[mum]

All taxes are an act of agression. Tax is merely the state deciding that a portion of your property is not in fact yours and must be handed over.
NAP does not permit tax.
Just because a govt issues currency doesn't mean it is owned by the govt. Currency is just a store of the individual's labour or capital. In no way is any portion of that legitimately owned by another unless designated by the original person.
The only reason fiat currency and legal tender laws exist is to facilitate more theft through the mechanism of inflation (and to a lessor degree for the govt to simply have more control to be able to monitor the flow of the currency)

[SolarCross]

L4Life

Why is a tax on land more like theft/slavery than a tax on earning money through work? Please explain.

I did explain in the paragraph below the one you quoted.

I believe "the people" are the true owners of all land,water, and air and all other natural earth resources. Ideally, government is instituted on behalf of "the people".
Earth's natural resouces should belong to everyone, not only to privileged aristocractic land owners.
Since ownership of land includes the right to deny other people access to owned lands,
Why do landowners (especially if they pay no land taxes) have the right to deny access if other people want or need to use their lands?
birthright? first come first serve? I was here first? because there is an ongoing peaceful project?

I agree that 'the people' are the true owners of all land, water and air and other natural resources. Or rather I would go further as say no-one really owns any of these things, the human concept of ownership just can't be sensisbly or morally be applied to these things. This is another reason that a land tax (independant of currency usage) would be in violation of NAP because the government can no more own the land (and therefore legitimately charge rent / tax) than any other person (natural or artificial). But currency isn't any of these natural things, currency is an artificial construct it can be owned, even as a libertarian understands ownership as private property, and remain property even when it not in possession of the original owner.

Mum -

All taxes are an act of agression. Tax is merely the state deciding that a portion of your property is not in fact yours and must be handed over.
NAP does not permit tax.
Just because a govt issues currency doesn't mean it is owned by the govt. Currency is just a store of the individual's labour or capital. In no way is any portion of that legitimately owned by another unless designated by the original person.
The only reason fiat currency and legal tender laws exist is to facilitate more theft through the mechanism of inflation (and to a lessor degree for the govt to simply have more control to be able to monitor the flow of the currency)

Tax feels like aggression if you fail to understand that the currency you hold was never your private property and is in fact only loaned out for your use by the issuer in return for rent (tax) on its fair usage. The problem with tax is not that it violates NAP because as I have clearly shown it isn't in violation of NAP anymore than a carhire company would be taking back a car that they loaned out. The problem with tax is that the government has a local monopoly on the issuance of currency which allows them to charge high rents on the use of their money due to lack of competition in the issuance of currency market.

I think this monopoly is not a monopoly by force in most cases but only a defacto monopoly in the same way that ebay is a defacto monopoly in the online-marketplace supply business. Ebay doesn't forcefully prevent competitors from making online market places and in fact there are alternatives to ebay it is just that they got in the business from the beginning and achieved a defacto monopoly through a long head start on the competition. Same goes for most government issued currencies. There are usually no laws saying you can't trade by means of another currency it is just that because their currency has been circulating longer in that locality such that everyone is accustomed to use it that they have a defacto monopoly.

A sensible objection to government tax can only come from objecting to its defacto monopoly on currency. You do have a choice though you can try and use alternative currencies or organise with others to make your own.

[libertarian_4_life]

[quoteL4Life

I did explain in the paragraph below the one you quoted.

Thanks for not clarifying and not re-explaning.
Seems you don't care if I understand.

I agree that 'the people' are the true owners of all land, water and air and other natural resources. Or rather I would go further as say no-one really owns any of these things, the human concept of ownership just can't be sensisbly or morally be applied to these things. This is another reason that a land tax (independant of currency usage) would be in violation of NAP because the government can no more own the land (and therefore legitimately charge rent / tax) than any other person (natural or artificial).

Sorry, I dont understand. Government can no more own the land than people own the land .... therefore land tax violates the NAP??
Please make longer, more detailed arguments. Are you saying that both land taxes and charging rents for use of private land are both violations of the NAP?

But currency isn't any of these natural things, currency is an artificial construct it can be owned, even as a libertarian understands ownership as private property, and remain property even when it not in possession of the original owner.

