone wants to use the land they must rent if from the others... if they rent less land than is typical from the relevant others, they may be due a dividend.
We do not own anything outright, for all time, it is leased from the others in the Community. Since ownership affects others, it is right that they are compensated in some way, perhaps with rental income. We rent land from others...
Property is leased from the surrounding (peaceful) population. In a sense, we are incarcerated by others that own land...
Title edit: From "Nothing is owner forever..." To "Nothing is owned forever..."
If we are not entitled to own that which we produce then we have little incentive to make anything. It is better for Society if we retain that which we produce. We do not own it because we made it, instead because it is advantageous to own that which we produce. We can own something if the constructs of the Society find it helpful that persons are permitted to own such in those circumstances. Ownership is derived from utility, not action or authority.
It is advantageous to own that which we produce because if we do not derive the benefit of our actions, Society does not prosper. If the outcomes are removed from the labour poor results will follow. It is better to do nothing in circumstances such as these (where everything is shared) so to conserve energy. If we don't keep what we make, it is better to do nothing and be (apparently) idle.
Communism fails because it is better to do nothing than to have your labour wasted.
We own that which it is expeditious for us to own and since for a productive Society, we must own the fruits of our labour, then we own what we make. Unless we allow people to keep what they make, there are bad outcomes. If someone else made it, it is not owned by us and we must respect the distinction; others must stay away. A prosperous Society respects work...
It is efficient for people to stay away from something that you have made, or caught in the case of hunting, yourself. It is also efficient to stay away from land if it has been allocated from others, and you are accorded a suitable patch of land yourself, or compensated for being deprived of the land.
Land, and other items, can, may be owned if we (Society) instruct others to stay away from the property and have justification for doing so... it is not a question of "proof" only the opinion of the dominant group. Whilst a justification is not strictly necessary since property rights are determined by force, the justification for land ownership is that the Society thrives if we each own our plot, and similarly if we each own our labour. We do better if property rights are respected...
We need ownership to retain the incentive to work and to be able to exclude others from land so that crops may be grown and harvested, without ownership Society fails. Without land ownership we have Communism and everyone dies because there is no incentive to work; it is better to conserve energy and do nothing.
Property is defined by expedience and if we do not allow others to own land we can have no privacy and no (private) farms. Collective land ownership leads to failure. We can solve this by reference to rent, not ownership. If someone wants to use the land they must rent if from the others... if they rent less land than is typical from the relevant others, they may be due a dividend.
We do not own anything outright, for all time, it is leased from the others in the Community. Since ownership affects others, it is right that they are compensated in some way, perhaps with rental income. We rent land from others...
Property is leased from the surrounding (peaceful) population. In a sense, we are incarcerated by others that own land...
Title edit: From "Nothing is owner forever..." To "Nothing is owned forever..."
Saturday 16 January 2010
The poor are owed a land dividend
Property is derived from a payment to exclude others, but if the item is made by our own hand we owe nothing because it is not a cost to others. If we claim land we do deprive others of its use and so we must make an arrangement which is suitable for the group as a whole...
It's not ownership if we pay someone to stay away from a patch of land... which can be thought of as renting the land from the common good. If we each have a similar plot then the rent due from and to each of us cancels out and nothing is owed; we have harmony. If someone is excluded from too great a proportion of the land then it is right that they be compensated for having an insufficient share of the land.
We don't own our clothes, but no one is owed rent for them because we are the creators of the clothes...
Your clothes are not owned by other people and they would be initiating violence if they chose to take, or use the clothes.
We do, however, owe rent on the land that we use and if someone has an excess amount then others are owed a dividend. If someone has not been paid sufficiently to stay off the land, it is not initiating violence to stray onto the land. We are not obligated to respect property rights if we have not been properly compensated. A land dividend is due from the wealthy but also a land dividend is due to all. We owe if we have much more land than the typical, acceptable quantity. This would compensate land inequality.
It's not ownership if we pay someone to stay away from a patch of land... which can be thought of as renting the land from the common good. If we each have a similar plot then the rent due from and to each of us cancels out and nothing is owed; we have harmony. If someone is excluded from too great a proportion of the land then it is right that they be compensated for having an insufficient share of the land.
We don't own our clothes, but no one is owed rent for them because we are the creators of the clothes...
Your clothes are not owned by other people and they would be initiating violence if they chose to take, or use the clothes.
We do, however, owe rent on the land that we use and if someone has an excess amount then others are owed a dividend. If someone has not been paid sufficiently to stay off the land, it is not initiating violence to stray onto the land. We are not obligated to respect property rights if we have not been properly compensated. A land dividend is due from the wealthy but also a land dividend is due to all. We owe if we have much more land than the typical, acceptable quantity. This would compensate land inequality.
A peaceful State is possible
Without the State there would be no property rights, a defensive State would provide property rights but without the coercion of taxation... this would allow free trade and charities to prosper and crimes to be solved and dealt with according to natural law.
