Freedom is not aggressive

Socialists want to maintain the status quo. If we can show something that contradicts the prevailing situation, then we can have change. We will drop a comfortable idea if there is more strong evidence to the contrary and we have inconsistent beliefs. So which is it, do we want to force people to act against their will or not? Why do we obligate each other to act against our personal will? Is it right to be aggressive? No, in fact it is wrong to be aggressive because only defensive force is acceptable. Taxation is not defensive.

Taxation is aggressive and will fail

We want to know the truth because it gives us information about the world and informs our decisions. If we are unable to falsify a fact, we must either resign to it, or demonstrate the contradiction. We may be suspicious of the fact if it offends us, but this will resolve itself either as acceptance or growing certainty of an an error, which, perhaps over centuries, will be resolved one way or another.

If we cannot falsify a claim made by another (not if they merely assert, only if they actually make a truth statement which has the possibility of falsification) then we will allow them the benefit of their continued ascendancy until we can show them otherwise. For example, many people are resigned to freedom of speech even though they would greatly like to stop some people from making utterances.

Why do people care about truth, because it provides utility in making decisions and allowing for life. No, truth assumes life as its starting point and ends up at claims. But, rather than find what is good for life, we must instead find what is not bad. We then assume freedom. If your enemy cannot do something, then neither can I, which (restriction) I don't want. If we do not yet understand the virtue of free trade, we might want to end it as a result of the mental anguish caused by the apparent contradiction of its nature. We have an instinct to ban that which confuses us.

We only care (about) what is said by our rulers, or at least we only seek to contradict them. Why contradict a salesperson when, if you are not convinced, you may refuse peacefully, with no consequences.

To make a truth claim is similar to an aspiration to become a ruler, or at least for the fact to stand, unchallenged. It is when we have idiots (those with prejudice, untested, false assumptions) in charge that we suffer. We can expose the false assumptions with a riddle which requires their negation to contradict. For example, if we assume (unknown to the ignorant person) red apples are more nutritious than green apples, then ask which apple is more nutritious and if they claim red (or green!) then we can ask for a justification of this view. More pertinently, when something is punished, not chosen, we find prejudice to be more important to expose; why is there a restriction on the sale of red apples, and not green?

What if the prejudice is more general, so not particular types of apples, but all apples, how is this prejudice exposed then, do we make reference to fruit, food, organic material? Why ban something if there is no harm? What is the harm of free trade, or the exchange of labour? Why punish something that has done no harm?

Our only entitlement is freedom

We have yet to discover perpetual motion, and yet Socialism relies on limitless wealth because someone with no means to purchase services is given them for free. If we are not able to be be poor, there is a law against it, then we can spend an unlimited amount.

We have passed a law against poverty, but this aggravates it. We have declared the absence of magic impossible, it can be magic for some at the cost of others. Some people are chosen not to be at the mercy of normal markets. They are privileged. We are fortunate not be subject to the market. We have no entitlement.

Is there a significant difference between charities and companies?

A business is the same as a charity.

There is no important difference between the two types of organisation: the both are possible to refuse and advantageous to at least one participant. In the case of charity, it might be the case that the donor does not benefit, but if we look closer, we might notice that there is a benefit to the donor in a subtle way. If not, the only difference is that one party is left unaffected, and the two are better off in a business relationship.

In a charity we ask for nothing in return, we are not getting a bargain, or perhaps we are. Do we not enjoy charitable work? If not should we do something else instead?

Taxes are due only from those who have harmed Society

They (criminals?) are not convinced that Socialism doesn't work, in spite of the evidence. Or perhaps, they don't care, but are making the best of a bad situation? They feel that they should be (can be) forgiven because of the circumstances of their own lives. What do we owe those who steal from us and continue to do so without remorse? Does a debt exist if it cannot be proven? This (to presume no debt) is not scientific, we must falsify the claim that a debt exists.

A debt does not exist, because for a debt to exist requires subordinate relationship. Does it?

A debt does not exists because it is not defensive, only compensation exists. The only true debt is compensation, which is defensive. Contrary to: http://bit.ly/cYFwXd.

What have I done to harm the Government? Is this a non sequitur? No, because for a debt to exist there must have been harm caused previously, for it to be valid. As in: http://bit.ly/aGG0Xn.

If we are innocent have not harmed the Government, we owe them no debt.

Socialism doesn't work

The Universe doesn't like crime or Socialism, it gives bad outcomes to both, over time, even if the rewards are temporarily pleasing and fruitful. In the long run aggression will be found out and people will either find a means to escape or they will fight back with the cooperation of friends. Socialism does not yield good results.

Any collection of items is arbitrary

All countries are non-countries, no country is real; there are no countries because we have no obligation to assist our fellow man, only a desire to do so, if you are a normal person. We want to help each other, a country makes that obligatory, or at least the country is the justification for the aggression which makes us comply.

Nationalism does not justify the aggression because we have no obligation to our country, only to ourselves, if we want. We will do the right thing and to be forced into doing so is not the right thing for a 'Government' to do. What country? Countries, groups don't exist...

Have we yet heard a justification for Socialism?

The Government doesn't have the (any) authority to force us into buying anything. To force a purchase of a product requires the initiation of force which must have justification to be valid. What is the justification for taxes, Socialism? The authority has not yet been proven; if we are merely ignorant of it but suspect that we will (eventually) find a reason, what cause is there to use it (the initiation of force) until then, we have seen already the harmful consequences of such use of force in Communism.

Why be aggressive?

Socialism is aggressive

How can we have sympathy for those who initiate violence against us? It is asking too much for our attacker to continue to do the harm and yet plead as the victim. The Government is not the victim of the free market, no one is. To attack the free market is to be aggressive.

The Left have a dislike of free trade

It would be impossible for aggression to prosper because aggression is to attack the world which is much greater than each individual, or even a group. We might all agree to attack nature within ourselves and collectively commit suicide but this would fail because we would all be dead. We can't attack ourselves and prosper, so to prosper and attack something we must choose a victim which we want to attack, but when that is slaughtered, what victim remains?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Are the Capitalists the ones that we despise? The Left hate Capitalism, but they will fail.

Taxes don't work

Nature has a quality, which is benevolent and will retaliate of we attack it.

There is a similarity between scientific claims and morality, or ethics. It is true that an apple will fall to the ground, it is also true that free trade results in beneficial outcomes, or at least is not harmful. This is a (discovered) universal truth common to all Societies. It is a moral truth that taxes are aggressive.

Just as science is able to deduce claims about nature, so too are we able to make statements about 'morality' which are testable. For example, theft is morally false, whereas charity is morally true, or at least not morally false, to mean not yet falsified. Charity, voluntaryism and free trade has not yet been falsified on moral terms.

To be scientifically true describes the behaviour of the universe under observation; it is true that ice floats. Does ice float? Yes. Is theft? Negative. Theft is not so much a bad idea, or wrong so much as it is false, not true, it has been falsified and shown not to work. Socialism doesn't work. Punching people doesn't work, generally, universally.

Being aggressive doesn't work.

Crime doesn't pay...

Capitalism is only defensive

And yet we can't show that Capitalism is not a problem because that would be to have evidence of absence. Certainly, the unjustified use of force is a problem and a crime. Is anything other than this a crime? A 'problem' in this, ethical, context is only when force has been used aggressively, so since supply and demand involves no aggressive force, it is not a crime.

Capitalism is not a crime due to the aggressive use of force being absent from (voluntary) trade.

Trade is innocent because no force is used, initiated.