You are proposing a system of taxation which does not currently exist.
Most governments and private banks and private companies which issue currency .... do not retain any ownership of the currency after it is released.
They voluntarily relinquish all ownership rights to any released currency.
To revise a contract after it has been agreed to, is dishonest and akin to stealing.
no one should have the right to unilaterally revise contracts unless all parties agress.
The money I have does not belong to the government. Why?
because government relinquished all rights to this money, when they released it.
and also because, I dont agree.

Even if laws changed such that government retained partial or full ownership of issued money, that would only apply to new money.
The money currently in my wallet is still my money.

Tax feels like aggression if you fail to understand that the currency you hold was never your private property and is in fact only loaned out for your use by the issuer in return for rent (tax) on its fair usage.

I dont believe it. Show me proof that this is true and is actually happening.

The problem with tax is not that it violates NAP because as I have clearly shown it isn't in violation of NAP anymore than a carhire company would be taking back a car that they loaned out.

If there is no agreement or clause in the rental contract which allows the carhire company to re-take possession of the car, then they should have no right to take back the car.
Similiarly, a bank or government which issues or loans out money, can only take back the money if there is agreement between the loaner and the loanee .... or the issuer and the issuee.
If a carhire company, or bank, or government re-possesses a car or some money, without any such clause or agreement, then they are initiating aggression (stealing) which is unlibertarian.

I think this monopoly is not a monopoly by force in most cases but only a defacto monopoly in the same way that ebay is a defacto monopoly in the online-marketplace supply business. Ebay doesn't forcefully prevent competitors from making online market places and in fact there are alternatives to ebay it is just that they got in the business from the beginning and achieved a defacto monopoly through a long head start on the competition. Same goes for most government issued currencies. There are usually no laws saying you can't trade by means of another currency it is just that because their currency has been circulating longer in that locality such that everyone is accustomed to use it that they have a defacto monopoly.

Legal tender laws grant a monopoly (or limited or partial monopoly) to government on the issuance of legal tender. Violation of legal tender laws is a crime, even if you don't agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
Ebay can not legally force you to obey their rules, if you dont agree to their rules.
If you agree to Ebay's rules, then possibly, you may be punished for any violation. But, as I said, Ebay can not and does not force you to agree.

[SolarCross]

lib4life -
Ok I'll try again - you posit that all natural resources (land, water, space, time, oxygen) is in some sense common property and I agree with that. But if it is common property then no person whether an natural person such as you and I or an artificial person such as a government or corportation can have any exclusive rights over any common property or else it isn't common. So land as a natural resource can't be taxed because 1. it can't be owned in any exclusive sense and 2. the government (which does not and cannot represent everyone) has no special rights over that land.

In so far as the artificial construct of money is the property of the government then the government can have the right to tax land in so far as its currency is used to effect a transaction but then it is really taxing the transaction not the land and if an alternative currency that they didn't own was used they would have no right to tax it.

I think that is clear enough, if you still don't get it please re-read it and not ask me to repeat myself.

I looked up legal tender and in no way does it suggest that alternative currencies can't be used for transactions but there is a way that government could lawfully and in accordance with NAP prevent that too as I shall explain.

First off I should bring to your attention that NAP is not new for really it is just a slimmed down partial restatement of the main principles of english common law. English common law dates back to the Norman conquest of England in 1066 AD. The Normans didn't invent common law either but basically adopted and slightly adapted the Islamic law of Sicily when they conquored it. Truely there is nothing new under the sun.

So what is the main principles of Common Law: -
1. Do not commit aggression against person or property
2. Honour contracts.
A contract is an agreement freely undertaken with offer, acceptance, consideration and the understanding of legal obligation.
3. Breach of contract may result in 'damages' where the party that breached the contract can be made to make restitution to the other party to the contract.

In substance it is as simple as that.

Now we can see how a government can lawfully make you use their currency and therefore be lawfully liable to taxation and also how you can lawfully avoid using their currency and therefore avoid liability to taxation.