The problem is not that the State exists, it is that it is violent and aggressive. Very often, the State is being aggressive. For example, Government services are aggressive. Aggression is not required to retain property rights.
The Government can be peaceful. It is possible to have a peaceful Government.
The problem is not that the State exists, it is that it is violent and aggressive. Very often, the State is being aggressive. For example, Government services are aggressive. Aggression is not required to retain property rights.
The Government can be peaceful. It is possible to have a peaceful Government.
Friday 15 January 2010
Government debt increases the money supply
Government debt causes inflation, so there is no particular reason to prefer that the Government borrow, rather than print the money directly. Printing money causes inflation just like Government debt does. With debt, the Government must pay the money back, but even here they can print the money to make the debt payable. The Government can also continue to borrow more to pay down the debt, rather than uses tax receipts to pay the debt.
Debt is damaging to the economy to the same extent and for the same reasons as printing money.
Debt is damaging to the economy to the same extent and for the same reasons as printing money.
The poor would benefit from a property cap
It is the fault of the Government that land is unfairly allocated, it is their responsibility to prevent people being excluded from land by a monopolist class. The Government should prevent land shortages being caused by aggregation among a small number of the population. It is not the fault of the monopolist landowner that they have too much land, it is the fault of the Government. The landlord is innocent, although they might be exploiting an incompetent Government.
The Government is presently incompetent at controlling land aggregation among the few. It is the fault of the Government that there is not a property cap.
The Government is presently incompetent at controlling land aggregation among the few. It is the fault of the Government that there is not a property cap.
The deposit guarantee increases the money supply
The deposit guarantee prevents the banks from collapsing because otherwise it would be in the individual interests of each customer to withdraw their funds. It is because of the deposit guarantee that the economy does not collapse.
Without the deposit guarantee everyone would withdraw their funds and there would be massive deflation...
It is because of the guarantee that banks are able to keep "lending" as their credit is unaffected by poor loans. Their credit is inviolable in the same way as State debt in a fiat economy. Why not trust a risky bank with your deposits? Bad loans do not prevent people from using the bank for their deposits. People still trust a bank that has made risky loans because of the (State) guarantee. The bad loans do not affect the trustworthiness of the deposits...
The deposit guarantee enables risky lending and the banks don't care because they are personally making profit, even if the company is insolvent. The bankers cause inflation but don't care about the credit of their debt... The deposit guarantee is a license to cause inflation. Inflation arises from the deposit guarantee. The deposit guarantee enables the banks to take excessive risks because people then don't take their funds out of the bank. The risks (loans being made to otherwise bad credit) are caused by the deposit guarantee. It means people get loans that otherwise wouldn't. It causes a reduction in purchasing power of the remaining banknotes; inflation.
Inflation is a consequence of the deposit guarantee because repeated monies being deposited creates more bank deposits. Bank deposits increase as a consequence of the guarantee, it makes deposits more valuable than they would otherwise be; they would otherwise be worthless in comparison to cash. It makes the deposit similar to cash and creates extra money.
Without the deposit guarantee everyone would withdraw their funds and there would be massive deflation...
It is because of the guarantee that banks are able to keep "lending" as their credit is unaffected by poor loans. Their credit is inviolable in the same way as State debt in a fiat economy. Why not trust a risky bank with your deposits? Bad loans do not prevent people from using the bank for their deposits. People still trust a bank that has made risky loans because of the (State) guarantee. The bad loans do not affect the trustworthiness of the deposits...
The deposit guarantee enables risky lending and the banks don't care because they are personally making profit, even if the company is insolvent. The bankers cause inflation but don't care about the credit of their debt... The deposit guarantee is a license to cause inflation. Inflation arises from the deposit guarantee. The deposit guarantee enables the banks to take excessive risks because people then don't take their funds out of the bank. The risks (loans being made to otherwise bad credit) are caused by the deposit guarantee. It means people get loans that otherwise wouldn't. It causes a reduction in purchasing power of the remaining banknotes; inflation.
Inflation is a consequence of the deposit guarantee because repeated monies being deposited creates more bank deposits. Bank deposits increase as a consequence of the guarantee, it makes deposits more valuable than they would otherwise be; they would otherwise be worthless in comparison to cash. It makes the deposit similar to cash and creates extra money.
Wednesday 13 January 2010
A Land Value Ceiling would remedy land inequality
The problem of unrestrained land acquisition is that it prevents others from living freely, as might be considered their right. Once a critical quantity has been reached, it is easy to acquire much more land from the remaining population because it can be leased for farming, profitably. If we have more land than we need, it is leased for a profit and more land may be acquired. It accrues. There is almost no reason to ever sell land, so the first one to get the land usually keeps it.
It may be split by inheritance...
Once acquired, land is rarely sold. The best way to make this situation better is to limit the quantity of land that may be held by any one person, according to (market) value. Land ownership could be restrained with a Land Value Ceiling which would help people without land get their own. The Government should limit the amount of land that can be owned by an individual.
