The State should have the right to restrict our freedoms, nothing more

...they should not be able to make us do something.

The State should not have the right to make us do something, or to make us pay a fine... If the State represents the sentiments of the majority of the population, then they have the right to deny the access of a criminal to the territory. They do not have the right to make the criminal do work for the State. Unless we are criminal, we have a natural right to the land but if we are criminal, that right can be restored after period of incarceration and continued good behaviour...

There are two types of crime... an on-going crime (of the type where a person persistently prevents (other) persons from gaining access to property which does not belong to them, such as a land dispute) and the second type, a non on-going crime, a one-off crime such as violent attack or rape.

The first type of crime can be said to be a public crime because the person perpetrates it (repeatedly) in plain sight and they would not deny that they are engaging in this action; they would argue that they are in the "right". The second type is a private crime and the criminal would be highly unlikely to argue that the right to engage in the action was a legitimate right (few argue in favour of rape as a natural right...).

So the first type of crime (on-going) can legitimately be solved with the application of violence, since property rights can only be established by force. The way to solve this problem is to restrict the rights of the transgressor from having access to the disputed territory... if this continues it ends up with the person eventually being incarcerated.

As far as the second type of crime is concerned, the State restricts the freedoms of the criminal for different reasons than for the first. Here, the wrong-doing of the criminal cannot be reversed and the initial conditions cannot be restored (unless we have the unusual situation of continued actual aggression). The victim has been hurt and the damage cannot be undone... The only worthwhile approach now is to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurence ... Incarceration certainly prevents the criminal from being violent again (for a period of time), it also punishes the criminal which may lead to a change in philosophy, we cannot legitimately punish the criminal by any other means (than incarceration) since to do so would deny the target the right to life; property external to the actual person is shared property and may be revoked by the State. The rights of the State do not extend to the person itself...

If our (the State's) only legitimate sanction is to deny access to the (shared) natural resources of the world (incarceration) then we cannot force people (with the threat of prison) to pay taxes and fines... Since the State can (then) only use imprisonment to control behaviour (without violating the (part of the) "self", which does not extend to external property...) it cannot charge taxes and fines. Taxes and fines aren't invalid for the reason that they damage the "self" (they don't) but instead because charging fiat is auxiliary to the problem at hand.

A solution to the "problem" of minor crimes, that we do not (might not) want to result in a prison term would be the three-strikes and you're out rule... For example, continued speeding charges or parking misdemeanors (where the victim has been established) would result in an actual prison term.


Taxes and fines are not an effective approach to the problem (of any particular crime) because they do not address the initial cause of the disturbance... They are orthogonal to the problem, and irrelevant (not pertinent). Not only does this create confusion, it also fails to address the underlying cause... It is imprecise, an injudicious punishment; inappropriate.

So then: Income tax (by charging fiat currency) is an inappropriate sanction against the crime of employment (if employment is a crime... (it isn't)) because it does not (effectively) address the underlying problem...

Taxes and fines of fiat currency (even if well-meaning) are not perspicacious... Which is damaging because it results in (unintended) consequences... People will act to protect themselves against the (inappropriate) punishments rather than adjust their behaviour in (perhaps) more advantageous ways. It is not a crime not to have sufficient (fiat) money... but if the consequences of a crime can be undone with the payment of money, it makes being "rich" (in fiat) a "license" to commit crimes. Rich people can do bad things such as "own" an inappropriate quantity of natural resources...

It is OK to have a job (employment) if you are rich... The "crime" (according to the tax laws; if it is punished (by tax) there must have been a crime(?)) of having a job is less costly to the rich, should (as we seem to be saying...) cash be used as a get-out-of-gaol card? Would the wealthy need to pay more?

Payment of cash does not resolve the problem (whatever it is defined to be, or have been), which ultimately can only be resolved with a sanction such as (or similar to) imprisonment. The payment of taxes or fines (to the State) is not what the victim wants...


When the punishment (for a crime, we must have a crime before any punishment can be legitimate) is clumsy, misdirected, off-target then we have bad outcomes... People will adjust to the nature of the off-target attacks and change their behavior in ways which are not optimal... The punishment should be appropriate to the crime, not only in severity but also in type, like-for-like... This mistake is why fiat currency has value.

If the punishment is tangential to the crime, it sends the wrong price signals into the market... For example if we fine someone (fiat currency, not property claims on natural resources) for bodily assault (instead of reducing, or threatening to reduce) their freedom, this is not a like-for-like punishment. We do not create a (price) demand for better behaviour, only fiat currency. It doesn't really "hurt" the criminal in the same way... But, better than any punishment is prevention (of one-off crimes, on-going crimes being closer in character to a public dispute...). And prevention is best achieved with surveillance... by making our actions public (for example having everything around us recorded...), not known only to the State.

Sunday 12 April 2009