It all stems from contract law. By being a citizen you are entering into a contract with the government to make rules for you. This is the difference between law and legislation. Law as it is understood in Common law is the law of god which everyone and everything is naturally subject to. Legistation is the rule of man and is based on a contract between the ruled and ruler. So if there is no contract between you and the government then you are exempt from their legislation. Citizenship is essentially a contract between you the natural person and the government wherein you agree that the government may make the rules you live by.

So if you want to be free from government and taxation you can but lawfully you must do two things first. 1. Formally end the contract you have with your government which practically means giving up citizenship and 2. Not use their currency in your trading activities. Any questions?

[lucky]

You misunderstand what I mean by taxing currency; I am saying that as the real owners of the currency the government are entitled to take it back however they like. As it happens they usually tax it when you use it; take it in exchange for something else like selling your labour or buying something. Think about it as rent for fair use.

It might be that they would be violating the NAP if they taxed you for making exchanges in another currency not issued by themselves. So the US gov would be against NAP if they tried to get a percentage of an exchange done by barter, a gift, or where the price paid was in yen, deutchmarks, or rubles for example.

Most business is not done using government-issued currency. It's mostly done on credit, and balances aren't settled using government currency. Businesses don't send briefcases with government banknotes to each other. You could call that "barter" I guess, but it's not usually called that.

I don't even get paid for my job in government notes, for the most part, but rather in bank balances in a private bank. I don't pay for stuff using Federal Reserve Notes either, I build credit on a credit card issued by a private bank, or write checks against my bank balance.

Come tax time, nobody cares whether I had FRNs in my hand at any time (I didn't, for the most part), which is why your game with definitions of their ownership is pointless.

[libertarian_4_life]

I looked up legal tender and in no way does it suggest that alternative currencies can't be used for transactions but there is a way that government could lawfully and in accordance with NAP prevent that too as I shall explain.

You are right that alternative currencies can be used, especially if all parties in the transaction agree.
However, you are treading on thin ice if you think a business has full rights to require payment in non-legal tender.

Let's suppose I am eating at a restaurant in England.
After I eat the food, I am presented with a bill to pay.
I offer to pay in English pounds. The owner refuses my money and instead, demands payment in Shekels.

As far as I know, the restaurant can not force me to pay in Shekels because I am offering legal tender to pay for the meal (a debt).

A restaurant could legally require payment in Shekels but they would have to collect payment before rendering services.
After services are rendered (or after a product is delivered), it's too late, the proprietor can not legally force me to pay in non-legal tender.

Another example.
Let's suppose I walk into a store in England, grab a pint of milk from the shelf and drink it.
I take the empty bottle to the cashier and offer to pay in English pounds.
The cashier points to a sign on the wall which reads "All payments must be in gold".
I say "sorry, I only have English pound notes". If the cashier refuses English pounds, then I believe I can legally leave without paying anything.

[mikema63]

Legal tender laws require that all debts be payable in currency, then another law sets the value of its currency higher than the actual economic exchange value of the dollar against the commodity money. This forces the commodity money out of the market because no one wishes to pay in the more valuable commodity when they could pay less using the currency.

Banks and private citizens are also banned from creating their own currencies (which is a definite breach of NAP), if there were competing currencies of any kind either bank issued fiat or commodity money the government would not be able to inflate their money supply to fund themselves. The value of the currency would drop in comparison to all other currencies and everyone would drop the dollar for something else as their money became worthless.

Government issued currency is entirely and exercise in controlling the banking system, bankrolling whatever the politicians want, and in ultimately controlling the populace by removing restriction on what the government can do.

I suppose you could view tax as a legitimate thing if government owned the currency, but only if they allowed competing currencies which since the government couldn't tax (and not break the NAP) everyone would switch to.

[SolarCross]

Lucky - If it is denominated in USD it is USD even if it is credit and not a physical note. That is obvious.

My point is not that governments justify taxation on NAP but rather they COULD justify it by NAP. As it happens common law countries like UK, US, Canada and Australia base their legislation on the original, real NAP which is English common law. The lawful underpinning of legislation is all derived from contract law. So NAP won't save you from government if English common law won't.

Lib4life - yes the presumption is that the designated legal tender is acceptable for extinguishing a debt so the trader that wishes to avoid be paid thus has to make sure his customer understands that before making the transaction.

