Involuntary debt is invalid

For a debt to be valid requires that the person in debt must have (reasonably) been able to refuse

We are familiar with the protection racket which requires that everyone within a jurisdiction pay a levy to the Mafia. This debt is invalid because the person owing does not have a (reasonable) choice to avoid the debt. The debt is assumed... The obligation has not arisen from a contract agreed voluntarily, by both parties.

In the same way, the requirement to pay taxes to the State is invalid because the choice to refuse is absent from the arrangement. Assumed consent: Without an explicit statement of consent there is no reason for it to have been assumed...

Why is it that an obligation to the State is assumed? It is not valid to say that we are in debt to the State, unless we have chosen (free of duress) to be so.

How free was our choice to refuse that which has been given to us?


Sunday 11 January 2009

We might agree that we have no choice but to pay taxes, but do we have a choice to avoid (bank) credit?

Assuming we can expect that the debt will be inflated away, issuing and receiving allows the two parties to extract wealth from the rest of the economy. To be excluded from this arrangement means that everyone else is gaining wealth rather than you... To prevent "missing out" and falling further and further behind we almost have no choice but to take out debt.

If we are given what we expect to be "free" money which later turns out to be very costly (deflation) can we argue that we should be forgiven? If you promise to clean someone's windows and they turn out to live in a mansion are you entitled to ask for renegotiation of the contract?

(7th Feb'09)