We should not allow people to own too much of the land. The problem is that, if too much land is owned, others must pay rent to live freely... others do not have enough land. If the poor do not have enough land then the rich should be prevented from controlling too high a proportion of land, too great a share.
Since land is limited in quantity, it is reasonable that land is taken from the rich for others... the poor should take the land through the State. The State can facilitate the transfer of land from the rich. The lower class should take back the land, via Democracy.
It may be split by inheritance...
Once acquired, land is rarely sold. The best way to make this situation better is to limit the quantity of land that may be held by any one person, according to (market) value. Land ownership could be restrained with a Land Value Ceiling which would help people without land get their own. The Government should limit the amount of land that can be owned by an individual.
We should not allow people to own too much of the land. The problem is that, if too much land is owned, others must pay rent to live freely... others do not have enough land. If the poor do not have enough land then the rich should be prevented from controlling too high a proportion of land, too great a share.
Since land is limited in quantity, it is reasonable that land is taken from the rich for others... the poor should take the land through the State. The State can facilitate the transfer of land from the rich. The lower class should take back the land, via Democracy.
The Capitalist exploits nature
Trade can be a kind of theft if we consider the victim to be made vulnerable through circumstance. Circumstance might make them desperate, an illness would create a market for the remedy and so the Capitalist allows the environment to create the vulnerability. If we provide something that nature will create a demand for then we will make a profit. Sometimes we might do more work than we need, for example we might grow a surplus of crops so that we can buy something frivolous such as jewellery.
So if we already have enough, what do we do, sell? And can we exclude the customer from it without a purchase, should we?
So if we already have enough, what do we do, sell? And can we exclude the customer from it without a purchase, should we?
Taxation is justified in desperate circumstances
False assumptions often lead to oppression because people (if they hold false assumptions) might intervene when they think (other) people are doing wrong... if the assumptions being made are false this can lead to oppression.
Intervention is not helping; it cannot be refused...
Unless we can be sure that we are in danger, to use force against others will lead to trouble. It is best to desist from doing anything and be patient. If we are being opposed for legitimate reasons then we are not being oppressed, it is a simple matter of law and order. The misuse of force is oppression. The only legitimate use is in defence, not escalation.
Anything other than defensive force must be based on false assumptions. We are ignorant if we are aggressive. The key is to test carefully if it is true that you (or the group) are a victim of the accused.
Who is being attacked; the individual leader, to defend the population, or the group as a whole... being paranoid is dangerous for everyone. Freedom is not a crime. Why not just let people do what they want? We do not owe others for being alive.
Inequality might be fair; if we think of the criminal who is deprived liberty by being shut in a gaol, they do not have equivalent wealth to someone who is free. Do we then owe the criminal? Are they owed medical attention? If someone refuses to help (an unwell criminal, for example) should they be forced? Perhaps... If we are unable to help ourselves seize bread for our starving child then other, third parties may intervene... If we are of the opinion that the desperation of the situation justifies the theft, then it is also justified for a third party to get involved, so then taxes are valid in this scenario.
Taxes are valid to feed a starving child, to mean in a desperate scenario...
Then, to be taxed is to be stolen from by a parent of a starving child; by a desperate person. And arguments to do with rights and wrongs are redundant because the person doing the taking considers their position an emergency and doesn't care about the philosophy, as they are desperate. There is no point arguing about lower taxes because it is not a choice for you, they don't care that you might not like it, that is understood already, not news to them. And if they don't care and don't think it a crime, then who is to say that it is...
Are taxes an emergency measure?
In the eyes of the State and its supporters, taxation may been seen as legitimate in a similar fashion to a crime of desperation, like stealing bread for starving child. If the need is great enough any means might be justified in meting the need. Essentially, although taxation may be a crime, the perpetrators don't care. If we are given something by the State, we do not, generally care too much about its provenance since we defer to the State for our safety.
In summary: Taxation may be a crime, but so what?
Intervention is not helping; it cannot be refused...
Unless we can be sure that we are in danger, to use force against others will lead to trouble. It is best to desist from doing anything and be patient. If we are being opposed for legitimate reasons then we are not being oppressed, it is a simple matter of law and order. The misuse of force is oppression. The only legitimate use is in defence, not escalation.
Anything other than defensive force must be based on false assumptions. We are ignorant if we are aggressive. The key is to test carefully if it is true that you (or the group) are a victim of the accused.
Who is being attacked; the individual leader, to defend the population, or the group as a whole... being paranoid is dangerous for everyone. Freedom is not a crime. Why not just let people do what they want? We do not owe others for being alive.
Inequality might be fair; if we think of the criminal who is deprived liberty by being shut in a gaol, they do not have equivalent wealth to someone who is free. Do we then owe the criminal? Are they owed medical attention? If someone refuses to help (an unwell criminal, for example) should they be forced? Perhaps... If we are unable to help ourselves seize bread for our starving child then other, third parties may intervene... If we are of the opinion that the desperation of the situation justifies the theft, then it is also justified for a third party to get involved, so then taxes are valid in this scenario.
