Forced payment of fiat currency goes against self-ownership

Self-ownership suggests (allows for, permits) only negative rights

A negative right is the ability to restrict the behaviour of someone else, not force them to do something... So we can prevent someone from trespassing on our land, but not force them to work on our land or hand over their produce. In the same way, taxes are an exploitation of a positive right (which denies self-ownership) on the part of the State... So whereas it might be valid (if we accept self-ownership) to remove land from a person, it is not valid to fine them for owning an excess of land (Land Value Tax)... We can prevent someone from trespassing on our land but not fine them (fiat money) for doing so.

Punishments which reflect (are an expression of) the negative rights of the State might include: Curfews, seizing property or land, restricting access to the road (driving ban), incarceration...

The ownership of fiat currency is not a violence (in and of itself), although it may have been a result of violence... to claim land rights is to threaten violence, if someone transgresses on the land. To own fiat currency is not a threat of violence... So the payment of a fine (or taxes) is not because (due to the fact that) the person has too much (fiat), it can only be for the punishment of another crime. Owning fiat is not a crime of itself.

If you have a large quantity of fiat, if this hurts me it does so only because of the actions of the State... so the State cannot be justified in punishing the person with an excess of fiat because this is harmful (to others) only because of (the actions of) the State. You (the State) would be (or are...) punishing them, the "rich" for no other reason than the harm caused by your (arbitrary) actions... Since there is no reason to justify the taxation of the State, the harm caused by having an excess of fiat is the fault of the State. If the State is provoked to attack (otherwise innocent) individuals as a consequence of the (otherwise innocent) actions of a third party, the blame cannot be said to lie with the actions of the third party.

Unlike land, no one else can have a legitimate claim to fiat which is not in their possession... it is not (cannot be said to be) a birthright, it is (a right) granted only by the State. Forced payment of fiat suggests that it is owned by the State, or at least that your ownership denies the legitimate right of another person to have use of it (to own it)... Is protection from the State a birthright? No, since the State is arbitrary... The State has no obligation to protect individuals, and similarly we have no obligation to protect each other.

If the punishment is to fit the crime, then an excess of property ownership should result in access to property (granted by the State) being denied... not a fine of fiat money. By demanding fiat, rather than addressing the objectionable behaviour is the mechanism by which fiat becomes valuable...


Sunday 12 April 2009