Capitalism is not a problem

The problem if there is one is not a lack of wealth, instead it is that wealth is not properly distributed and it is not easy for people to improve their conditions because of unfair restrictions being placed upon them...

Supply and demand is not a problem, there is easily enough wealth (sunlight) to go around. Is supply and demand a problem? What's bad about it? Is there a problem with supply and demand? The burden is on the complainant to show the crime. It is not our obligation to legitimise a behaviour, or are we to justify freedom? Only force must be justified.

Is it a problem that the Earth is limited, that I cannot fly or breathe underwater? That I cannot does not justify an action in retaliation, we must accommodate (acclimatise) ourselves to it and not seek retaliation or compensation from an innocent source. Whose fault is death? It might be a problem of nature, but not one caused by any person. Prices are limited by what the other person is willing to accept.

We don't yet have a perpetual motion machine. It would be impossible to have any other situation. There is no other possibility than prices being bound by our environment. It is impossible to create wealth by force. There is nothing we can do about the failure of Communism, it is futile.

Communism is futile.

A lack of magic is not a problem. It might be nice to have unlimited powers, but it is not a problem that I am mortal.

We can defend ourselves

We are not obligated to defend the property rights of each other. Our only obligation is to ourselves. To be obligated to defend property rights is equivalent to being forced to pay taxes for protection and this is extortion. If we want to defend property rights, and be defensive this is our choice to make.

We should not be forced to defend property rights. So, property rights are fine so long as there is no element of compulsion. We can allow ourselves to be attacked, for example. It is not fair to force people to defend something which they don't feel inclined to do. We should be free to defend only that which we want to defend, that would be fine.

Property rights are emergent. People can provide their own security. We do not need to be protected. We can be autonomous.

Everyone makes a loss in Capitalism

Capitalism is a philosophy in which everyone makes a loss. If a medical Doctor sells an operation to a patient, the patient has paid less for the operation than their valuation of the (benefits of) the operation. To their customer, the vendor has made a loss. From the point of view of the patient, who is buying an operation, they have got a good price, and from their point of view the Doctor has made a loss.

To the customer, all purchases look like a bargain. The same is true for the vendor, who is a customer of the customer. From the point of view of each, the other has made a loss; everyone makes a loss in Capitalism. This is because the Sun provides our sustenance and we do nothing to get fed by the Sun. If the Sun shines on our crops, we get (free) food in exchange for nothing, for free and so the Sun, our counterparty, has made a loss. We have gained from doing nothing. Everyone has made a loss, except for us.

Why not let people be free?

It is redundant to claim that taxation is immoral, since when morality is derived from the consensus, then clearly it is not, to many people. We should instead point to the arguments which suggest that we are incorrect to permit it. What is good about taxation, since we assume they (we) would prefer that we are not taxed. What is good about forcing people to pay for services which are then provided by the Government? Why force people to pay taxes?

Failure to pay taxes results in violence. This would appear to contradict established codes of ethics in that normally the initiation of force would be seen as criminal, and yet an exception is made for the Government. Extortion is (should be?) wrong because to imprison someone is not right unless they have done something wrong, we can assume, and the desire for payment does not mitigate against the crime. To lock someone up is wrong (a crime) unless there are reasons to justify it as defensive.

Taxation is antisocial.

It's not very nice to lock people up for failure to pay taxes. Why do the police arrest people whose only crime is failure to pay (have paid) money to the Government? Failure to pay is not a crime; doing nothing is OK. Do we want to pay taxes? So what if people don't (want to) pay taxes? Why not let them be free...

We are not free if we must pay taxes for events or arrangements which are not harmful. It can be argued that we are still free if we pay a fine for doing a (minor) crime, but we are not free if we pay a tax for something which is not a crime, such as trade. We are not free if we must pay unjust taxes.

Taxation is unfair.

What is there to worry about?

Morality is derived from collective tastes

Do we want to live without rules? What if there were no laws, certainly attacking people and behaving badly would have harmful outcomes and would be risky, even without laws. So what is the point, or is the adage that we need rules to provide structure to Society correct?

Monica Geller: "rules help control the fun!"

If rules aren't so much a set of laws which result in prescribed punishments, but instead a code of ethics which has been elucidated by experience over time and with the advantage of thought and scholarship, then this is not harmful, unless knowledge is harmful. So then can morality (and ethics) been regraded as nothing more than a body of knowledge and categorisation of behaviour? If it viewed this way, is can be nothing other than beneficial.

If morality and ethics is nothing more than a body of knowledge (of past events) then this is not harmful and is not a proposition, but instead a branch of science. So then morality moves from being a claim (perhaps even a religious one) to a matter of deductions made from observation and consideration of life. We then cannot be a moral nihilist, since we cannot be a Biological (scientific) nihilist (can we?!) or a sceptic of jurisprudence.

But then, in jurisprudence, what separates good behaviour from a crime? Something that you wouldn't want done to yourself? Something that the victim does not want and has not deserved, so that the attack (use of force) is not defensive. We assume a complainant. Something that is not desired by the complainant and cannot be justified (or forgiven) is then a crime. A crime is something the group doesn't like. Morality is defined by nothing more than what the group likes, or dislikes, so morality is then specific to the Social group concerned and will alter as people become more (or less, temporarily) enlightened. It (morality) is whatever behaviour is acceptable, or unacceptable to the group, at the time.

In earlier times certain behaviours would have been seen as taboo, such a failure to sacrifice animals to God, or being physically different to the norm, in these cases we can see that reduced dogma and bigotry result in a change in morality. This is the 'descriptive' sense of the term morality.

So if we (do) say that something is immoral, we only describe what is judged to be acceptable to the Societal culture at the time. If we (a critic) think that something that is presently (morally) acceptable at the time is in fact criminal (such as taxes?) then we might say it should be immoral, or ask how can it be moral...

In history, to murder might have been (already) immoral at one time, and yet to sacrifice animals would not have been immoral, simultaneously. We learn to have empathy for the animal.

Taxation is destructive

Let Government earn their own money! Why should any particular group, whether enshrined by Democracy or not, have the conferred right to collect taxes? Democracy does not legitimise taxes, nothing (yet known to this author) does, except perhaps urgent need as in the case of a parent stealing bread for their child.

That something may be written in a holy book is not evidence of a fact. If many people believe something this makes no difference to the strength of the truth, or falsehood. If lots of people vote for it, then that doesn't make it true. There is no reason for taxes and they are damaging. Taxes destroy wealth.

Inflation results from the possibility of debt monetisation

Private sector companies are not able to cause inflation. We only get inflation, other than by directly printing money, if the Government has issued liabilities which, if defaulted on will result in the Government issuing more money to pay back the debt. Bank deposits are a liability of the bank that are guaranteed by the Government and hence taxpayer. It is because monetisation of the debt will (or might) result that issuing new liabilities causes inflation. If it is imagined that the credit of a non-bank private company might result in new money being issued to repay it, then that might result in inflation.

If a company with close ties to the Government issued debt, the Government might deem it in the 'National interest' to redeem the debt with new money to keep the company afloat, then this company would likely cause inflation by issuing debt. A company that is too big to fail will cause inflation by issuing excess liabilities, in a fiat regime. Also Government liabilities such as healthcare promises, or public sector pensions will result in inflation if people consider them valuable in spite of the Government not having the means, without printing, to pay them off. If we expect the Government not to default on its obligations, then any new obligation will affect the price of money...

Any claims on money (in the future) result in inflation if we consider that there is a chance that the debt will be repaid, with new money. Any promise that might be monetised will result in inflation. State liabilities are a, in a sense, a promise to print in the future and can result in inflation.

