Fiat as a proxy for property rights

Fiat money is the means by which the population easily transfers property rights amongst themselves, which are upheld by the State.

But it isn't the possession of these rights which is taxed, instead it is the transfer of these rights... Fiat is a means of purchasing Government protection which enables you to survive independently without being a wage-slave* or relying on the State for handouts. Someone with a paucity of (State sanctioned) resources must pay rent even before they are able to provide for themselves...

Taxing property ownership would affect rent-seekers but it would also increase the price of rents, affecting tenants. But, overall it would be disadvantageous to rent-seekers because they would become a "tenant" of the State.

A tenant wants cheap rents but ultimately, cheap rents are associated with something (an asset) of little value. But if taxation is to be "progressive" it should fall more heavily on the rent-seekers than the tenants, rather than those who trade or rent.

To own property is to own access to life itself... someone with an excess of property can charge tenants a fee for their survival, they are selling a livelihood. Should anyone be asked to pay for (their) existence (from birth) when we clearly have sufficient resources for everyone?

Should an orphan (who otherwise would not inherit material assets) have a right to a piece of land? If yes, should giving birth to a child be restricted or even requiring of permission? Or should it be assumed that all children can be accommodated and that restrictive measures should be taken only when the limit on fairly distributed resources has been met?

So then (if the State is to recognise property), is it reasonable to tax an unfair excess of property, rather than earnings? Effectively, for people to become tenants of the State rather than employee?


*Someone who has insufficient resources to live independently, must rely on others.

28th January 2009