Mikem - If competing currencies are forbidden then explain why bitcoin or LETS are not stamped on.

Believe it or not governments mostly do try to stay lawful (meaning common lawful) as much as they rely on and encourage the ignorance of the general public. Problems also arise because their hired goons are also usually pretty ignorant of the law.

If you really want to be free there already is a way out. It is called Lawful rebellion. It is based on the understanding that your liability to government legislation all comes down to your consent to be governed; it is just a contract. End the contract and you are no more liable to be governed than the squirrels.

[lucky]

another law sets the value of its currency higher than the actual economic exchange value of the dollar against the commodity money

This makes no sense. There is no difference between "value" and "actual economic exchange value". Plus, "another law" is very non-specific, it's hard to figure out what you're really trying to say.

Banks and private citizens are also banned from creating their own currencies (which is a definite breach of NAP)

Not really. See, for example: Disney Dollars

Lucky - If it is denominated in USD it is USD even if it is credit and not a physical note. That is obvious.

I never said my bank account is "not USD" (whatever that means - "denominated in USD" is more appropriate). What I said is my checking account is not "issued by" the US government, but rather by my bank. It's the bank that owes me, not the US government, so even if you somehow want to call the debtor rather than the debtee the "owner" of the debt, it's still not the US government in that case. The US government is not a side in that contract.

[SolarCross]

Lucky - Well in a way your right as in fact the US since 1913 is a special case. The US government handed over its ability to issue currency to a private bank called the Federal Reserve. The arrangement in the US since then is that the Federal Reserve lends (at interest) the US dollars it creates to the commercial banks and the government to spend its currency into circulation. So technically in the US at least the currency is actually owned by a private bank (Federal Reserve). The government is merely a rent collecting agency for this bank.

[lucky]

Lucky - Well in a way your right as in fact the US since 1913 is a special case. The US government handed over its ability to issue currency to a private bank called the Federal Reserve. The arrangement in the US since then is that the Federal Reserve lends (at interest) the US dollars it creates to the commercial banks and the government to spend its currency into circulation. So technically in the US at least the currency is actually owned by a private bank (Federal Reserve). The government is merely a rent collecting agency for this bank.

As I said, I don't deal much with the Federal Reserve. I only own a small amount of Federal Reserve Notes. I do not have an account with the Federal Reserve, I use other banks.

The only way the Federal Reserve is involved is that the government regulates banks to invest a small portion of their assets into a Federal Reserve Bank account, in exchange providing backing for bank customers in case of bank's bankruptcy.

My checking account is a debt from my bank (not Federal Reserve) to me. I am the owner, the bank is the debtor.

[mum]

I don't believe that the government owns the currency.
I have never heard of this before and I would like to see some sort of official statement that shows this.
Just because the govt issues the currency does not mean it owns it.
Before 1971 in the US each dollar was an actual gold receipt. The people who had dollars in their pocket could go to the bank and demand gold. The banks were legally required to do this.
In 1971 Nixon decided that the banks didnt have to do that anymore, effectively stealing everyone's gold.
How are these dollar bills "owned" by the govt?
I think that you are simply wrong on this Taxizen.

The Federal Reserve is a cartel and was created to legally enforce the member banks to remain in the cartel. Not only that it was also granted other special privilages such as the monopoly to issue currency.
This is the case not only in the US but in many other countries.

[SolarCross]

Ok look I am just trying as a exercise to see if it is plausible that taxation could be allowable in NAP. One way is if we regard the issuance and taxation of a currency as being a business of the government. Why would they issue currency if they couldn't tax it back. If they didn't inflation would be much worse. The main reason that Zimbabwe's currency has such a horrendous inflation rate is they issue currency but don't ever retrieve it. I think it might be that they could justify it on the basis of ownership and loan as I described. Ownership can be a multi-layered thing. In the UK the monarchy claims to own all the land in the country yet there are millions of people who think of themselves as owners of land. If one digs a little one finds that the people who think they own land actually just have something called freehold. Which just means that they have permission to hold land without paying rent to the crown. People buy and sell land and think themselves 'owners' yet actually they are just buying and selling permission to hold land not the land itself. Ultimately the crown plc. has the right to tell you what you can or can't build on that land and take it from you if they like. So really ownership can be layered. I thought it might work that way with currency as in the issuer quietly regards the currency as his property even after they loan it into circulation. People exchange the currency amongst themselves thinking that when they hold it they own it in the same way that the UK land owner thinks he owns land when he really has just freehold.