Coercion is always a crime

To force other people to act against their wishes (to coerce) requires justification, just as defensive force does so. When we punish a criminal, we use the courts to deduce the truth and morality of the crime. Once this has been established, we are then able to convict, which means to use force to control the person.

Democracy is not sufficient to justify (the use of) force in either case; the value of a jury in a court case is not to validate the decision with popularity but to better ensure a truthful, and just outcome. We can still have a miscarriage of justice.

Coercion is never justified, people should never be forced to work, or do anything, against their will, since this is not defensive. Coercion is always aggressive. There is no justification for coercion.

Truth is contextual

Should we be (we should not be) subject to the unproven whims of others. For example, if the majority of a population thinks that to have long hair is bad luck must we all keep our hair short? If the majority think that it is a good thing to drink poison, must we? And if we think that they are crazy, what then? We can seek to escape, or we can ask for justification of their claims. If we don't share the same fantasy we must be entitled to take different action. Indolence must be the default, not to promote an idea, or to follow others, but to do your own thing. We can agree in our scepticism.

We should do nothing but trade

If we are not inactive and we are not doing something which is a beneficial behaviour then we must be doing something bad. An activity which is not beneficial is harmful. If we are doing something which is not good, then it is harmful, the key is to deduce the difference.

Good activities involve the pursuit of personal interests and are not damaging to others. Doing nothing may be in our personal interest, to rest. If we are not resting we should please ourselves or be of advantage to others. We can help others by trading with them and exchanging possessions. Trade is always good. Our only interaction should be trade.

Socialism is not fair

It is better to do good behaviour all the time. Why perform a crime? Many people want to retaliate, but this is different and, to them, not seen as a crime. Most people would, in fact, prefer that innocent people retain their wealth, even if they have the means to remove it without risk of detection, or detention.

We want to live in a fair world.

We have a right to retain our income

We own our own bodies, but to what extent do we own access to the space around us? Do we 'own' the right to trade with others? What does it mean to own something?

We cease to own something if to do so interferes with the rights of other people. For example, we do not own the right to sit on top of another person because to do so affects their freedom to move around.

Trading does not interfere with the rights of other people because we do not have a right to sell our goods at a high price. Trading, clearly, is preferable for the two people involved and does not hurt the wider group. If we do something damaging then this is not a right. A right means the freedom to do whatever we like unless it has been shown to cause harm. We presume freedom: Murder would be a right but for the fact that it has been demonstrated to cause harm to others.

A right is a freedom that has not yet been shown to cause (legitimate) harm to others. For example, we have a right to free speech because it has yet to be shown that this causes legitimate harm to others, or the group. It might be said that we have a right to trade without taxation.

The Government has no right to tax our income. Taxation is a violation of civil rights...

Why not let people sell their labour free of tax?

Stalking is a crime

If you are using something, then how can it be used by others and so then are property rights redundant? If a person shields a portion of land from use by others, so that they are able to harvest the crops, is that land being used by them, the person who shields? Not really...

Property rights would (then) be better managed if there is a cost to owning property, so that others get access to resources more cheaply. It might even be better if there are no property rights at all since people would, by nature, move away from areas that are heavily populated. Stalking is a crime because it is damaging to the victim as a result of the psychological harm caused; being annoying (with no choice to leave) is a crime.

Property rights are only relevant if our use of the resource is affected

Does it matter if we have agreed to stay away from the property of others? If we are paid not to use a particular piece of property and end up doing so, without causing any damage, is this a crime? Surely there is no crime because we have not harmed anything. If someone is offended that we have used the property this does not constitute a crime and so there is no cause for punishment and no reason for the person to be ejected. Even if we agree to the contract, any contract which prevents us from using available resources is not valid. We cannot agree to stay away from unused property, even if we are paid to do so.

It is worthless to pay someone to stay away from property which is not in (exclusive) use by yourself. Only if their use of property prevents (or is detrimental to) your own use does such a contract stand up. We can pay someone if their use reduces ours, so to pay someone not to fish in a particular pond, for example.

Unused property should not be defended from others

Unlike taxation, the use of force to defend property rights is utilitarian and can be described as defensive. Taxation can never be defensive but defending access to resources can be if the circumstances are right. If we are forbidden to defend any property we must allow anyone to go anywhere, we can have no exclusive space. Is it likely that a Society would choose to live this way?

It is better to allow personal access to resources because otherwise we are able to profit from the work of others, when we have done nothing.

That which nobody owns nobody will care for? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QouamYWL6vc)

Why not instead make things nice and pleasant for all people to share? Protect property rights as far as it is essential to do so, from destruction, but not from effective and efficient use. Others should be allowed to use our property, but not destroy it. The destruction of any property should be a crime, even if it not owned (claimed) by anyone. The anxiety comes when the use of a property is desired by two people at the same time.

To be pleasing to the Government can be profitable

Deposit insurance allows banking institutions to remain putatively solvent even though they have extended credit beyond what they are able to redeem. But why extend the advantage of deposit insurance to only some institutions? Is it to make a profit only?

The Government, we must assume, don't want every person to have the ability to lend in the manner that official banks are able to, but why? Certainly, it would be very damaging to the purchasing power of the currency. Everyone would be able to purchase a house with their generous mortgages, (the deposits backed by which are) guaranteed by the State. If it is malign for an individual to perpetrate this, why allow banks to do it, in spite of the fee paid? Why should the population suffer from their (inflationary) behaviour merely for the fact that they have paid for a banking license? If banking is good then why not allow everyone to do it, if it is bad then why allow banks to do it for a charge in purchasing the banking license?

Why not let everyone have a banking license? Why restrict deposit insurance to banks? If it is bad for everyone to have the right, then why is that not the case for a limited number? Is evil necessary?

Why does the Government get to choose which people are chosen for a license? Political connections? There is nothing that makes the Government special, so we are left with tyranny of the powerful, abusing the rest.

There is utility in land ownership

Does it matter that property rights are abstract and not based in any pedagogical reasoning? It is of no consequence that property rights are only abstract. The validity, or otherwise, of property rights is unaffected by their being abstract. It doesn't matter that property rights are abstract, for them to be valid. We can own something ex nihilo (without it having been constructed by us, for example) without any justification for our doing so.

Property rights can be valid even though they are abstract.

There is utility in property ownership so, provided we offer sufficient ability to others to own their own property, we can own the natural resources of the land. The only justification required is that we have not owned too much; Saint Ambrose: superfluum quod tenes tu furaris (the superfluous property which you hold you have stolen) and if this is satisfied then we can be the rightful owner. We can own property if we do not and have not owned too much, even if that which we own is not grounded in any logical reasoning, and is abstract.

Ownership of deposits is not a relevant issue

The banks are not behaving as custodians of our money when we leave it with them on deposit. Instead, we receive a certificate of credit, and not a receipt of deposit. This is different. People think their bank account is a record of deposit and yet it is not, it if a certification that something is owed.

We no longer own the contents of our account, it is owned by the bank and we own a promise. Were the money on deposit to be retained (in ownership) by us, would it then be legitimate for the bank to loan it out without our permission? If we can suffer no loss, what reason would there be to make such a request? Does it matter who owns the deposits in a bank? Should it be illegal to reloan deposits? What difference would it make, if they are guaranteed by the State, people will take the extra interest and reduced banking charges associated with giving permission to loan. They can already use full reserve banking institutions if they wish. It is not relevant that ownership of the deposits passes to the bank.

