Rights, Action, Property and the End of Bank Fraud and Government Tax

To own something is to control it. Without control, there is no ownership. The only irreducible fact of ownership are thoughts and the products of thoughts such as speech, reason, and knowledge. All purposeful actions are controlled by thoughts and therefore are also owned by the one thinking. The products of purposeful action is property which also controlled by the individual and therefore owned by the one taking purposeful action. Therefore, it is wrong to say we can control the thoughts, actions, or property of an individual. An action that is wrong morally is unlawful. Therefore, it is unlawful to attempt to control the thoughts, actions, and property of another. 

Property and action do not exist without the expression of individual ownership. Therefore, we cannot detect its absence in reality, only its presence. All rights to property must be proven by showing that the action was indeed a product of one's own thoughts and actions. Taking control of anything without proving ownership, is the essence of unlawful behavior. Only those who can prove ownership can claim ownership. Therefore, all action and all use of the material world is lawful until a challenge is made. Without a plantiff to challenge a violation of his or her property, there can be no conviction of wrongdoing. This is what is meant by legal "standing" and "innocent until proven guilty".

Only property can be transferred from one individual to another. To do so, the property must belong to the individual trading it by right. For a transfer of property from one person to another to be lawful, it must be voluntary, for an involuntary action as it relates to property is a contradiction in terms. You cannot control what you cannot control. Since property is in the sole control of the individual through his purposeful action and independent thoughts, it is wrong to say another person can control or transfer property. Therefore, it is unlawful to control property that is not your own. To do so is theft. Therefore, it is right for any property obtained by theft to be returned to the property owner in the same condition as it was taken. Damages to property, in the form of quality and time, may be taken into consideration in awarding compensation for the theft.

A contract is a binding agreement of mutual transfer of property. For a contract to exist, both parties must put up something of value for the other party to consider. Otherwise, the transfer is not a contract but a unilateral transfer of control, which puts no obligation on either party to peform. Since value is a product of thinking, it is also a product of an individual. It is therefore wrong to assign a value to something without the consent of the individual. Both parties must come to an agreement on value and exchange in order for a contract to be valid. 

The definition of value also requires a definition of the objects and things being valued. These definitions ensure that each party is clearly describing what is being put up for consideration and how a failure to deliver will be detected. To represent a thing used as consideration by one definition and then transfer control of a thing of a different definition is invalid and nullifies the contract. Such is the nature of fraud, a misrepresentation of the facts in a transfer of property.

From these principles of personhood and property, the entire legal code can be written, based on the unique situations, substances, and entities engaging in productivity and exchange. 

It is from these principles that we can analyze a common exchange between a buyer, and seller, and a bank. 

In an honest scenario, a bank loans an asset to a buyer in exchange for a promise to repay, which is the buyer granting in advance the product of his or her purposeful action to the bank. The buyer then uses those assets to provide consideration to the seller who accepts the transfer of the assets in exchange for the asset that the buyer wants to acquire. In this scenario, the assets provided are easy to detect. The bank provides assets in the form of some physical good, such as gold or silver. The buyer provides future property. The seller provides an asset of value, such as a car or home or promise to deliver a service. Each party can prove that they owned the asset in question and therefore had a right to transfer control of it. Since each party has a right to refuse transfer prior to the contract being agreed to, the proof of voluntary consent and consideration is in the act of the transfer, provided the definition of the assets before the transfer were the same as the definition of the assets being delivered. 

In the scenario of modern banking, a bank does not loan an asset to a buyer since the money used in a fractional reserve banking system is not a product of purposeful action on any physical product in the real world. In order to prove ownership, a bank would need to provide evidence that it acquired the money either through transfer of legitimate ownership or by a process of purposeful action. Without this proof, one who receives this money may challenge the bank's claim to repayment and reverse any transfers that were made on the basis of the contract, such as titles and any other real assets given like down payments or other payments. In fact, the bank is counterfeiting assets, no different than if an individual were to create a certificate of gold without any gold to back the certificate. 

What of the claim that bank credit is valuable on its own without needing a backing of a physical asset like gold. Since a definition for one individual is the same for all individuals, it stands to reason that every individual should be able to issue their own credit and their own "bank notes". This however, is not what the bank claims nor is it what the banks practice. For why would the bank not create all the money needed to aquire all the assets of the world and what gives any one person the right to do this without others having the same right. And if everyone had the right to create value without any effort or physical definition of the thing being valued, then the very definition of value is eviscerated. Therefore, it can be concluded that banks in the modern central banking system are committing fraud. They are representing value without any physical definition of the things being valued and would not accept the same value in return. If a buyer could issue his own money, what would the need of the bank be? And if a bank can issue its own money, what is the need of the buyer? In fact, the ability to issue money by decree is an attempt to transfer the property of buyers of money to the possession of the sellers of money without giving the buyer proper consideration. Such actions violate property rights and any contracts secured by these means are unlawful. 

Modern banking has existed for centuries falsely acquiring assets and the productive labor of individuals by means of fraudulently representing assets on their books they had no rights to. All contracts secured this way are subject to challenge by those who have been defrauded. 

These principles also nullify the concept of government tax since a tax is an attempt to transfer the property of individuals without providing consideration for the exchange. 

I put together a short (very unprofessional) video where I explain why contracts secured with modern bank loans are fraudulent and therfore subject to challenge and nullification

US Citizen Discovers SHOCKING Flaw at Heart of All Bank Loans. Will ERASE $97T in Global Debt

NOTE:

For too long people have been unaware of their property rights and uneducated in how to challenge their violations.

No one will protect your rights for you. You have to be the one to say "no" and you have to be the one to defend you right to life and property.

The good news is that law and rights are not by decree. They are not given. They are discovered which gives incentive for those who want to survive to discover them and defend them by a process of logic and reason.

Of course, you don't have to discover your rights or defend them. You can choose to live as a slave and become a willing victim and a sacrificial animal to the unearned and immoral. Such is a possibility. The consequences of living this way are there own kind of justice.