It is a waste of time to be aggressive

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

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

Being aggressive takes effort and is a waste of time.

Aggressive taxation is a Crime of the State

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

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

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

We feel ashamed when we do something wrong

What does it mean to be aggressive?

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

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

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

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

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

Socialism is aggressive

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

People can vote for violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have you lost? Nothing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we are not earning enough we can go elsewhere

Employers compete for their staff...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxation is wrong

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

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

Socialism is a violation of human rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialism makes life more difficult

Socialism makes life worse.

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

All cash is a trick

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

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

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

Socialists lack empathy for those that are violated

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

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

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

Socialism is nasty and aggressive

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

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

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

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

We are owed nothing but land

We have no entitlements, except perhaps land.

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

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

Since 1971 all cash is fake

Banks print fake money out of thin air.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banks would not be trusted without the State

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

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

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

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

Those who have too much land are trespassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A business makes it easier for people to look after themselves

In what way is a business similar to a charity?

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

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

We must love ourselves.

Disregard paper currency acquire something else

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

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

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

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

FPtP provides little choice to voters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If others have land then we must have land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be a Capitalist we can be a prostitute

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

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

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

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

We should not make requests of others, only offers.

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

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

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

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

To use fear does not make us safe

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything that is not essential is not owned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A right is any action which is not a crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavery is not a right

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

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

We have a right to do anything which is not harmful

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialism is doing harm all the time

There is no Easter Bunny.

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

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

Greed can be restricted with a property cap

Greed and selfishness are problematic when our acquisition of property is of the extent that if affects the lives of others. If we own a great deal of property this limits the ability of other people to own a sufficiency of their own property. When we own so much as this, then we are having a malevolent impact on our surroundings. The remedy to this is to restrict property ownership (and the means of production) so that no person is able to own too much, where 'too much' is defined according to the Lockean Proviso.

Greed and selfishness can be addressed with restrictions placed on the legitimate and legal ownership of property.

Advocates of Proportional Representation are at the mercy of the politicians

In a FPtP election, each constituency will generally have only one candidate from each of the main parties. If the FPtP system allows individual politicians to prosper, as is often claimed, then why not offer more than one candidate from each party? The immediate answer is that by doing so the party would be hurting its chances by splitting the vote.

To promote more than one candidate would be sacrificing the power held by the party.

We vote along party lines because that is our expectation of how they will vote, in Parliament. It is (largely) irrelevant whether the local candidate is good or not, what matters is which party they are from. We are not selecting our representatives to be thoughtful arbiters of the law, instead to be partisan, tribal weight to our cause. If it is the number of votes cast that will count, and not the merits of the particular case, then we can expect people to be 'tribal' and to ignore the individual merits of each candidate.

If crime is possible, as in the case of (aggressive) taxation then what matters is not the good judgement of our politicians, but what side they are on. Politics is reduced to an opinion poll, a measure of the weight of opinion, a popularity contest and not a process to deduce the correct way for the country to be Governed. So then, who cares about the merits of the individual candidates? That is not relevant...

Someone that wants to commit a crime might not want to be represented by a saint, or a scholar. The result is that (reasonable) people will vote for the Socialist party to avoid the ignorance of a politician that values strong Government and yet does not want high Government spending. It's hard to understand why someone who wants low taxes would be prepared to defend the other prejudices held in the opposition (to the Socialists) party, in a FPtP system. FPtP means that the 'right' is often represented by people with other prejudices instead, or at least they can get a purchase in the process because people who want economic freedom have no other choice. The desire for economic freedom is hijacked by Social authoritarians, even (collective) Nationalists.

If people such as these, with such prejudices, exploit the undemocratic FPtP system, why would they want for it to be replaced, since it gives them their opportunity to punish Social liberals?

We allow (tolerate) this because we are powerless to prevent it.

Crime results from foolishness

If greed is bad, then don't be greedy, if crime is bad then don't do crime. If it is bad for other people then it will be bad for you. And what pleasure is there is doing harm to others, that can be avoided?

We are missing out on the pleasures of life if we hurt people. Would we comfort our tormentor?

The outcome of bad behaviour is that we end up with no friends. We might excuse our selfishness with the thought that it is for the greater good, that if we accomplish our narrow goals, this will eventually be helpful to others. But this is a falsehood and results from failing to see all that there is around us. We are only selfish if we do not see the true, larger picture. If we see everything, we will not put ourselves above the concerns of other people.