FPtP favours the major parties

When we vote, constituencies don't really matter, our local geography isn't important when it comes to politics and we vote for (on) National issues. The result of focussing on locality means that we end up choosing (giving preferential weight to) the more popular parties. It skews the outcome in favour of popular parties and exacerbates this feature.

FPtP makes popular parties more popular and less popular parties even more obscure. The result is that preferences, between parties, are magnified. FPtP magnifies the differences in popularity between the parties and is bad for the minor parties.

Why do we have FPtP? What's the point?

When are people going to realise that FPtP is a terrible system!

Life would be more pleasant under Proportional Representation

Proportional Representation would improve Democracy because the political parties would be required to do more to earn a vote. There would be much more choice, with different parties offering more diversity of views...

And with a more effective Democracy, life would improve as well for the inhabitants of a country. PR would be better for everyone if we are to live under Democratic rule. Why would it be better to have a small number, usually two, parties with disproportionately high levels of control? Do we prefer that people do not get a proportionate vote? What is the advantage of FPtP?

The Government is tyrannical

Since I cannot demonstrate evidence of absence, then it cannot be shown that taxation is invalid, it is only a supposition that has been made. To show that taxation is invalid, I might choose to find evidence that only payments which are not taxation are valid. So if it can be shown that payments which have not been coerced are preferable, then we have, at the same time, shown that taxation is invalid, otherwise there would be a contradiction.

For example, if it is shown that the moon is made of cheese then we have falsified all other claims that it might be made of something else.

So we ask not what defines and constitutes a crime, but instead what describes a valid and worthy behaviour. It is certainly preferable that we allow our counterpart to refuse our participation in any activity, but can it be shown that to do so is (objectively?) good? If morals exist can we show (demonstrate) that we are doing good if we engage in activity which allows others to refuse? That type of activity would certainly not be harmful...

To make yourself happy is good, can we say? Do what you want is good?

We should maximise our pleasure by reducing our displeasure and engaging in things that we like. We can derive significant pleasure by seeking out and solving crimes.

Does the person who collects taxes enjoy their occupation, does the bailiff enjoy doing that job, even if they do it might still be a crime...

If we want something we should do what we can to get it, if we want, even trading within a market, so long as we do not hurt others. If we want something we should be able to get it. People should be able to trade, work without being taxed. People should be able to get what they want, if they can do so without being the cause of harm. People should be left alone. The Government should leave innocent people alone.

The value of fiat currencies is not derived from property taxes

Do we imagine that fiat money has value? Since the currency is no longer backed by a hard metal, we must deduce that its value (if such exists) is derived from the power or authority of the Government. If the Government has the ability and willingness to demand payment in a fiat currency, then it could be from that source that the value is derived?

And yet, for what reason would the Government want to make us pay them in a fiat currency if it has no intrinsic worth, eventually we will be very willing to pay them what fiat currency we have (when people realise that it is worthless) because it is no loss to us. What use is it to the Government? The Government would be wasting its time demanding a payment in worthless money.

Even if (the value of) money is derived not from taxes, but from rent, or property taxes, the same applies. Why would they demand payment of fiat currency, even if in exchange for access to a Government property? Does the rental income derived from Government tenants (those who live in Government accommodation) give rise to the value of fiat currency? Surely not because why would that make it valuable, it is purely abstract...

Unless we think fiat currency is magical, then why would it be valued? Why would someone want to exchange their labour for fiat currency from the Government? Does the Government want fiat currency to pay for its own accommodation?

Not even property taxes make the fiat currencies have value.

Proportional Representation would provide more high quality Government Services

People vote for high tax parties, in part as a consequence of the lack of proportionality in the voting system. If we had a more proportional system then people would be more willing to vote for Liberal parties because they would feel able to involve themselves in addressing the concerns that are the reason why they (otherwise, now) vote for Socialists.

If people are worried about a lack of healthcare then they would vote for a more Socialist party as a consequence, but if they could vote within a PR system they would be more relaxed about a more Liberal party. Liberal parties would do better in a fair voting system because people would not be so concerned that important Government Services would be neglected. Proportional Representation is better for Government Services because parties would compete at making the services better and more efficient.

Proportional Representation would improve Government Services because parties would be more incentivised and more willing to make a difference. A party which makes no efforts to make sure taxpayers' money is spent wisely would lose votes. We would vote for a party that makes good use of our resources, and is thrifty.

Why not make Democracy more representative?

It is not a representative Democracy if we don't have proportional representation, for what other kind of (valid) representation is there? Only proportional representation can be said to be representative. So then, we should have representative Democracy, not the FPtP system which we suffer with now.

We should have representative democracy.

Theft is popular with the electorate

If we want to act with force against another person then we must have proof of the crime that they have committed. We cannot simply initiate force on an innocent person without, ourselves committing a crime. If we are not criminal then we can expect, under any rational system of ethics or morality, to be protected from any violence...

No person should initiate violence against others unless it has been shown or claimed, at least, that a crime has either been committed or is suspected of having been committed. If we are not (in that broad sense) guilty then it is right that we should be able to go about our lives unhindered.

A (perceived) need in others does not manifest as an obligation in myself!

There are no needs, there are only improvements. We improve our lives by trading our property with others and using our bodies to alter our environment. We are not owed any particular standard of living. It is good that our desires might be satisfied but each time should be a welcome event and not expected as a right. We aren't owed satisfaction, our desires are not the obligation(s) of others to fulfil. Simply, we, or I, if we are innocent, don't have to do what you want under any rational system of ethics, to be justified, force can only be used against someone who is a problem, provided we have sufficient resources for all.

To want something is not enough, we must demonstrate the reason behind the force. I don't care what you want, unless I can refuse. Why not allow me, people to refuse the desires, outcome of Democracy? If Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, then what legitimacy is there? Should there exist safeguards to protect the individual from malicious voters? Is to vote for theft an act of theft, also? Theft is popular with voters...

Why do people keep voting for taxation?

Capitalists can only make life better for each other or do nothing

Exploitation is not a requirement of Capitalism.

It is perfectly possible for two Capitalists to engage in a transaction where neither one of them is exploited. If there has been no violence (both are consenting) then where can be the exploitation? Perhaps we are 'exploited' by the Earth when we have no food or shelter, but not by Capitalists. Have we been excluded from the land by Capitalists, or by those who control property rights, who are the State?

Exploitation is impossible under Capitalism, provided property rights are properly controlled and managed...

The Capitalists are only able to improve the lives of each other, or failing that, have no impact. We cannot be harmed by a (true) Capitalist.

Proportional Representation would make for more positive politics

A problem with the FPtP voting system is that it does not motivate politicians to be the best that they can be. Instead they are motivated only to be better than the opposition. This is damaging because it means that a politician will encourage voters to focus on the faults of their opponent, rather than what they, themselves are offering to voters. This is very damaging to the integrity of politicians and makes for a very bad system of risk and reward for them.

It is best if politicians, in fact all professions, to strive to be the best that they can and if this means denigrating their opponent in the most effective way, this is not ideal.

To have good, positive politics we should have proportional representation, where politicians seek to attract votes, instead of trying to discourage votes for their opposite number...

We, the people are waiting for Proportional Representation! PR would be good for the country.

Socialists are criminals

Socialists are criminals, they spend money which does not belong to them, because to obtain it they have violated property rights. It is a crime if we take something that does not belong to us. This description does not apply, of course, to those who choose to share their property willingly, for they are not Socialists. If it is voluntary, it is not Socialism.