However as i already mentioned earlier this isn't the only way that government could claim lawful conduct in taxing people. The other way is contractual. As in by agreeing to be a citizen of that country either positively or by default (you were born to a citizen but then when you came of age did not explicitly renounce citizenship) then you are explicitly consenting to live by the rules (legislation) of the government which includes paying them tax when they want it. It is not contrary to either NAP or common law to expect parties to a contract to abide by the terms and it is allowable to seek 'damages' from those that break the contract. If you are a citizen then you are consenting by contract to be represented by government and to be ruled by that government. If the government makes a rule saying you should pay tax then you are in violation of that contract by not paying hence how government can lawfully seek damages in that event.

NAP is nothing new it is just a slimmed down partial restatement of English common law and as such if government can lawfully collect tax under English common law then they can under NAP.

Know thy enemy. If you don't know the nature of his game you will lose if you fight him. Once you know the lawful basis of government you can find the way out from it if you choose.

[TropicalK]

I hardly see how individuals holding dollars is a loan instead of an asset. Before 1971, currency was redeemable in gold bullion. That is a liability to the government and an asset to the note holder. In contract law, people with liabilities do not dictate to asset owners. Currency is not currently redeemable in bullion, but that does not completely flip the roles of asset ownership.

Most people do not hold dollars, they hold assets that are measured in dollars. What you are suggesting is akin to a yardstick making company owns everything that can be measured with a yardstick.

As soon as the government would make a claim that transactions in their "currency business" were taxable while people who use opposing currencies like gold were not taxable, the governments currency would be done for. Of course, an entire Stalin state could be enforced to criminalize rational incentivized behavior. Hardly consistent with NAP.

Code: Select allThe other way is contractual. As in by agreeing to be a citizen of that country either positively or by default (you were born to a citizen but then when you came of age did not explicitly renounce citizenship) then you are explicitly consenting to live by the rules (legislation) of the government which includes paying them tax when they want it.

Not doing something is not by default consent. That's ridiculous on its face. I could simply not consent. Where would the government (who has no legitimate ownership of property) get the authority to tax me? And how would they acquire this authority without violating the NAP?

You could enact landowning corporations with some leniency. But any payments to them would not be taxes but contractual fees or rent. Government is distinct from this, which should be a non-biased arbiter in a justice system and territorial monopoly of violence. Both of which require a separation from ownership as to be non-preferential to themselves.

You also have to ask who is the owner of the landowning corporation, and where are the dividends from the corporation. If the answer is the citizens, then where are the citizen's dividends? Having no dividends means that the corporation is probably misrun and a change of corporate governance should be at hand.

I personally do not prescribe to the NAP, so the moral aspects of libertarians and governance in general matter little to me. But if you follow through with the NAP logically, it is pretty difficult to conclude that the government gathered all the land and all-powers without trampling some people over. We know historically that governments massacred native populations.

[Eran]

I arrived late, and only quickly glanced previous posts. I will address the OP, and perhaps later some of the subsequent conversation.

taxizen's potential "loophole" for taxation is based on the observation that most people use government-issued money in their everyday transactions. Since government issues that money, it may, one could argue, associate various conditions to its use, including agreement to be taxed or (as Spouter suggested elsewhere) not to discriminate on the basis of race.

There are two main problems with this theory.

First, government doesn't in fact condition that use of currency on any prior agreement. Apple produces iPods. Apple cannot, retrospectively, say - anybody using an iPod must now agree to pay us $10/year by virtue of using our products. Such assertion must be made prior to the original transfer of ownership of the iPod (or government money).

Second, government money already violates NAP through Legal Tender Laws. Those laws prohibit the use of alternative coins or notes to facilitate commercial transactions. Therefore, even if government did pre-condition using its money on complying with its laws, Legal Tender Laws invalidate the moral power of any such "agreement" (since it wouldn't be voluntary).