To know, is to care.

Tyranny is possible when there is no other choice available to the victim

We are made impotent if our security is provided by, or dependent on another person. It is possible for the one who provides our security to be the one to take advantage of our situation; who would we complain to? We are trapped if it is the authority figure in a Society that is exploiting us. The remedy to this is freedom, so that we cannot be exploited.

If we are not the provider of our own security then we have no hope not to be exploited at some time. Anyone that we cannot defeat, or at least threaten, can take advantage of us.

If the choice of freedom (assuming it is present) is less appealing than to remain under the 'protection' of our tormentor then we have a Hobson's choice and will remain.

Libertarians have no choice with FPtP

With a FPtP system of deciding the Government we end up with a choice between two 'big government' parties. The choice becomes Socialism or Socialism, between two types of tyranny, both similar and both endorsing collective coercion and high taxes. FPtP removes the Libertarian choice.

First Past The Post means that everyone must compromise

First Past The Post elections prevent (mainstream) political parties being true to their beliefs, since they must be more to the centre to win an election. In the United States, the Democrats must be more right-wing, and the Republicans must be more left-wing. We are not able to vote according to our political preferences because that would be a waste of a vote. To have our our vote count for anything we must choose one of these two parties. The same principle applies all around the world where FPtP is practiced.

It means all parties pander to a kind of meaningless compromise, instead of having true principles. We do not know, or get, what the people genuinely want, no one is satisfied, except perhaps the President.

Socialists dislike free trade

Democracy allows us to harm other people through the ballot box for no justifiable reason. Popularity is not a justification for any behaviour. It should only be possible, through Democracy, to be defensive. Even if aggression is popular among the population, it is not right that it is pursued...

We might restrict Democracy to only defensive behaviours.

If we know that a behaviour is wrong would it still be popular? No, we have a sense of justice within us.

Tyranny is a legalised crime.

Socialism is inconsistent

A failing of Socialism is the lack of consistency, even logic.

We often assume in so many areas of life that no one person has inherent superiority to another. Even Royalty are subject to the law. It's not logical to argue that popularity justifies the aggressive use of force. The desire (to do harm) is assumed to be present in the Socialist but that does not provide justification. There is an assumption that it might be preferable to use thought above a primitive response to our desires.

We ask the practitioner to take a look at the bigger picture. It is not logical to do something which harms ourselves, once we realise it. The problem of Socialism becomes apparent when we run out of food to eat.

Individual politicians are better served with a PR system of voting

Voting on the merits of an individual candidate is a waste of time within a FPtP system because if they are not a member of a leading party there is no chance for them to be elected. FPtP makes being part of a popular party more important to the candidate's chances of election than does being a good politician. FPtP means bad politicians will still get elected if they are from the popular party.

FPtP discourages good politicians from entering politics because they can be beaten simply for being in the wrong party. They cannot beat the main party machine.

FPtP consolidates the power of the main parties and makes it difficult for talented individual politicians to prosper. Choosing a good (individual) candidate becomes redundant. FPtP forces us to choose party over individual candidate.

FPtP is an unfair system

Proportional Representation would give more power to the electorate. FPtP hands power to the main parties because, whoever you vote for, the main parties always get control and can decide what to do among themselves. FPtP hands electoral power to the main parties.

Proportional Representation gives control to the voters.

To let others be free is the best way

Taxes are damaging, just like other forms of crime.

A Society that does not respect personal property and personal rights will not be a successful Society and life will be unpleasant. If everyone attacks each other all the time the species will not prosper. People will choose to live elsewhere. We can live without taxes. Freedom is the best way to organise Society, violence will not improve it. Violence makes things worse.

There is nothing better than freedom.

Taxes aren't fair

It doesn't matter how good the Government Services are, there is no utility in having a tax since the free market would be better, by definition; it is chosen. Taxation is not fair because it is not chosen.

Tax is not justified by the quality of the services

What right does the extortionist have to take our earnings? Perhaps our rights are defined by our abilities? If we can steal, with success, then that becomes a right: We have a right to steal because it is popular.

Stealing is wrong. Have sympathy for the victim!

Certainly taxation is not a necessary evil because even its outcome is much worse than otherwise; there is no utility only expediency on the part of the criminal.

From the point of view of the taxpayer, this is tyranny. The service does not justify the theft. The theft would only be justified if the victim (the taxpayer) had committed harm previously, against the perpetrator of the tax.