To be wealthy does not injure others and is not criminal

What crime has been committed by the rich? It may be that they have used violence and aggression in the past to establish their elevated position. Or it might be that they are using fraudulent, or violent practices in the present to maintain their position. Or they could have gained their wealth from a monopolisation of resources, whether artificially made (such as machinery) or naturally occurring. In any of these circumstances there might be reasonable grounds to argue that compensation is owed. If not, since they have committed no crime, no repayment is due and they are not guilty of any misdemeanour.

It is not a crime to be rich per se, only if we are being aggressive or if our wealth has been derived from criminal activity, otherwise we must assume that the wealth has been gained through voluntary interactions. We might, as a wealthy person, be hoarding resources, in which case, it might be argued that compensation is due, otherwise we assume innocence.

Taxation is a burden and does not make life easier

If a Nation is a team, a team must be defined by being in opposition to something, but what is it that we are in opposition to? We are no longer tribes, we hope that Nation states are no longer groups in opposition to each other, but collaborating. If we are collaborating then we are one tribe and we have no opposition and there are no tribes, or groups.

Are we a group against nature, if so what is it that we are fighting against and why would it be preferable to be in a (coercive) group to achieve this aim? Your prejudices might not be shared.

Is it better for a Nation to be taxed? Why would you want to be part of a Nation that suffers taxation, unless you have no choice but to remain and are trapped? We are not happy to pay. The Government, and those who vote for pernicious Socialism, are exploiting the vulnerability of those who have no choice but to pay. They are exploiting a weakness, which derives from their preparedness to use force to coerce payment. This is a competitive, initiated arrangement, unlike Capitalistic exploitation which is voluntary. Capitalists exploit vulnerabilities which arise spontaneously though our desire to survive life on Earth, but with taxes we must survive Government aggression, which is not so natural.

The problems solved by Government are only those caused by Government. Taxes being paid solve the problem that you will be arrested for not paying, they do not solve hunger, or anything like it. The Government creates problems, it does not solve them.

Taxation will cease when people question why they want it

We are the sole, only representative of ourselves. The Government does not represent us, even if we have voted for them. The Government does not represent you and has no legitimate right to control the lives of others, beyond what (right) we might have as individuals. The Government is nothing more than a gang that has spurious legitimacy derived from the ballot box. It has nothing to do with you...

The Government is only legitimate in so far as its actions are (can be) considered legitimate in any normal context. If the Government does not initiate violence, then its actions are no more illegitimate than those of any person. We are not represented by the Government.

We act for ourselves, the Government does not act for us.

The people are represented by themselves...

The Government is not legitimate because we are not fairly represented. We are only represented by defensive actions, for example if we vote on a jury to convict an accused defendant then our actions are representative. If we vote for which person to attack, this is not representative, since we have not done the crime and we are not responsible. Only defensive votes are representative.

If we vote that a prejudice is false, then we have been represented. If we vote for a prejudice to be upheld, then we have not been represented. It is not right that we are asked at the ballot box, which group to attack, if we wish no group to be attacked. What if we want to attack no one?

Why do we want to attack (tax) each other? Why not leave each other alone? Why tax people? Do we have a requirement for taxation?

We can share things, rather than have taxation. It can be profitable for us to share our skills, if we help others, we will be helped and there will be less requirement for taxation. What problems give rise to taxation?

It is stupid to be aggressive

Socialism is idiotic. But what does idiotic mean? An idiot is someone who has false beliefs. Which is fine if you aren't in power but not so good if you have the power to influence others against their will, using force. We are often too kind in allowing idiots to ruin our lives.

It is stupid to think that using force will improve Social conditions.

If there is such a thing as evil, then taxation is evil.

To solve a problem remove the cause

Is there any reason to feel sympathy for the Government? Is anyone owed an income?

By Democracy we choose a collection of leaders but is there any reason that those people should live without providing a service which may be refused?

There is no reason to feel sympathy for the Government, or Socialists. That does not mean that we cannot feel empathy for a person with whom we disagree, as we feel for all others, but there is no reason to pander to views which we reject simply for the reason that they appeal to our more sentimental desires and prejudices.

If people want to continue to believe that initiating violence against others can be for the greater good we cannot allow this (if we are able to prevent it) to be the thought which they hold, if we can help it, for to think this way is not without consequence, these thoughts result in harm. It does matter if people hold damaging political thoughts.

We should not have sympathy for Socialist opinions and we should be brave enough to stand up to the implied physical threat which accompanies such philosophies, if we can dignify these ideas with that term. If we are not scared, we will not be Socialists. The burden of proof rests with those seeking to do violence.

We help with their enlightenment if we question their actions, or cause them to do so. Is it really right to use violence to solve Social problems? Why not remove obstacles? What causes poverty?

Being unsympathetic is not a crime

Aggression is only a useful tactic if you are finding it difficult to be liked and people will not collaborate with you. Those that have not been rejected rarely use (resort to) violence. Violence is the tool of those that are impatient and not prepared to work harder for that which they desire.

Using violence does not make sense unless you are in opposition to that which you attack, and that you don't mind the harm being done. Many people attack that which they feel has done them harm, when in fact no harm has been done. We have not been attacked if we have been refused, to think so would suggest that we are of the opinion that there is a lack of equivalency. It is not a justification to attack others for their failure to have helped us (we, you) in the past, for that is not aggression.

A lack of sympathy is not a crime.

Exploitation is not a crime unless we have been oppressive

To be successful as a Capitalist, we must exploit the needs, desires of others. Even though we might be seen to profit from the weakness and vulnerability of others, this is acceptable because their need has not been caused by the Capitalist. It is not a problem to exploit the hunger of another person by selling them food, nor to exploit the need for a place to sleep when a hotel sells a room for the night.

If we are not the cause of their poverty, we have no obligation to remedy it and it may even be to our advantage.

The problem arises when the poverty of others arises not from nature, but from the actions of other people. If the buyer has been denied their rights to trade or to retain wealth, then they have been a victim and it might not be right in those circumstances to exploit the poverty. If we sell food to someone who has been stolen from, we are gaining advantage from the theft, this will make us less inclined to solve and prosecute the crime, but it may in fact encourage us to support and even subsidise the crime. We may seek to encourage the criminals if we know that we are in a position to replace the stolen goods by selling goods of our own.

If our poverty does not result from a crime having been committed upon us, then we are not being exploited by the Capitalist when we purchase their products. The Capitalist does not exploit us (in a criminal way) if we have the ability to refuse, we are only exploited in the same way that we are exploited by nature when we get hungry after a time of not eating.

To exploit 'natural' desires (a type of poverty which arises from the trials and tests of living on Earth) is not a crime. It is acceptable to exploit natural injuries.

Being alive presents us with natural desires such as thirst, hunger, the preference not to be too cold, or too hot; if the Capitalist exploits these problems then they have not done a crime. It is not a crime to sell food to a hungry person. It is not a crime to exploit natural poverty...

It would be a crime to be the cause of the poverty, to take an extreme example, if a medic created disease in others so that they might make a 'profit' from selling the remedy. If we have not been the cause of the poverty then we are not (being) criminal to exploit it.

It is not criminal to exploit poverty unless we have been the cause of it.

Although slave labour is criminal, it is not criminal to exploit slave labour when purchasing cheap goods. It would be preferable to voluntarily subsidise more ethical businesses, but we have not done a crime by choosing to purchase goods which arise from crime.

Crime results from a lack of freedom

The way to have a good Society is to make sure that being nice and helping others results in success. We can make sure that people behave as we would like, either by making the consequences of bad behaviour so terrifying that we are afraid to do crime, or to make the consequences of good behaviour so beneficial that we are inclined to do them. If it is profitable to earn our own money then why would we choose crime?