Taxes are valid to feed a starving child, to mean in a desperate scenario...
Then, to be taxed is to be stolen from by a parent of a starving child; by a desperate person. And arguments to do with rights and wrongs are redundant because the person doing the taking considers their position an emergency and doesn't care about the philosophy, as they are desperate. There is no point arguing about lower taxes because it is not a choice for you, they don't care that you might not like it, that is understood already, not news to them. And if they don't care and don't think it a crime, then who is to say that it is...
Are taxes an emergency measure?
In the eyes of the State and its supporters, taxation may been seen as legitimate in a similar fashion to a crime of desperation, like stealing bread for starving child. If the need is great enough any means might be justified in meting the need. Essentially, although taxation may be a crime, the perpetrators don't care. If we are given something by the State, we do not, generally care too much about its provenance since we defer to the State for our safety.
In summary: Taxation may be a crime, but so what?
Interventionism is the wrong course of action
It is not a good idea for Nations to help and protect the people of other Nations with interventionism. If a Nation seeks to assist other peoples, then they can offer asylum or, if they are a neighbouring country, redraw the border to give land away. This will help the victims because they will have somewhere to retreat to and hide. More land generally eases the pressure of any situation whilst solutions are found.
Another legitimate action, other than offering land, is to provide, donate or sell weapons and technology to the side that you wish to see prevail.
The illegitimacy of interventionism is that (a) determination of which side is in the right is nuanced. A victory for the side you support might not be the best outcome... Generally it (the just one) is the one defending freedom, or against dogma, but there may be legitimate grievances and past aggression which are being defended against by the Socialists.
Another legitimate action, other than offering land, is to provide, donate or sell weapons and technology to the side that you wish to see prevail.
The illegitimacy of interventionism is that (a) determination of which side is in the right is nuanced. A victory for the side you support might not be the best outcome... Generally it (the just one) is the one defending freedom, or against dogma, but there may be legitimate grievances and past aggression which are being defended against by the Socialists.
Tuesday 12 January 2010
Fiat money is not real
Fiat money has no substance and its value is not derived from taxation. Why would the Government want it? It is a kind of myth, and one that is not sustainable and must crash, hyperinflate. It is not real. If it were real, the actual problems of Society would be more transparent because wealth (or at least value) would not be possible to print... Which leads to (helps to sustain) magical thinking.
So then, why do people value Fiat?
So then, why do people value Fiat?
Safety comes from freedom
Wealth provides for a safe environment...
If everyone is rich this is a safe and secure environment. The best way to allow wealth to thrive is to leave people alone and let them build wealth. We are safer if we a left alone. Interference in the form of coercion from the Government threatens our security.
If everyone is rich this is a safe and secure environment. The best way to allow wealth to thrive is to leave people alone and let them build wealth. We are safer if we a left alone. Interference in the form of coercion from the Government threatens our security.
Monday 11 January 2010
Coercion damages security
The needs of the group cannot be met if we are not free to pursue individual interests. By imposing a Social order, we restrict people so that it may be damaging to the group. Offering other agents the opportunity to refuse is the best behaviour for a free individual. It is also best for an individual to be surrounded by free individuals behaving in this way. Being coerced into working for the group is disadvantageous for the group since each group member is so coerced. The group thrives when individuals act freely. Simply put; Government services are expensive...
For the group to thrive does not require that we constrain individual action because part of that action will be to preserve the group. We are not protected from crime by hindering individuals. They will spend some of their "free" time catching criminals and providing security. Other people are good for you, not bad. They will stop crime. Crime gets more difficult as the population (and freedom) increases.
Since people don't like suffering experienced by third parties, they will usually act to prevent it, if it is not too costly for them. We would want to live in a "fair" Society if possible and it is not too costly. Fairness is chosen. Eventually the crime becomes sufficiently personal for individuals to act against it, unbidden and not coerced. People will look after their own neighbourhoods...
Motivated, inspired by: "Reacting differently to adverse ties promotes cooperation in social networks"
For the group to thrive does not require that we constrain individual action because part of that action will be to preserve the group. We are not protected from crime by hindering individuals. They will spend some of their "free" time catching criminals and providing security. Other people are good for you, not bad. They will stop crime. Crime gets more difficult as the population (and freedom) increases.
Since people don't like suffering experienced by third parties, they will usually act to prevent it, if it is not too costly for them. We would want to live in a "fair" Society if possible and it is not too costly. Fairness is chosen. Eventually the crime becomes sufficiently personal for individuals to act against it, unbidden and not coerced. People will look after their own neighbourhoods...
Motivated, inspired by: "Reacting differently to adverse ties promotes cooperation in social networks"
Sunday 10 January 2010
We could leave each other alone...
Why not leave each other alone; only intervene if it is voluntary and accepted. We should leave each other alone. If we are not leaving each other alone it is a crime, unless there is justification. Only a criminal should have unwanted force applied upon them. And it is not the landlord that upholds the property rights, it is the Government.