The market will select for those who can collaborate

Free markets don't work without teamwork. If you want to sell something it means you give something to someone else, who returns the favour. You help others, and you are helped. If someone does not reciprocate what you are offering, in the end you stop helping them.

A market is about teamwork, we exchange goods so that we are best equipped to meet the challenges that we face. For example if we both need to make a journey in the rain and one of us has two bicycles and the other has two umbrellas, it is to our advantage to swap one for the other so that we both have one of each. This is teamwork because we apply our property to the problem faced by our neighbour. The problems (distance to be covered and rain to be opposed) which are mutually faced are resolved by cooperation.

Teamwork means that we help each other to meet a shared goal, or, more descriptively, to resolve a shared problem. If we both have a lawn to mow then it might make sense to build one lawnmower collectively, which we can both use, than to build one each; ignoring the efficiencies of building two simultaneously as in a factory...

If we (the two neighbours) must harvest our crops it might be easier to work in pairs on the two fields, one after the other, to save time. It might make sense to become skilled in one area, decorating, say, and cleaning windows and exchange the labour between neighbours for a more efficient outcome. This is not different than (from) collaborating on the windows and decorating of both houses, one after the other. So, this division of labour is no different from teamwork and, crucially, the labour can be done by one person in each case. The dynamic changes when the task is more easily accomplished by more than one person acting alone...

Teamwork breaks down when one person has no interest in achieving the stated goal. They will no longer participate. The division of labour facilitates teamwork in achieving the desired outcome.

Teamwork comes into play (to a greater extent) when no one person is able to bring about the desired outcome. It might take many people to run a shop, for example. If we agree to do the work to help run the shop then we are owed a similar quantity of work in return.

Teamwork has utility in a free market because we can, in certain circumstances, achieve more together than individually. There are economies of scale which means that we must often work in a team if we are not to be priced out of the market. Certain tasks require the work of more than one person to accomplish them, it is then that teams emerge because they are efficient and desired by the market. Teamwork has a premium. In a free market, the ability to perform efficient teamwork is a valuable skill. Teamwork is valued by the market in a situation where a task cannot be (well) accomplished alone, by one person. The market values teamwork.

The market selects for and favours Sociable people. Collaboration emerges if markets are left alone. Collaboration is natural and normal because many tasks are best accomplished with (the help of) other people.

Free markets enable people to help each other

Since Socialism is popular, people must like to be taxed and have a master. They like to tie everyone together. They don't like people to have the choice to live their own life. They prefer not to be reminded of our individuality and indifference to their aims, imagining themselves to be important or significant.

We cannot fight for something, only against it. We cannot fight for freedom, only against tyranny, but tyranny is very difficult as past Socialists have shown in history.

It is easy for the Government to print money because it has no value, taxing gold (or other tangible assets) will be more difficult. Since there is no logical reason to steal money from people it is only out of a toleration for the ignorance and stupidity of the people in power that it is paid. The (greedy) Socialists are appeased...

Socialists want something for nothing out of a sense of entitlement. Is (the threat of) violence so worthy that it must be rewarded? If we don't want to pay tax, this is not 'tax refusal' as we were not offered a choice, it is avoidance similar to avoiding theft by running away from the mugger.

Taxation is made easy because the Government can approach places like a supermarket or shopping mall where people congregate to trade their goods. The behaviour is public and it is not easy for them to hide away. The Government attacks public trade and cooperation; people helping each other out. We must conclude that the Government doesn't like to see people helping each other.

What legitimacy is Democracy?

There is no reason to think that popularity strengthens a claim to truth, even in the case of a jury trial. What advantage is a jury to a trial? If they are a jury of peers, that changes things because it prevents entrenched power, held at the top, influencing the outcome. But it is not the presence of a jury itself which provides this protection only that the person doing the choosing is unbiased.

How do we react when we are confronted with Democracy? There is no reason to respect a behaviour which we consider to be criminal for its popularity alone. The majority can be wrong, and are wrong when they choose to enforce taxes. The State and the majority are guilty of taxation. It is foolish to organise a Society which (in such a way that) allows the Government to do something which no individual may do...

Peaceful people are better than the ones who want to do violence

The Government is an organisation which will do violence against other people because it has been voted for and is popular. It is a form of transferred violence, being done not by those who wish to do the stealing, or other crime, but instead by those who are employed to do so by the Government. It is a form of violence transferred.