The closest justification to taxation is to view them as analogies of rent. IF you view government as the legitimate owner of all the territory over which it claims jurisdiction, than, as an owner, government may charge a rent (as well as impose other rules of conduct), In fact, government often behaves as if it owns all that land. That ownership was more obvious during feudal times, and is obfuscated by the democratic process (which has the effect of blurring the distinction between government and society).

The libertarian response, of course, is that government is NOT the legitimate owner of its territory, in contradistinction to many (though not all) private landlords.




As for the NAP, I have asked, and hereby renew my request for both constructive criticism of my formulation, or for alternative formulations that do not rely on the undefined concept of "legitimate property". As argued above, all government action could be viewed as non-NAP-violating IF one accepts government as the legitimate owner of all the land (and, perhaps, the bodies of all its citizens). The NAP is useless in distinguishing totalitarian Nazis from peace-loving market anarchists unless one can come with a definition or understanding of "legitimate property". My formulation attempts to address the issue by avoiding the use of "property" in the definition. It has the additional advantage of clarifying the relation between NAP and legitimate property-acquisition means.

[lucky]

government money already violates NAP through Legal Tender Laws. Those laws prohibit the use of alternative coins or notes to facilitate commercial transactions.

You are confused. Legal Tender Laws do not prohibit using anything. They merely state that if I owe somebody $20, I can give them a $20 Federal Reserve Note (colloquially known as a "$20 bill") and be done with it, and the other side has to take it, rather than saying "no, I only take $1 bills". They do not say anything about using alternative forms of money, such as a credit card (which is not legal tender). These can be used when both parties agree.

Now, you said specifically "alternative coins and notes", rather than "alternative forms of money". Production and circulation of alternative "coins" (i.e. little metallic circular things stamped with amounts) is generally prohibited indeed. But this is not part of Legal Tender Laws! It's mostly to avoid confusion with real dollar coins.

Alternative notes aren't generally prohibited (see Disney dollars), unless you're clearly counterfeiting. You can also legally trade using all kinds of things other than Federal Reserve Notes (credit cards, wire transfers, checks, bitcoins, Euros, etc).

[Eran]

You are confused. Legal Tender Laws do not prohibit using anything.

Perhaps I am confused, and it isn't Legal Tender Laws that prohibit private alternatives to government money. Other laws certainly do. Look at the story of the Liberty Dollar. Earlier on in American history, government first regulated and then totally prohibited issuance of private bank notes.

What legal tender laws do is mandate the acceptance of government money. While today, the very term "$20" refers to government money, that wasn't always the case. All money (both private and government printed) used to be backed by specie. Legal tender laws mandated acceptance of government paper money in lieu of either specie or specie-equivalent private bank notes at par, and despite their more limited (and eventually complete lack of) convertibility.

It's mostly to avoid confusion with real dollar coins.

No. This is done to avoid competition with government money. Again, see the Liberty Dollar story.

You can also legally trade using all kinds of things other than Federal Reserve Notes (credit cards, wire transfers, checks, bitcoins, Euros, etc).

Credit cards, wire transfers and checks are merely means of exchanging government money. Physical paper notes are less and less relevant in the modern economy.

Bitcoins and Euros would be actively prohibited if their use became in any way significant or threatening.

[SolarCross]

I think it is not helpful to look at specific instances where a specific government contradicted NAP and take that as proof that in all instances for all governments the act of issuance and taxation of currency is contradicted by NAP. In the liberty dollar incident the US gov acted without lawful or legal basis even by their own rules but that doesn't mean that a hypothetical government couldn't issue and tax currency without contradicting common law or NAP.

I'll make some other points on the subject of whether an issuer of currency could claim ultimate ownership of the currency and therefore retain the right to retrieve it within some contractual framework.

People 'buy' things all the time and think they own it when really they just own the right to use it within some set of rules and conditions. You can 'buy' a piece of propreity software like windows 7 or a music cd and think you own it even sell on to someone else but legally and lawfully speaking all you are really buying and selling is the licence or permission to use it (within some restrictions). The piece of music or software remains the property of the copyright holder. I mentioned also the UK land situation where land is bought and sold but ownership ultimately remains in the hands of the monarchy, all that is traded is the permission to hold it rent free from the crown. Currency could and probably is based on a similar principle.