The landlord is not guilty, it is the ones that uphold the boundaries by obeying the Government and the Government themselves that are at fault...
The landlord is not guilty, it is the ones that uphold the boundaries by obeying the Government and the Government themselves that are at fault...
Why consent to inequality?
The initiation of violence can only be justified if it is done so in response to a past (prior) aggression that was not acted upon and is now relevant (perhaps, relevant) due to the changing circumstances of the time. For example, if we steal bread for our starving child from an oppressive landlord (and we do so because circumstances have recently driven us to act) then we can see this as retaliation. If we are desperate, it is easy to see that we act for prior aggressions.
So then, coercion and theft is justified only in retaliation so that it can be seen as defensive, not as punishment for the oppressor, but because circumstances now dictate that a 'crime' is required. It is then not theft, but reclaiming, perhaps in a different form: Not land but bread. But this must be explicit to be justified. Otherwise it is the initiation of violence.
The nature of the crime being retaliated (against) in these circumstances is one of boundary difficulties, an argument over property rights. So a prior theft does not justify further theft, but prior property oppression might...
No one is hungry today who has not been oppressed.
Coercion is unfair unless to redress a boundary dispute. If we have been oppressive landlords it is natural that we might expect theft in return, since the property inequality cannot be settled legally. Taxes (coercion) will be justified whilst property inequality remains but they are an ineffective measure.
It is reasonable to seek to hinder the aggregation of property; to constrain land ownership by an individual. It is reasonable to constrain individual assets. Perhaps consent should be withheld?
So then, coercion and theft is justified only in retaliation so that it can be seen as defensive, not as punishment for the oppressor, but because circumstances now dictate that a 'crime' is required. It is then not theft, but reclaiming, perhaps in a different form: Not land but bread. But this must be explicit to be justified. Otherwise it is the initiation of violence.
The nature of the crime being retaliated (against) in these circumstances is one of boundary difficulties, an argument over property rights. So a prior theft does not justify further theft, but prior property oppression might...
No one is hungry today who has not been oppressed.
Coercion is unfair unless to redress a boundary dispute. If we have been oppressive landlords it is natural that we might expect theft in return, since the property inequality cannot be settled legally. Taxes (coercion) will be justified whilst property inequality remains but they are an ineffective measure.
It is reasonable to seek to hinder the aggregation of property; to constrain land ownership by an individual. It is reasonable to constrain individual assets. Perhaps consent should be withheld?
Saturday 9 January 2010
Proportional Representation gives the voter more control
Political parties form because humans are a Social animal, like all animals. Since political parties form, the rationale behind the First Past The Post system disappears because the chosen candidates no longer act according to their individual promises, or claims, but instead with the party. Since the politicians act with the party, it is pointless to arrange a system which doesn't recognise that their individuals views are subordinate to the party and largely irrelevant.
Politicians don't act according to their individual positions, they act according to party wishes. They are not selfless in this respect. They do not defy their party.
Politics is tribal and people feel protected if their views are shared by others. They are reluctant to contradict the consensus. And so the best voting system would recognise this fact and pay attention to the parties over the individual politicians. This gives the voter more power since they can better dictate the outcome rather than leave it in the hands of the politicians who may betray them.
Against whom are our interests being represented? Each other, so then we want to lend support to the group or individual that we agree with... We have insufficient knowledge generally of the opinion of our individual candidates; we do not know them and yet we know the views of the main parties and it is for them that we vote. We do not vote for individual candidates to hold the main parties (sometimes their own) to account, perhaps we should vote this way?
Do we vote for candidates to restrain parliament, or to support them? Do we pay that much attention? Why not do it (restrain parliament) ourselves?
Politicians don't act according to their individual positions, they act according to party wishes. They are not selfless in this respect. They do not defy their party.
Politics is tribal and people feel protected if their views are shared by others. They are reluctant to contradict the consensus. And so the best voting system would recognise this fact and pay attention to the parties over the individual politicians. This gives the voter more power since they can better dictate the outcome rather than leave it in the hands of the politicians who may betray them.
Against whom are our interests being represented? Each other, so then we want to lend support to the group or individual that we agree with... We have insufficient knowledge generally of the opinion of our individual candidates; we do not know them and yet we know the views of the main parties and it is for them that we vote. We do not vote for individual candidates to hold the main parties (sometimes their own) to account, perhaps we should vote this way?
Do we vote for candidates to restrain parliament, or to support them? Do we pay that much attention? Why not do it (restrain parliament) ourselves?
Friday 8 January 2010
Proportional Representation would be good for taxes
A more Democratic system would result in lower taxes because taxes aren't popular but people are prevented from voting for a low tax party because of the voting system. What parties claim to want and what they implement are very different in practice. Even if a party wanted lower taxes it very rarely makes this happen.
It is impossible to vote for a low tax party without condoning the other prejudices (not economic) of the leading party.
There is little, or no, disincentive for the leading parties to drop taxes in a First Past The Post system as there is little Democratic pressure.
