Clever Statist on Taxes: Government Owns the Dollar Bills, so it Can Tax You

Economics Political Theory
, , ,
1

(Thought you guys would appreciate this justification for taxation, never seen it before.)

Statist reply to my challenge that taxation is equivalent to theft:

(And here was my reply to him:)

That’s one of the more clever justifications for theft of value from the people whom produce it.

You say the government owns the physical bill itself. However where it fails is whether that ownership is legitimate, whether it is just.

When I produce value in the economy, I rightly own the value I produce. That value is conveyed to me in terms of dollars, right now, primarily because government force is used to ensure that dollars are the only real way to pay workers.

However, the value produced is legitimately mine, even if it’s being “counted” in dollars that, at least according to that law, belong to the government. But do they?

Let’s examine government ownership of a dollar bill with a counter-example. The government also claims ownership over everyone’s mailbox; this is how the gov justifies making it illegal for anyone but the US Postal Service to place anything in your mailbox. However, you yourself must buy your mailbox, by law, and place it there.

It is illegitimate for any person or group of people to claim ownership over something they didn’t take from nature in ownerless condition or that was not voluntarily traded to them by another person(s). If I require you by law to buy something, my requirement is an aggression against you, and you still justly own the thing I made you buy. Just as if a robber made you take money out of an ATM at the point of a gun and give it to him, the money is not legitimately his.

Thus, the government’s claim of ownership of mailboxes is an unjust and thus void claim. It may be, for the time being, legally true, but it is an unjust claim and should be abolished.

Similarly, the government may produce the paper bills known as money, but the minute it trades them away it is not theirs anymore, regardless what the laws say, regardless of what’s printed on the bill. I produced the value it represents, and it is mine. If I sell you a book and stamp the words “this is still mine after I sell it to you and can be taken at any time by me” the courts would not recognize my right to in fact reclaim that book.

Thus, the government can only maintain its illegitimate claim to own money, and thus tax you, by force, by aggression, which makes it an outlaw state, for it does this by using the law to make legal what would be immoral, unethical, and illegal for one private citizen to do to any other.

As for all the things you say would disappear without government paying for them–they simply would not. They exist because people need and demand them. The demand and the supply would not disappear if coercion were removed from the equation.

2

800×534 89.9 KB

3

i breezed through your response and didnt see it (maybe its there), you are forgetting the best point. The were the original aggressors when they stole our gold and created the fiat currency. so he is claiming justification after they stole our ‘inheritance’

4

What about taxing barter? :wink:

5

Both good points, thanks :slight_smile:

6

Technically speaking the money is not money it is “commercial paper” or “securities” which is well settled by the Supreme Court.

Technically speaking the “money” is not owned by the government it is owned by the Federal Reserve Bank and they state right on their face “Federal Reserve Note.”

Technically speaking the Federal Reserve Note, which is “commercial paper” is valueless which is also well settled by the Supreme Court.

Technically speaking when the government uses “commercial paper” or “securities” when dealing with its citizens it loses its sovereighty status which by the way . . . is well settled by the Supreme Court.

Technically speaking it is impossible to “pay” debt with “commercial paper” whereas it is only possible to “discharge” debt with “commercial paper” which, would you believe it . . . is well settled by the Supreme Court.

Technically speaking since “commercial paper” is valueless and the United States is bankrupt, which is by no fault of We The People, Congress built a remedy right into the Acts of Congress.

Technically speaking Congress said, ok folks we know we said we would protect unlimited right of the people to contract but we are broke, so here is what we are going to do to make sure we don’t abridge that right . . . we are going to declare the “Federal Reserve Note” the official “commercial paper” for the Incorporated [and bankrupt] United States but you don’t have to use our official “commercial paper.” Since we are using your private credit to fund government you are free to create your own “commercial paper” with your signature and we will accept it because all “commercial paper” with no value is at par in worthlessness.

That is what freemen have been up to the past couple decades or so is figuring out all the innerworkings of private credit and bills of exchange based on the remedies built into the United States code. It is now commonly known as “Accepted for Value.”

Regarding the “dollar,” technically the Spanish Mill “dollar” and the dollar used in Poland [but it wasn’t called the Poland dollar] predate the American dollar by a couple hundred years. If your friend wants to play the “technically speaking” game perhaps he should be sending off tribute payments for using the intellecutal property [e.g. “dollar”] of Spain or Poland everytime he uses a “dollar.”

Now that we have settled you can’t “pay” anything with “commerical paper” the myth government “pays” for anything has been dispelled.

Government does not “tax” you because of money. The government taxes you because you voluntary agreed to be a “person.” If you read the state statues everything apples to a “person.” A “person” is created by legislation. A “person” is a government agent, or the “office of person.” A “person” performs a function of government and that specific funtion is servicing the public debt since the government is bankrupt and is using your private credit.

The term you will not find in state statues is “Man.” The state has no authority over a “Man” because in the Holy Bible, Book of Genesis, God gave no “Man” any dominion over another “Man.” So if you want to be a “person,” which is simply defined as an entity with a bundle of rights [determined by legislatures] subject [as in the king’s subject] to decrees, codes, statues, and orders. . . be my guest. I think I prefer to be the “Man” I was born to be.

I think I prefer to avoid slavery because no one has ever offered to pay me performing a function of government servicing the public debt so if someone wants to claim I was performing a function of government servicing the public debt they better have evidence this “Man’s” private property was compensated before being taken for a public use.

“Technically speaking” the person you are conversing with is full of shit and if either of you want to write me a check I will be happy to continue alleviating your ignorance. . .

7

Honestly, that reads like a libertarian parody, and if presented to a non-libertarian would likely make them conclude that you, and other such libertarians, are nutjob wacko kooks.

When you argue something to a non-libertarian, you must come at them from their own sphere. You must move from step 1, to 2, to 3. If you try to go from step 1 to step 5, you not only lose them, you lose respect from them and hamper your cause.

All of those arguments are crazytalk to a non-libertarian.

Since the statist’s arguments rested on a particular conflation: ownership of particular pieces of money, seems like destroying that premise is a good way to go. Reaching back historically to when it wasn’t true is also a good tactic. Pointing out that they prevent barter–also a perfect example.

Spouting off about the vagaries of the tax code, whether people are ‘persons’ or ‘mans’, and using the Bible in a non-religious context for a justification? Seriously? Awful, man, awful.

8

The one thing I do not read in your post [which is the only thing that counts] is that something is not true but despite a clear lack of mounting any objection you managed to use the terms crazytalk and nutjob wacko kooks.. Seriously? Awful, man, awful.