If people want to do violence, is it not best that they suffer the (natural) negative consequences directly? What right have we to alter the behaviour of a violent gang and yet claim not to be violent? Let the one who desires the violence be the aggressor!

The Government is the means by which violence is formalised in Society. It is the (required?) dose, level of violence and crime, but of course we might not need crime at all. We might say that we need Government like a hole in the head. Does a pedestrian need a mugger to take their mobile phone from them? The Government is crime, why not have no crime at all and just have peace?

Is it better to be a criminal or to offer the chance to refuse? Those who do good and help others are better, are they not?

Are taxes not aggressive?

Is freedom bad for anyone? I am not injured by the freedom of another person, only if they impinge upon my freedom. Does my freedom harm you? Is there a reason we should feel guilty to be free? Are we in debt to those who attack us? There is no guilt in my heart!

Why should you be forced to pay taxes? The Government forces you to pay taxes. You will get arrested otherwise, which, unless you have done harm, is not justifiable. Unless you have done harm, you should not suffer from taxation. We are innocent. It is true that, to be moral, we must first demonstrate the harm, or crime, before the use of force otherwise we are being criminal.

To repeat: We must first demonstrate the harm, or crime, before the use of force.

We are free

What is there to fear in freedom? Surely it is only a lack of freedom, from whatever source, which is to be feared? It is the collectivists and the Socialists who aspire to restrict freedom and are thus the ones to be feared. Luckily they are not so much in agreement these days on how best to hinder freedom, so that gives us hope. They do not have a guiding manifesto, so much these days...

Socialism restricts freedom. Crime is defined by an (unjustified) imposition on the freedoms of another person, and so by definition, Socialism is a crime. The truth does not want us to be Socialists because it tells us that we have made a contradiction in our thinking if we endorse this philosophy. Socialism fails the test of consistency, it is incorrect. Is freedom incorrect?

Can freedom be falsified? The lack of freedom is the test (to falsify) any other political proposal so it is unlikely that we can show freedom denies freedom anywhere. We use an assumption of the benevolence of freedom in testing any other (moral) philosophy, so how can it be used against itself? Freedom is the test against which all other 'moral' theories are measured. We assume it to be worthy. When we discuss morality, if we are not a moral nihilist, then the advantage of freedom is usually assumed, we find. So why not go the extra step and allow freedom in all areas?

Genocide and killing everyone would not be an effective moral to be within each one of us, if we are to survive as a species. Biology and life selects for animals which do not violate freedom to too great an extent; if you are too aggressive, you will get killed. We generally want others to survive because it improves the species and the gene pool. So why would we want to tax ourselves?

Socialism is bad because it restricts freedom. Socialism is bad for the same reason that stealing is bad; it restricts freedom which in itself is sufficient reason to reject it. Freedom is the (de facto) test of all moral theories. Freedom is the best outcome, it is what nature wants, because it is easier and crime is difficult and does not pay. Freedom is favoured by nature. If we act only defensively, freedom will emerge...

The universe is freedom, we are free. Who would not want freedom? You are free, whether you like it or not.

Do we want roads?

We do not construct things, so much as remove their absence.

If we think of an office tower block in a city, clearly this has been constructed. But we can look at it another way; before the building, there was a problem of insufficient office space in the city. This has been remedied by the new building.

A school does not educate, it removes ignorance, just as a hospital does not make us healthy, it removes illness. We 'fix' things by removing the problem, not by the construction of a remedy. Roads are not built, we clear a pathway for vehicles to pass through. We do not construct, we remove obstacles, problems. The solution appears automatically when the problem is addressed. Who will solve the problem of an absence of roads? Who will build a shelter to protect us from the rain?

We might not want the symbols of a collective group such as motorways and armies, even prisons.

Democracy offers no protection against collective prejudice

What protection is Democracy against crime when most of the voters do not objection to taxation? If most people think crime is acceptable, even desirable, then what protection is Democracy? Democracy offers no protection against the prejudices held by the majority, all we can do is to appeal to the principles of freedom within Democracy, that is to say, diversity, and of course, seek to alter public opinion.

Taxes are not owed only compensation

Unless we have harmed others, then we owe no debt.

Have we harmed the Government, or Society, if that is what is represented by the Government? If we have not then, surely, we owe no debt. In what way has the Government, or Society been injured? Have I harmed someone or something? If I have not then what do I owe? Taxes are not due from the innocent. Taxes are not due, only compensation, restitution is due...