It is when it becomes very difficult to get what we want legally, that people turn to crime. So, crime is caused by a lack of freedom in other areas, principally trade and retaining the output of our efforts. If we are able to get what we want though good behaviour, what reason would there be for us to be criminal?

Crime results from a lack of freedom.

If land (housing) is too expensive, there will be crime.

Socialism is unnecessary and a waste of time

Repeatedly, it is expected of us to tolerate unjustified violence. Should the use of force be justified? Only force used defensively, in preservation can be acceptable. To arrest someone for failure to pay taxes, especially transaction taxes, is not defensive for we have not been harmed by a failure to pay taxes. We don't hurt others if we do not pay them.

I don't agree that the Government are owed anything, neither does Democracy (popular opinion) change that position. The people are better off providing for themselves. We are not assisted by taxation. We do not need a benevolent owner since we do not require an owner at all. People can look after themselves.

A hierarchy does not mean coercion

Is to defend property rights unethical because not both of the participants are consenting? In normal circumstances, an ethical behaviour, or at least one that does not violate ethics, is one in that (which) both (or all) participants are consenting. For example, if we both sit down to a meal, that is acceptable because neither one of us is there under duress. The same with a market transaction...

In the case of property rights, when we eject another person from a room, or field, the person being taken out is suffering from force; but is that force justified? Can being in a particular place (when unwanted) be a crime?

If we define crimes in merely practical terms, then yes, since property rights are conducive to prosperity and civilised commerce, then that would justify the use of force to protect property rights. But it is hard to establish that the trespasser has committed a crime. Can our mere presence in an area be considered a crime? Has harm occurred? Is a refusal to leave to commit harm?

Is to intrude on a property (uninvited) a violation of property rights and therefore a crime? Is it a crime to attack someone who refuses to leave your property, or is it acting in self-defence? Are we to assume that people will knowingly do something that they know to be wrong, or will they stop once they are informed? We might all have a difference of opinion, and not be convinced when others explain that their land is owned by them, and this can go on for some time. Until whoever is deciding the rules to follow has been persuaded, then the property rights must remain as they are. When the Governing powers are convinced that things should change, then the law will alter and the criterion to decide who is the aggressor will change.

It is not the same to disagree with how existing property rights are arranged and to say that we should have no property rights.

To make someone give up their property is difficult and they will not do so unless the use of force is threatened, or they choose to make a charitable donation. People will not become enlightened and give away their own property in the hope that others will follow. If property remains (as a concept) we will retain that which we have.

Should everyone give up their property? No because that would lead to difficulties with growing crops and living in an orderly way. If we cannot own our own property we suffer from overcrowding wherever there are comfortable surroundings.

What if we must defend our own property and leave the police and the Government out of it? Isn't that, in a sense, what already happens? To be responsible for our own property does not mean that we cannot have a hierarchical structure of (voluntary) cooperation in place to protect it.

We are responsible for our own safety

The left wing are timewasters because they take our resources (the produce of our labour) and spend it on what they like, without justification. We waste time because we must do more work than before to get the same result. This wastes our time.

It would not be wasting time if there was a justification for their actions, for example if they knew of a pressing need. But since we do not know of what the need is, we must deduce that they are wasting time.

Is it valid to state that we are threatened by an unstated threat? It could be anything, or nothing. If the Government are able to do enough to convince us of the threat then people might choose to pay by choice. We might choose to know of a danger that threatens us and pay to find out. To be told after the cash has been claimed through force that the tax is justified with an unstated threat is not right. By then it doesn't matter. We require justification if we are to wield authority.

We must give a reason if we wish to demand taxation, otherwise it is violence. Might it not be arbitrary, even though we do not know what the reason is? This is similar to a claim to have knowledge about God.

Are the people to be allowed to take their chances with freedom, and not pay taxes? Only we have responsibility for our safety, not the Government.

We are responsible to earn our own living

We cry when the chief dies because we no longer have the advantage of their protection. But we are protected by the abundance of other people. Other people will protect us if we are vulnerable, and they can, if it is of little (relative) cost to them. People naturally (want to) look after each other, so why would we want to kill others? It is good to have other people around...

There is no need for a King, or Queen.

We don't need to make it a law that we must look after other people, it happens already. We do not need to make it the law to not hurt others, because if we are so stupid to do so, there will be natural consequences; people will defend themselves. We are protected already. There is nothing to fear from other people. Why would you be hated?

If we are fearful of others, we might feel that it is appropriate to give them bribes to make them less likely to attack, but this does not end well. We should not be fearful so that we end up giving people money not to attack us, if we do that, we will never stop paying. Are taxes protection money to be given to those without sufficient property? If yes, then the inequality should be remedied immediately, if there is one. Otherwise why should we pay, is there unfairness?

Have we wronged those without money, yes, but can we right that wrong or must we always pay money to those who have nothing. Is it an insurance policy against having nothing, if yes then we can spend money for all time and still have money to spend; it is bottomless, then. If we cannot starve, then we have limitless resources to spend.

How much should the poor be given? Should the poor be recipients for all time? The poor are different from a tame animal and can provide for themselves...

I am not helpless. If I consume more than I am capable to earn, must others look after me? Only if they want to since we have problems of our own. If I have done good and done work for others, does that mean we have a right to make someone else do the same? Failure to help is not harmful to anyone.

We have no duty or obligation to others and have not been lucky in life; it is not a problem if we are more beautiful, or more fit than others. We are not owed compensation from other people for the fact that they are more capable than us, otherwise achievement would be equivalent to a crime, since it would be subject to the use of (negative) force as a consequence.

If a competitor removes our market by making a product much more cheaply, this is not an attack on us, personally. We are not owed an easy livelihood. It is not our fault if we are more successful. Whilst it might be legitimate to disrupt a very successful trade, for example to make prostitution an offence so that other people are able to sell their bodies, it does not make sense to punish the person who profits. So it might make sense to punish a particular activity or process, but not the person who is doing it: It doesn't make sense to punish success.

It would only be a crime to run a successful restaurant if to run a restaurant is itself a crime.

We are not due compensation for failure to be able to earn a living, only if we have been wronged, which many of us have been as a consequence of inequality of land ownership and other things.

Mayhem and chaos would be peaceful

The Government is unwelcome, as taxes are, by definition, unwelcome since they are imposed by force. We only pay taxes out of fear of the consequences for what happens if we are brave enough to refuse. The mafia is unwanted, and not required, for we are able to defend and nourish ourselves. We hope that the Government would desist from its (collection of taxes) activities. We do not want them...

Public services are unwanted. We reject coercion wherever we are able to without harmful results; wherever we are strong enough. The people do not like what is being offered, we must assume.

Socialists do not understand property rights and think they own everything; they do not understand rejection. Collectivists are not good at recognising boundaries. We have a right to our own property.

The Left fail to understand that we are not lead by them, and that we don't need a leader, or to join a group; we are not a group. There is no reason to form a coercive group, and since there is the use of force involved this requires a justification, there is nothing to fear from individuality. It is not nicer to be in a forceful group, by definition they are bad because they rely on aggressive force.

Aggressive force is wrong because we have a right to life because we are reliant on each other. If we are nasty individuals it might make sense to be aggressive and to force people to join your group, but we share a responsibility to each other.

If I do not harm you, then with reciprocation, we can both live as we would want to in the Earth. It is a compromise and is better, overall, for everyone, since life is enjoyable assuming we want to live. Why would we want to kill others?