The reason we have high taxes is because of the First Past The Post voting system.
The Government should be elected in a way that representation is proportional to the number of votes cast, by party.
It is impossible to vote for a low tax party without condoning the other prejudices (not economic) of the leading party.
There is little, or no, disincentive for the leading parties to drop taxes in a First Past The Post system as there is little Democratic pressure.
The reason we have high taxes is because of the First Past The Post voting system.
The Government should be elected in a way that representation is proportional to the number of votes cast, by party.
Why make taxes compulsory?
Taxation is not voluntary, the Government uses the threat of initial violence to encourage payment from the subjects. So all taxes are provided reluctantly and so then are public services. People do not want to give public services to the recipient, it is taken by force.
Force is used to acquire public services.
If someone is a good person and seeks to help others, they will be angered at being forced to pay taxes which are inefficient and hinder their ability to do more. If we are good people then taxes make the world a terrible place because it is an obstacle to helping others.
We do not need to restrain the natural instincts of each other and the market. Free choice is benevolent, it is when people are coerced and property rights are damaged that destruction results. Whilst tyranny may, in some cases be popular when chosen Democratically, under a narrow system, no one is particularly enthusiastic about carrying it out themselves, for whatever reason. When we are left to our own decisions the outcome is that we eventually decide against a criminal life for an easier one of coexistence. If we remove the fear structure (including that of punishment for failure to pay taxes) then good outcomes will follow.
Force is used to acquire public services.
If someone is a good person and seeks to help others, they will be angered at being forced to pay taxes which are inefficient and hinder their ability to do more. If we are good people then taxes make the world a terrible place because it is an obstacle to helping others.
We do not need to restrain the natural instincts of each other and the market. Free choice is benevolent, it is when people are coerced and property rights are damaged that destruction results. Whilst tyranny may, in some cases be popular when chosen Democratically, under a narrow system, no one is particularly enthusiastic about carrying it out themselves, for whatever reason. When we are left to our own decisions the outcome is that we eventually decide against a criminal life for an easier one of coexistence. If we remove the fear structure (including that of punishment for failure to pay taxes) then good outcomes will follow.
Coercion is not helpful
The desire to tax others is motivated by revenge for perceived wrongdoings...
We would not seek to tax others unless we feel that we are in some way owed. We would be reluctant to use force in this way on a person we see as virtuous, without identifying it as a crime. If we steal bread for our starving child from a friend, we recognise that as a (justifiable) crime. If it is stolen from someone we consider worthy to suffer, it is not seen in the same light and is regarded in a similar manner to taxation. Taxes are justified in the minds of Socialists (the author can read minds) to compensate for the crime of the subject. In this model, we live in a perpetual sea of crime for which there is no end.
The people should be free of tax, since collectively they are not criminal as a group.
We do not have positive rights.
The labour of others is never a right; only freedom is a right.
We would not seek to tax others unless we feel that we are in some way owed. We would be reluctant to use force in this way on a person we see as virtuous, without identifying it as a crime. If we steal bread for our starving child from a friend, we recognise that as a (justifiable) crime. If it is stolen from someone we consider worthy to suffer, it is not seen in the same light and is regarded in a similar manner to taxation. Taxes are justified in the minds of Socialists (the author can read minds) to compensate for the crime of the subject. In this model, we live in a perpetual sea of crime for which there is no end.
The people should be free of tax, since collectively they are not criminal as a group.
We do not have positive rights.
The labour of others is never a right; only freedom is a right.
Wednesday 6 January 2010
Compensation is a false concept
Even if there is harm there is no debt...
Debts are entirely invalid, always.
Custodial sentences are to protect the criminal from the victims of a crime, who would want the criminal dead. It gives the criminal the chance to realise their prejudices and improve. The purpose of the justice system is to protect the criminal from the victim, to enable the chance of rehabilitation.
Do we owe a debt to our saviour if we are saved from a perilous situation? No, we are not owned by them if they save us.
Debts are entirely invalid, always.
Custodial sentences are to protect the criminal from the victims of a crime, who would want the criminal dead. It gives the criminal the chance to realise their prejudices and improve. The purpose of the justice system is to protect the criminal from the victim, to enable the chance of rehabilitation.
Do we owe a debt to our saviour if we are saved from a perilous situation? No, we are not owned by them if they save us.
Taxation is not a requirement for Society
Only if we have harmed others should we be locked up. If we have done no harm then we should be free. It is best that we are free, for each of us individually and for the group as a consequence. Freedom is better.
Coercion (the threat of aggressive force unless the subject acts a certain way) destroys freedom.
Coercion (the threat of aggressive force unless the subject acts a certain way) destroys freedom.
If there is no harm there is no debt
If we don't pay for Government services we end up in gaol. In effect, payment of taxes is a way to stay out of prison and be free. We buy our freedom from the State with our labour. We work for the State to be free...
Taxes are a toll on access to the Earth. But does the Government have a legitimate right to charge such a toll? And why does payment of taxes absolve the subject of their need to be imprisoned, what difference does that make? Why not let people be free? Why have taxes?