Note if you really owned in some ultimate sense the currency you held then their would be no lawful or legal basis for preventing you from copying (or counterfieting) the currency.

Another example where a 'currency' is exchanged or traded yet remains the property of a third party that issued it would be the chips used in a casino. The gamblers trade the chips between themselves as they play yet the chips themselves remain the property of the house.

Eran - you still haven't offered any challenge to the contractual basis for taxation. That by consenting to be and remain a citizen you are entering into a contract with the government to make the rules you live by. Thus if they make rules saying that you have to take their currency as legal tender and that you have to return it when they say so then they have the right to make you do that because by contract you agreed to them making rules for you to follow.

It remains that taxation is permissible under NAP in the same way it is permissible under the original NAP which is Engilsh common law by way of contract if not property rights associated with issuing currency.

[Eran]

Currency could and probably is based on a similar principle.

How likely are people to freely choose to use currency that holds them liable to comply with government taxes, rules and regulations, IF they had a free choice to use alternatives?

Government fiat currencies have, without exception, been established after government coercion restricted (and finally prohibited) private alternatives.


The analogies with software don't hold because software restrictions are explicitly known in advance. Restrictions over the use of currency aren't.

Eran - you still haven't offered any challenge to the contractual basis for taxation. That by consenting to be and remain a citizen you are entering into a contract with the government to make the rules you live by.

I have done so often, and, effectively, though perhaps not explicitly, in my earlier post on this thread.

For contractual basis for taxation to hold, we have to first assume that government is somehow legitimised in conditioning the benefits of citizenship on a person's agreement. In other words, that those benefits are its to give or withhold.

Let's take the easiest case for pro-government side - that of neutralised citizens. Those are people who swore to uphold the laws of the state (or the Constitution) so as to be awarded citizenship. Surely, if any person has a moral obligation to obey government's laws, it is a person who explicitly, knowingly, and with a choice, promised to do so. Right?

But the main (if not the only) reason people choose to adopt a new country's citizenship is that government makes life difficult otherwise. Government prohibits you from taking employment, or even entering the country without its permission. Permanent residents are at risk of losing the ability to freely move to the country, or accept employment, if they temporarily left the country (for 2 years in the case of the US).

IF (as I claim) government had no right to prohibit employment of non-citizens, or even to prohibit their entering its territory, then it has no right to condition those on compliance with government rules.

How much more so for those people born within the country, and for whom citizenship wasn't a choice?

It remains that taxation is permissible under NAP in the same way it is permissible under the original NAP which is Engilsh common law by way of contract if not property rights associated with issuing currency.

Only if you accept the feudal premise that the entire territory of the country "belongs" to the crown (or to its republican successors).

[SolarCross]

By common law citizenship does constitute a contract to be governed. Under common law a contract consists of these components: offer, acceptance, consideration and understanding of legal obligation.
We need not consider naturalised citizens since they have plainly and explicitly made a contract to be governed that much is uncontroversial. So what of those who are born citizens? Plainly until they are 'of age' they fall under the status of their guardians, if their guardians are citizens then so are they until they reach 'age' to form their own contracts. If you inherited citizenship and make no attempt to explicitly renounce citizenship and 'leave the club' when you reach age then defacto you are entering into contract with government to be governed. You are clearly consenting to be governed unless you explicitly reject citizenship. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't enjoy the benefits of citizenship and not shoulder the responsibilities. The one comes with the other.

In the UK there are people who exemplify the difference between those with a contract with government and those that don't. They are called gypsies, gypos or pikeys. They live in the UK but do not have citizenship. They are not drafted or taxed and they drive without licenses, they don't have passports or birth certificates. Citizens always complain why the gypos can get away with all this. The answer is obvious to one who understands the principles of common law and contract law. The gypos have never entered into a contract to be governed so they are only liable to common law and not to parliament's legislation.

Restrictions on the use of currency are known in advance more so than software licenses. Nobody reads software licenses but most people are aware that being a citizen means being taxed and it is even explicitly written down in the club rule book (legislation).