It would be better if we owned ourselves

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

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

We can be responsible for ourselves

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

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

Private commercial banks print Government money

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

Socialism is a form of slavery

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

Why not let people have control over their own life?

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

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

Banks can issue digital money

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

People are unaware that the banks are empty

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

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

Governments steal money from the public

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

Taxation is a form of slavery

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

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

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

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

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

It's not right to force people to pay taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

A better system might be Multiple Winner First Past The Post

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

For freedom either work in the private sector or do nothing

The public sector relies upon violence.

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

Poverty is the fault of and is caused by aggression

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

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

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

We can rely upon no one but ourselves

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

Only the free market should provide charitable services

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

Capitalism is not a problem

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

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

Taxes are not due unless you are a slave

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

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

The free market is best at providing charity

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

Property rights can be arranged on a consensual and informal basis

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

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

There is no Government

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

Gold is not a store of wealth

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

Why not make taxation a choice?

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

People can help themselves without the Government

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

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

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

PR is the most Democratic system

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

Self ownership is the best way to organise ourselves

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

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

Socialism violates self ownership.

We are not obligated to others

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

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

There is nothing that binds, unites us.

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

Free trade is not a bad thing instead it is good

The Government relies upon taxpayers.

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

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

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

If people are ignorant they will exploit minorities in a Democracy

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

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

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

Might a mainstream vote be a protest vote?

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

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

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

Caring for each other will help the species

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

Is it a good idea to tax people?

Why do we give all our money to the Government?

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

The Government uses force to make people pay taxes

Why does the Government need to collect taxes?

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

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

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

The Government are aggressive.

Taxation is aggressive.

Democracy can be a defence against Socialism

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

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

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

Things would be better without aggressive force

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

Democracy is meaningless

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

Without Democracy the thieves would be more cautious

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

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

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

Democracy provides sanctuary for our theft.

Can we not be virtuous outside Government?

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

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

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

The Government forces people to help each other

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

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

The Government forces our neighbour to help us.

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

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

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

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

Why retain the Government?

Why have tyranny?

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

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

Socialism exploits fear

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

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

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

People who feel themselves helpless will tolerate Tyranny.

The debts can be paid off by printing money

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

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

What harm is Capitalism?

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

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

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

Why use aggressive force?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collective defence is chaotic but aggression must be organised

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

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

Are the Government more virtuous than the rest of us?

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

The deposit guarantee is what prevents a bank run

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

Courts are acceptable but aggressive Government is not

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

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

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

Socialists are thieves, but so what? Join in!

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

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

Socialists try to force people to do certain things

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

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

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

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

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

Property rights are a threat not a debate

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

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

The poor have nowhere to grow their food

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

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

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

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

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

The deposit guarantee turns bank deposits into something equivalent to cash

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

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

The deposit guarantee means banks can print money

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

Why would bank deposits be any less valuable than cash?

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

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

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

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

Property rights will emerge naturally once the State goes away

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

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

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

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

To vote Libertarian is a defensive act

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

Is the Government a good thing?

Is it good to have a Government?

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

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

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

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

Why have leaders, can we not lead ourselves?

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

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

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

Why doesn't the Government ignore the Democratic vote?

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

Hyperinflation will be the end of coercive Government

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

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

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

Taxation is a form of slavery

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

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

Poor people have no land of their own

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

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

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

Why does Democracy defend the property rights of the rich?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A free person is a victim only of themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have you been prevented from doing by their presence?

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

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

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

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

Does ideology serve the people or the State?

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

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

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

Ideology is used to defend unjust actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would the central bank react to a bank run?

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

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

What is morality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxation is invalid since it is aggressive

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

Government Services compensate tax

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

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

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

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

Democracy is our only protection against the theft of the Government

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

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

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

Why make an exception for the Government?

Why make an exception for the Government?

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