Why not have no Government services?
Force is justified not by the needs of the aggressor, but by the behaviour of the aggressee. What is it that the subjects have done to the Government, that they must pay taxes? Why must the people pay taxes? The Government has not been wronged.
No payment is due if you have done nothing wrong.
The Government is not owed anything if it has not been harmed. There is only a debt if there is (or has been) harm.
Taxes are a toll on access to the Earth. But does the Government have a legitimate right to charge such a toll? And why does payment of taxes absolve the subject of their need to be imprisoned, what difference does that make? Why not let people be free? Why have taxes?
Why not have no Government services?
Force is justified not by the needs of the aggressor, but by the behaviour of the aggressee. What is it that the subjects have done to the Government, that they must pay taxes? Why must the people pay taxes? The Government has not been wronged.
No payment is due if you have done nothing wrong.
The Government is not owed anything if it has not been harmed. There is only a debt if there is (or has been) harm.
Tuesday 5 January 2010
Democratisation will eliminate fascism and groups
Fascism results, not from popular choice, but instead from a narrowing of choices and the exclusion of dissent. When dissent is heard, and it is seen to be valid then Fascism fails.
Very often, a complaint is not heard for the presumption that it comes (from a source, theology) allied with other prejudices. The complainant is smeared as being aligned with other less acceptable views. When contradictions of a particular policy are heard in isolation and not conflated with other views (which may be prejudiced) then liberty emerges. Tribalism damages this process.
We do not need to be protected from Democracy.
Democracy should be proportional. Votes don't count for much in "safe" jurisdictions in a winner takes all (First Past The Post) system.
Very often, a complaint is not heard for the presumption that it comes (from a source, theology) allied with other prejudices. The complainant is smeared as being aligned with other less acceptable views. When contradictions of a particular policy are heard in isolation and not conflated with other views (which may be prejudiced) then liberty emerges. Tribalism damages this process.
We do not need to be protected from Democracy.
Democracy should be proportional. Votes don't count for much in "safe" jurisdictions in a winner takes all (First Past The Post) system.
It is best to let people make their own decisions
Central planning results in poverty because we cannot make choices for (a multitude of) others better than they can for themselves. People's interests are best served by (being allowed to) make choices for themselves.
The peoples' interests are best served by protecting the individual.
Central planning never works.
The peoples' interests are best served by protecting the individual.
Central planning never works.
Each one of us is a detective and laws are harmful
We don't need to make bad behaviour illegal; when people do something wrong, harmful, others will object and take the actions in response (as a consequence) that solve the problem.
Laws are unnecessary and make life worse. The universe provides a very good disincentive against bad behaviour already, either harm to oneself or to others. Harming others may result in harm to oneself, if there is retaliation.
The universe mandates good behaviour, there is no need for the Government to do so.
The bad result of laws is that minor "crimes" are treated with punishment which is more severe than necessary. This results in escalation. Without (prescribed) laws there would be no such escalation. It is for this reason that laws are harmful.
We do not need laws, we would be better served by allowing the perpetrator of crimes to meet their justice in a "natural" way by the consequence of their actions. Good behaviour, or at least to desist from crime, is best for us individually, if we are exposed to the consequences when we (do) harm. We should not be shielded from the consequences of our crimes. Our neighbours will punish us sufficiently, for the good of mankind, without the Government getting involved.
Each one of us is a detective and a prosecutor...
Laws are unnecessary and make life worse. The universe provides a very good disincentive against bad behaviour already, either harm to oneself or to others. Harming others may result in harm to oneself, if there is retaliation.
The universe mandates good behaviour, there is no need for the Government to do so.
The bad result of laws is that minor "crimes" are treated with punishment which is more severe than necessary. This results in escalation. Without (prescribed) laws there would be no such escalation. It is for this reason that laws are harmful.
We do not need laws, we would be better served by allowing the perpetrator of crimes to meet their justice in a "natural" way by the consequence of their actions. Good behaviour, or at least to desist from crime, is best for us individually, if we are exposed to the consequences when we (do) harm. We should not be shielded from the consequences of our crimes. Our neighbours will punish us sufficiently, for the good of mankind, without the Government getting involved.
Each one of us is a detective and a prosecutor...
Monday 4 January 2010
Socialism would not survive voting reform
Liberalism (in the classical sense) would thrive under a system of Proportional Representation. Socialist policies such as Government services or unfair taxes are unpopular and would not continue in a truly democratic system. Equally, moral (not only economic) tyranny would not survive: Drug liberalisation would follow and other Social freedoms.
Tyranny exists as a result of inability to punish (deselect) prejudice, via the voting system. Democracy is the best way, if the votes are counted correctly. More liberal methods would be chosen by the people, if they had the chance.
Tyranny exists as a result of inability to punish (deselect) prejudice, via the voting system. Democracy is the best way, if the votes are counted correctly. More liberal methods would be chosen by the people, if they had the chance.
