Justice Ginsburg Engages Mr. Moore: A Refined and Focused Q&A
Justice Ginsburg Engages Mr. Moore: A Refined and Focused Q&A
Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Moore, how does your argument address the practicality of taxation in a society where individuals are free to choose their medium of exchange? Wouldn’t this freedom undermine the government’s ability to collect taxes effectively?
Mr. Moore: An excellent question, Your Honor. Taxation, when used constitutionally, is a means of funding essential government services. However, the challenge lies not in taxation itself but in its enforcement through a monetary monopoly. Allow me to address the crux of your concern: enforcement.
Taxation is only as effective as the compliance it generates. When the government insists on a single, centralized medium of exchange—like fiat currency—it risks creating a system that relies on coercion rather than mutual consent. This is its vulnerability: any action that depends on compliance can be defeated by non-compliance. If people lose faith in a currency or reject it outright, the government is left enforcing its decrees against a reluctant population—a scenario that history has shown to be both unstable and unjust.
From a natural law perspective, taxation should align with the principles of property, productivity, and trade. When individuals are free to choose their medium of exchange, the government can adapt by collecting taxes in forms that have intrinsic or agreed-upon value. This fosters a consensual relationship rather than a coercive one, preserving liberty while still enabling the government to fund its functions.
Justice Ginsburg: Are you suggesting that taxation, even when imposed for the public good, becomes illegitimate if it’s enforced through coercion?
Mr. Moore: Precisely, Your Honor. No matter how beneficial an action might appear to the initiator, if it harms the recipient, it violates justice. To illustrate: theft might benefit the thief, and fraud might stabilize the fraudster’s finances, but both are outlawed because they injure others. Taxation is no different. If it is enforced in a manner that compels individuals to participate in an unjust monetary system, it ceases to serve the public good and becomes an instrument of oppression.
Your Honor, the flaw lies in the “ends justify the means” argument often invoked to defend fiat-based taxation. If we permit such reasoning, we might as well defend a doctor breaking legs to ensure employment for orthopedic surgeons. Justice cannot tolerate such logic.
Justice Ginsburg: But without a centralized monetary system, wouldn’t a diverse set of currencies make it difficult for the government to function efficiently?
Mr. Moore: I understand the concern, Your Honor, but efficiency does not justify coercion. Individuals have always found ways to transact, regardless of government mandates. Historically, societies have used shells, salt, precious metals, and other items as money—things that exist and carry value because of their utility or scarcity.
The government’s role is not to define or enforce a single monetary standard but to protect property and ensure fairness in trade. By focusing on property rights, productivity, and valid contracts, the government allows markets to determine what forms of money work best. People do not need a government decree to decide whether to use gold, silver, or even shells—they need the freedom to choose what works for them.
Justice Ginsburg: If people can freely choose their medium of exchange, what prevents chaos in commerce?
Mr. Moore: Chaos, Your Honor, is often a symptom of centralized control, not freedom. Markets naturally converge on mediums of exchange that meet shared needs—durability, portability, divisibility, and scarcity. Gold and silver became standards not because governments mandated them, but because they met these criteria. Even today, digital currencies emerge as viable options in certain contexts, proving that freedom fosters innovation and stability.
The government should not concern itself with defining money but with protecting the principles that underlie it: property and voluntary exchange. A dynamic and free system prevents chaos better than a rigid, coercive one.
Justice Ginsburg: So you reject the idea that government needs to guarantee stability through monetary policy?
Mr. Moore: Yes, Your Honor. Stability arises not from monetary policy but from trust, voluntary exchange, and the utility of the medium itself. Copper will conduct electricity whether people trust it or not, and steel will bear the weight of a skyscraper whether or not the government decrees it so. These are intrinsic properties, not matters of policy.
The same applies to money. If a medium lacks intrinsic or agreed-upon value, no amount of government decree can make it effective. Conversely, when a medium is valuable, it needs no government enforcement. The focus should be on protecting the framework of trade—property rights and fair contracts—not manipulating the medium itself.
Justice Ginsburg: A final question, Mr. Moore: If non-compliance is such a powerful response to unjust taxation, does that not risk weakening the government and society itself?
Mr. Moore: Your Honor, I would argue the opposite. Non-compliance with unjust laws reveals their impotence and compels reform. A government that respects the consent of the governed, rather than relying on coercion, is stronger and more legitimate. Relationships—whether among individuals or between the people and their government—must be mutual to be sustainable.
If the government respects property, productivity, and trade, it will find willing participation from its citizens. Justice and liberty are the bedrock of societal strength, not mandates enforced by the threat of punishment. Non-compliance is not a weakness; it is the safeguard of freedom, ensuring that governments serve the people rather than subjugate them.
Justice Ginsburg: Thank you, Mr. Moore. Your argument has given much to consider.
Mr. Moore: Thank you, Your Honor. It has been an honor to engage in this vital discussion.
Comments
Post a Comment