pull down to refresh

177 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xIlmari 12h \ on: The government says money isn't property—so it can take yours Politics_And_Law
(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it;
I agree. Whenever you touch fiat money, you're playing by their rules. And the rules are rigged so absurdly in their favour, it's not even funny. I just hope they don't think ALL money fall under their "jurisdiction", like gold and Bitcoin, because that would be pure delusion.
(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it;
Non sequitur. I literally don't see how this conclusion is made. Taxes are voluntary anyway. Or at least should be. By paying taxes you enter a social contract because you believe some money should be pooled together to spend on the betterment of society, and hope to be able to benefit from that. Somewhere along the way this notion got lost, and governments started treating taxes as compulsory.
(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the "general welfare."
Yes, it does. But how we get from that to abolishing property rights (literally communism) eludes me.
Isn't he saying that using fiat makes you the slave of government?
That's precisely what he's saying, and that's exactly how it is.
write
preview
22 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 11h
The first point is a non-sequitur, too. People transfer ownership of things they create all the time. That's pretty much the definition of "production" in economics.
The government creates fiat and then transfers ownership when they transact it.
I actually think the second point is less of a non-sequitur. "Ownership" means exclusive right of control. If we grant the legitimacy of taxes, then you do not own your money, because another party has some right of control over it.
reply
34 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 10h
Oh, okay. I read the first point as "It's our network, it's our rules. We merely allow/license you use it in a manner that seems fair. Most of the time." An extreme example of "you will own nothing" and the reason why we call fiat a "permissioned system".
And the second one really hinges on whether taxes are considered compulsory or not, I think.
If they are compulsory and the state can take what it thinks is "owed" without a legal process, by a single call to the bank, then yes, you don't own it. And it seems that this is the prevaling interpretation. And the linked story seems to confirm it.
If taxes were voluntary, or at least payable based on a contract, and enforcement required a trial to establish ownership, then that would be a different story.
reply