The State should only intervene if there is a problem

The State (using force) cannot perform an objective good

The State should do nothing unless there is a need to do something.

The reactionary State...

It might be possible to envisage a State which acts only in reaction to the behaviours of individuals, so it would not be proactive... If a person does not execute a behaviour which is against the wishes of the State, the person (in that case) would not be hindered by the State.

So for example, Income Tax (unless it is decided that to trade voluntarily is a bad thing) would not attract any fines or punishments... The State would not be proactive, in seeking to do good by acquiring taxes only reactive in seeking to prevent harm. This would be on the assumption that, if left alone, most people will not cause harm.


We cannot say for certain that any action perpetrated by the State (or anyone) is a good action, and so we should do little that disturbs others unless we are doing it for the cause of someone else. We can do very little to help other people, other than to protect them.

The State should not seek to help people solve their problems, instead it should clear away restrictions which stand in their way. For example it should not help a person find work by passing laws encouraging labour, it should instead get rid of the restrictions which prevent the person from supporting themselves such as removing someone who is violent (or violently defends land which is not theirs) from their neighbourhood.

The State can do more good by being aggressive toward people who are harmful (and preventing further injury) than it can by being aggressive toward people who (even the State agree...) have done no wrong.

The State is aggressive towards innocent people... not the guilty. People who "earn" a lot of money are not the problem... Income tax would be a good idea if people earning money are the problem in the Society, but they are not. Perhaps rent-seeking and landlords (and landowners) are the problem?

What is wrong with money changing hands?


The State should leave people alone unless there is a problem... and they have been invited (by someone) to solve it.



If you haven't done anything wrong why should the State attack you? Shouldn't the State attack only harmful people? We know that to trade your labour is not wrong and we also know that it cannot be (has not been) shown that money is better (spent) in the hands of the State...

So, "should" the State be able to (have the right to) attack you (violently) for no reason? And if not, why then do we have the Income Tax?

Thursday 23 April 2009