Unless we don't like people, then it makes sense not to initiate force against them. We have a right to life, only because it doesn't make sense for others to attack us so in that sense, it is not a right, it is something we have been presented with. Others do not want to take our life; generally, they do not mind that you are alive, it is not offensive to them. We are alive, not through the claim that it is a right, but instead because others would prefer not to harm, or kill us.

Then, if we do not want to kill each other, in environmental abundance, what reason might there be to coerce each other into groups? People, generally prefer to be kind to others, whilst there might be the minority of those who derive pleasure from harm, it is generally through a lack of understanding (holding false assumptions) which leads to violence.

There is no reason to kill each other, and much to lose...

Taxation is selfish

Is it nasty to violate property rights? It's nasty not to share, when there is no reason that you should not, for example, to let someone have use of your machinery when you are not using it, provided the machine does not disintegrate...

It is nasty to deny others the use of the equipment, and yet theft too denies us the right to use our property. If someone defends their property, they are defending their rights against our intrusion, and are often then described as being nasty as a result. Socialists want everything.

But we (usually) deny a request for the use of our property, not out of a dislike to see others gain, but that we, ourselves, are inconvenienced in some way. If it inconveniences us, are we nasty to deny someone access to our resources? Is it nasty to deny someone the use of my holiday villa, if by so doing we are obligated to, for example clean the swimming pool, make extra arrangements to ensure that the facilities are in good working order, that the shower works? It is not nasty to deny such a request in those circumstances.

In circumstances such as this, where there are legitimate reasons to deny a request for the use of resources, it is the complainant that is being unreasonable. It is unreasonable to ask for too much. Why should we be forced to give so much?

At some point we must provide for ourselves, we do not have a legitimate complaint unless it can be shown that there has been, or is, existing, a crime of some kind being done against us...

Why can't people work for themselves? If we are more talented than our neighbours, do we owe them an income? We might feel that we should and that only a bad person would deny those less talented an income, but there is no obligation; we have done nothing to cause their poverty. If we do not work for others, that must be our choice.

To make charitable contributions to others should be a personal choice, not made by Democracy, under force.

We suffer taxation out of the self-interest of the Government, not for other reasons.

The Government is not charitable.

Peace is the best way

It is not condescending to say that Socialists and Collectivists struggle to accept reality. We might like to think that people put others before themselves, or even that they should do so; neither is the case.

Observation of human behaviour tells us that people do not put others before themselves, even suicide is not putting others first. It is often a complaint made by Socialists that people are too selfish and should be more kind to others, like they are. If it were true that we are more concerned with our neighbour than ourselves then there would be no need for politics and we would be living in a very different world. If I help myself, am I not helping others?

Should we help others? If we should, for what reason, is it expedient for us to do so? Do we know better than they what it is that they want or desire? By definition, no, only they can know their true wants. So since this is highly inefficient, it can only be expedient if the world is intrinsically bad, which it is not...

The reality is that it is highly expedient to allow others to do as they please, unless we are being harmed, or others are, or might be harmed. Otherwise, people should be left to please their own desires. It is ignorant to suggest that our needs are best met by using force to impose our will, and to coerce others.

In reality, peace is the best way.

The Socialists do not respect private property

People generally don't want to give their possessions to the Government; taxes are compulsory, not voluntary. They prefer to keep their own belongings so that they may make use of them. People do not derive the same satisfaction from their wealth when it is transferred to the Government, it may be wasted and it is certainly shared.

It is not easy to effectively share labour. For example, your neighbour does not know what food you might like to eat and doesn't know what colour you want your kitchen walls to be painted. If the Government has failed to do a good job, there is nothing we can do about it and we cannot withhold our cooperation next time. There is no (negative) consequence for bad service.

If the Government chooses to take wealth from the rich, then there is no incentive to become rich. Private property is a vital prerequisite for a viable and functioning Society, and must therefore be respected by Democracy. If we do not respect private property, and the ability to trade that property (which includes the labour of our bodies) then we will suffer from poverty even in modern times.

Democracy does not legitimise a violation of property rights

Freedom is the only right. We have no other right since, by definition, all other 'rights' violate the rights (and freedoms) of others. For example, we have no right to a good education, although the right to have responsibility for a child is not inviolable, even if we are the natural parent...

We have no right to a free health care, or free museums, or art galleries, or free roads. All of these things are paid for through force, which violates the rights of other people, other individuals. We have only the right to be free.

If we do something that others do not want (us) to do, and we have not accused them of a crime (we are not arresting a criminal) then what justification can there be, for the action? Has it been shown that our need... or that of the group, is greater? Does a majority vote establish this? If people vote for a rape, or a murder, does that change the intrinsic morality; surely not.

Just because it might be popular, does not justify a violation of property rights.

Liberalism relies on a lack of fear

Socialist politicians rely on attracting votes through the use of fear. If people are fearful of starving, or of being without a home, or medical services, they will vote for someone who (claims to) provide(s) that. If someone either has all these things already, and is comfortable, or is not fearful of being without those things, it is unlikely they will vote for a Socialist party; they will not want to force others to pay taxes, and will not want to be forced to pay themselves.

If people are fearful, they will be seduced by promises that the State can provide a welfare society. If we are not afraid, we will generally allow others to be free of our demands, and vote for a more Liberal party.

Socialism is against natural rights

Socialists are an enemy of morality because they are aggressive. Morality requires that we leave other people alone, unless we are welcome, or there are circumstances which justify our invasion, limited to the subject having committed a crime. If we have not committed a crime, it is right that we may be free of interference, if we so wish it.

Morality is derived from our being left alone and unviolated, if we wish it, unless we have done a crime.

Socialists seek to disrupt this security by providing Government Services and restricting trade. The natural rights of people are opposed to Socialism. Morality is opposed to Socialism.

Socialism is immoral.

Socialists destroy trade

Socialists destroy the beauty of the free market.

The free market means nothing more than the ability to swap our possessions, including the use of our own bodies, at our discretion. Socialists intervene in this process, by stating that in some cases, we may not make such a transfer, or that, with taxes, we must purchase permission from the State. This is destructive because being ale to make these transactions is what makes life easy andliveable . If we cannot collaborate, there is no Division of Labour and we must make and protect everything for ourselves. Since we now live in an advanced industrial economy, this is damaging.

If we cannot trade our possessions as we like, then we will suffer. To trade is a natural right, for ownership must contain within it the right to sell or trade our possessions. To tax trade is to diminish the aspect of ownership which relates to trade, and the property is then devalued, if it cannot be traded, or leased.

The Government does not help the poor

It makes no sense for a poor person to vote for a Socialist party, since the high levels of Income Tax will mean that they have little chance to improve their relative position. Socialism destroys the ability for Social Mobility.

The Left, in the guise of helping the poor will collect a high quantity of taxes and use borrowing to fund further expenditure, none of which is of benefit to the poor. State services are notoriously weak and there is no wealth redistribution with Government Services. Handouts are generally pitiful and the Government tends to reward the political class, in the public sector. Unless, you are employed by the Government there is little point in voting for them, to mean the Left. A vote for the Left means nothing more than more Government which is good for no one, not even themselves...

The Government is never helpful to the poor, it can only be more, or less, unhelpful and destructive.

...and neither is the Left progressive, in any way, even on Social issues. Just as the 'right' are not progressive on Monetary issues.

The free market would be better than Fractional-reserve banking

The free market would be preferable to a system of Fractional-reserve banking because people would be able to make their own choice about what risks they are willing to take with their money. With the Fractional-reserve system, all taxpayers suffer for the reckless decisions of bank depositors, who leave their savings with banks that make risky loans. In a free market people would suffer, and be rewarded, for their decisions, personally, not as a consequence of the actions of others.