Sunday 3 January 2010
Negative politics results from the voting system
First Past The Post results in elections where we are invited to choose the least bad candidate. This is why contests of this type so often result in negative campaigning. Parties are selected, not because they are popular but because they are least bad.
Parties are chosen not for their virtue, but because they are an alternative to (they are not) the other party.
Parties are chosen not for their virtue, but because they are an alternative to (they are not) the other party.
The State should seize land from those who already have easily enough
The poor care about property, not income, and the Government is doing little to nothing to solve this problem.
The Government could reallocate property that has been accumulated by the rentier, landlord class and place it in the hands of the State (as social housing) and later disperse it into the private sector by selling it to the occupants.
The Government do not care about poor people because it is not in their interests to do so. The members of the Government care about themselves and the people around them, they do not explicitly care about the poor alone, in isolation. Of course, they want fewer poor people and more wealth but they do not have the instinctive drive; it is an intellectual desire.
The people that will make life easier for the poor, if anyone, will be friends relations, or people that are genuinely motivated to do so. For these people, all they need to get the job done is for the restrictions around them to get out of the way. We all care about the poor. The Government gets in the way of eliminating poverty. Capitalism will eliminate poverty.
The Government prevents people from helping each other.
Poverty is caused by illegitimate authoritarianism, a violation of property rights. Wealth is generated by free markets, including a free market for resources which would eliminate narrow allocation of resources such as land. Ownership is contingent on the consent of others... the poor should be granted access to (given) the land of the wealthy. Each person could be asked to confirm which land (housing) they claim, if nothing then they could be granted the excess belonging to others.
The Government could add the "excess" housing into the housing stock of the State and (have it be) allocated accordingly. Which could then be sold off to the occupants under a "right to buy" scheme...
The Government could reallocate property that has been accumulated by the rentier, landlord class and place it in the hands of the State (as social housing) and later disperse it into the private sector by selling it to the occupants.
The Government do not care about poor people because it is not in their interests to do so. The members of the Government care about themselves and the people around them, they do not explicitly care about the poor alone, in isolation. Of course, they want fewer poor people and more wealth but they do not have the instinctive drive; it is an intellectual desire.
The people that will make life easier for the poor, if anyone, will be friends relations, or people that are genuinely motivated to do so. For these people, all they need to get the job done is for the restrictions around them to get out of the way. We all care about the poor. The Government gets in the way of eliminating poverty. Capitalism will eliminate poverty.
The Government prevents people from helping each other.
Poverty is caused by illegitimate authoritarianism, a violation of property rights. Wealth is generated by free markets, including a free market for resources which would eliminate narrow allocation of resources such as land. Ownership is contingent on the consent of others... the poor should be granted access to (given) the land of the wealthy. Each person could be asked to confirm which land (housing) they claim, if nothing then they could be granted the excess belonging to others.
The Government could add the "excess" housing into the housing stock of the State and (have it be) allocated accordingly. Which could then be sold off to the occupants under a "right to buy" scheme...
Friday 1 January 2010
Voting reform would be bad for Fascism
Winner takes all voting means that a small number of parties will dominate. First Past The Post results in a two, or sometimes three, party system emerging.
The two party system is a result of the voting system which is not proportional. A true Democratic system will emerge from a change in the voting system. Votes cast for the non-leading parties should be recognised. Power should be given to the winning party only in proportion to the amount of votes. Otherwise the leading parties will exploit the voting system to their advantage.
The First Past The Post voting system favours the (dangerous) leading parties.
Winner takes all favours collectivism because to win, parties must be populist in their appeal. It does not give minorities a voice. Populism emerges as a consequence of the voting system.
The two party system is a result of the voting system which is not proportional. A true Democratic system will emerge from a change in the voting system. Votes cast for the non-leading parties should be recognised. Power should be given to the winning party only in proportion to the amount of votes. Otherwise the leading parties will exploit the voting system to their advantage.
The First Past The Post voting system favours the (dangerous) leading parties.
Winner takes all favours collectivism because to win, parties must be populist in their appeal. It does not give minorities a voice. Populism emerges as a consequence of the voting system.
To be alive is not a violent act
There is no evidence to show that taxes are a good idea.
Taxes are unwelcome to the subject (naturally) and benefit the recipient, the Government. Unless this arrangement is nothing more than the use of superior strength to exploit the weak, then is there a reason for taxes? For a reason to be legitimate, it must be shown that, overall, the outcome is beneficial or that to charge taxes does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle and is defensive.
If it is to be claimed that taxes are defensive, we must know what action is being taken defence against... To be alive is not a violent act.
Taxes are unwelcome to the subject (naturally) and benefit the recipient, the Government. Unless this arrangement is nothing more than the use of superior strength to exploit the weak, then is there a reason for taxes? For a reason to be legitimate, it must be shown that, overall, the outcome is beneficial or that to charge taxes does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle and is defensive.
If it is to be claimed that taxes are defensive, we must know what action is being taken defence against... To be alive is not a violent act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