In the free market we suffer and gain from our own choices, not those of other people.

To earn money is not a crime

Capitalism is not exploitation, we are not responsible for the choices of others...

If a (private, commercial) Doctor heals a sick person, have they exploited that person? No, the person is free to decline the offer of service. Is the Doctor wrong to charge for such a crucial service? Is food not crucial and yet we pay for that in the free market, people starve even today.

It is perhaps regrettable that we all do not have all that we require and that we must provide for ourselves and others to survive, but we must retain some property for ourselves, including our labour. The Doctor could work tirelessly for other people and starve...

It's OK to withhold services if we are not being offered anything in return, and OK to sell services when we might (could) give them away for nothing; we can always give them away. We are not in debt to our customer.

If a chemist invents a cure for a common illness, they are able to provide their medicine only to those who are willing to pay for it. The choice lies with the chemist, not others, hopefully, once they have made a little bit of money, they will choose to be more generous, but we have no right to force this upon them or to punish (or criticise?) them for their choices. We must all be heartless to some degree, since it is always possible to do good for others, above ourselves.

To be rich we should have no taxes

To be rich we should have no taxes because wealth arises when people are free to provide for themselves, with the natural resources which exist. If people are left alone, they will becomes rich and safe from threats. Prosperity is derived from the Government leaving the population alone.

Votes don't matter in safe seats

In a First Past The Post voting system, only those votes in marginal constituencies count, other votes don't matter because they won't affect the outcome. Only (votes in) swing states matter. A proportional system would mean that a greater proportion, all, votes would count and matter.

To make votes matter, we should have Proportional Representation.

There is no social contract

We owe taxes for living in the country dominated by the Government, but why? Why do we owe taxes to a controlling group, whether elected by democracy or not? Are they benevolent if we must pay taxes? It would be more kind if we are free to not pay without physical consequence(s).

Could we have a Government, or organisational structure with laws and rules, courts and justice without taxes? Justice doesn't require taxes. We don't need to pay to be protected, from criminals. The Government has no right to incarcerate those who would prefer to not pay taxes. If we will suffer from lack of Government protection, let us suffer, we do not need to be protected from anything.

We (people) can look after ourselves. We are not so helpless really and if we protect ourselves, in our own interest, this is better than to rely on being protected by someone else who gets paid, whether they do a good job or not, and would refuse their services to (and in fact attack, incarcerate) those who do not pay. Even a voluntary service would be better protection than the Government.

The Government claims to protect us and yet will incarcerate those who do not pay. If they like us, why would they punish us in this way? Why do people owe taxes? So what if everyone else has paid taxes? It's fine if no one pays taxes. Let the Government fund itself. The Government should earn its own money. Violence is not a legitimate manner in which to accrue income. If people don't want to pay, they should be free to refuse.

If you don't pay taxes, you suffer physical consequences which is violent, and wrong. It's not a crime to not pay taxes, it doesn't hurt anyone and is inactive and idle, which is never criminal. The Government hasn't been harmed by our inactivity, of course not. What's wrong with not paying taxes? What crime has been perpetrated by the person who doesn't pay taxes? Who(m) have they harmed?

We don't owe any debt.

People should not be forced to pay taxes, let them not pay. Why force people to pay taxes? Since people don't want to, as we must assume, then why not let them be free not to pay? Is there a need to make them pay, what is it? What is the reason for taxes?

Taxes should be voluntary, with no obligation to pay; they should cease to exist. We should be free not to pay taxes. We have a right to be free of taxes, since we did not enter into the contract with our agreement. There can be no Social Contract because to be valid a contract requires that we have agreed, which we have not, yet.

There should be no taxes.

The concept of debt is of no value

The Government has no legitimate right to charge rent to the population and individuals. If we have too much land, the Government is able to revoke ownership of that land, since it is they (the Government) who grants (recognises and upholds) ownership in the first place.

Rather than charge a Land Value Tax to the citizens, the Government should simply remove ownership of land from those who own too great a share of the land.

As a consequence fiat currencies (which derive their value from this rent) are illegitimate, since the Government has no right to charge rent. Fiat currency has no useful function, other than to satisfy the Government and so, eventually, its value will go to nothing as we evolve into a more civilised population. Since we do no owe rent, there can be no reason to value fiat currency.

The Government might default to protect the currency

The Government can borrow any amount and retain good credit since they have the ability to print the money when the repayments are due. There is no reason for the credit rating of the Government to be anything other than perfect. Why would they default?

Is to print the money, so that it is in circulation permanently any worse than for the Government to borrow? What's worse about it, for the taxpayer? Is Government debt temporary, do we really expect that it will ever be repaid, so that deflation results? And if not then it must be as damaging as direct printing.

A default of Government debt would result in the Government resorting to direct printing...

The Government might be reluctant to print new money to pay off the debt?

Treasuries are not a loan

Deficit spending is not borrowing, it is printing money. When we borrow, we lease the use of an object for a limited period of time. Fiat currency has norentable use, it doesn't do anything. Loans don't cause inflation; inflation only results from the issuance of new money. If it's a debt, why does new borrowing cause the money supply to increase?

Government borrowing only means that more new money will need to be issued when it is monetised. If we don't expect monetisation then Treasuries would have defaulted by now anyway. When new Treasuries are issued it means nothing more than a requirement to monetise a greater quantity of debt.

Why would someone loan money to the Government when it cannot repay the debt, unless out of a knowledge that the money might be printed. Is it a loan if we only make the purchase in the expectation of debt monetisation?

It's not really a loan if you expect to be repaid with new money.

The banks cause inflation because of the Government guarantee of deposits

The banks are able to inflate the money supply because of the Government guarantee of bank deposits. The Government allows the banks to cause inflation, because the deposits are guaranteed which makes them part of the money supply since they are backed by the State.

The State guarantee makes bank deposits similar to and equivalent to money.

The banks would have no ability to cause inflation without the assistance of the Government.

The Government allows the banks to destroy savings by providing a guarantee of unsound deposits. Printing money is bad because it removes the legitimate purchasing power held by others, to those that print the currency. It moves the counterfeiter further up the queue in the purchase, or more significantly, the rent and lease of Government assets, property. It gives the ones with the right to increase the money supply an advantage over the rest. Why should banks have this advantage? Why should anyone but the Government?

It is impossible to increase the money supply without a banking license, unless you are the Government.

The banks are given permission to increase the money supply by the Government. It is best (better) to allow banks to fail so that they do not get the advantage of increasing the money supply.

For a good outcome simply remove problems

It is not the role of Government to make us do good things, only to restrain us from doing bad things. The Government has a role to prevent crime by resolving complaints in court. If it is insufficient merely to instruct the offender that they have done a wrong, then punishment must follow.

The only mitigating circumstances, for a defendant, are those in which they have acted in retaliation to an aggression by the ultimate victim. No citizen has the right to coerce others, and has no right to personally enforce debts.

Crime is only personally costly if there are physical repercussions?

It harms me if it harms you. If we put others before ourselves then it would be impossible for us to be the cause of a crime, almost. Other people would prefer you to be happy. To see others happy is a greater pleasure than to be happy yourself. To be happy, seek to make others happy...

People will not be offended if you are apparently selfish, since it is good for them, often. Being selfish is good for everyone. We have nothing to fear from our natural instincts. So let it play out, do not stand in the way of life. It is usually enough to know that we are unwanted, for us to stop doing what we were previously doing if it was harmful. We want to be a good person and will only generally do these things if we imagine that others need to learn.