Anti Money Laundering laws are an attack on property rights.
TLDR: Unless AML regulations can be refuted and abolished, property rights cannot exist and we are back to legalized slavery.
Property rights rests on the bedrock of logic that John Locke formulated in 1690 with his publication Two Treatises of Government.
Locke's ideas were instrumental in the rejection and abolishment of human slavery. He postulated that every human is born free and is a sovereign person who owns themselves and the fruits of their labor.
-------------
"Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his."
(Book II, Chapter 5.27, page 130)
-------------
Following this reasoning, slavery becomes a violation of property rights: we can't own another human being since every person is born sovereign. We have no right to what another person earns with their labor. Only voluntary contracts that are mutually beneficial are valid arrangements.
The problem of AML regulations becomes obvious at this point.
First of all, AML reverses the burden of evidence and postulates guilt until proven innocence. Your money is assumed to be laundered - and thereby illegal - until proven otherwise.
This flips the whole Western conception of legal proceedings on its head; the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
Instead, AML assumes criminal activity as the standard, with no requirement of the government to spend resources to prove a committed crime in a court of law backed by evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
Under AML, in order to abolish your property rights, the government only needs to raise the bar for what constitutes accepted evidence to prove the history of your earnings. This sets absolute surveillance as the standard.
If the government want to strip you of your property under AML, all that is needed is for the government to reject the history of your property as invalid or inconclusive.
In the case of a banking service that you used in the past, if it no longer exists, or if it no longer have your records, or if you are unable to gain access to those records, your property is confiscated under AML.
AML regulations abolish the right of the individual to own the fruits of their labor, by empowering a third party to determine if your property is valid, without any burden of evidence.
If the validity of your money can be rejected at any point by a third party, your property rights have been abolished, ipso facto.
Returning to John Locke:
".. for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. make me a slave." (Book II, Chapter 3.18)
".. and hence it is that he who attempts to get another man under his power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Book II, Chapter 3.17)
Since AML regulations require absolute surveillance and the individual is at the complete mercy of the third party that determines the validity of their money at any given time, the statements of Locke ring uncannily true.
Locking the fruits of a person's labor under someone else's full power and control, transforms the working individual into nothing more than a slave, chained the whims and conditions of the controller.
The situation under AML regulations is captured in this statement:
"I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it any further"
Following Locke, we don't have to accept a dystopian future without individual rights and property rights, ruled by neo-feudalism.
This is why Bitcoin is a return to the ideas of John Locke.
On a Bitcoin standard there is no third party that validates your transactions. The money you have earned is yours without restriction. Your money cannot be invalidated. Your transactions cannot be stopped.
Under a Bitcoin standard, criminals will have to be found guilty in a court of law, based on evidence.
Bitcoin is a return to justice and property rights for all.
Further on John Locke:
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
#Bitcoin #JohnLocke #Locke #AML #KYC #FreeMarkets #Voluntarism #PropertyRights #IndividualRights #Libertarianism #Libertarian #Liberty #AntiSlavery #Capitalism #FreeMarketCapitalism #Philosophy #Sovereignty #AynRand #Objectivism #Individualism
Leo Fernevak
A brief exploration on Locke's position on both slavery and property rights.
--------
"Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that it is hardly to be conceived that an "Englishman" much less a "gentleman" should plead for it." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 1, chapter 1.1)
---------
I would say that this introduction to his book gives a clear oposition against slavery. While he is also simultaneously patting his fellow Englishmen on the back with assumed virtues, I would read this flattery as a form of sugar to allow the medicine of the message to sink down. He makes an allusion to gentlemen and sets a determined tone that anyone aspiring to be a civilized English gentleman, must not argue in favor of slavery.
---------
"The fruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his -- i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it before it can do him any good for the support of his life." (Two Treatises Of Government, part 2, chapter 5.26, page 129)
----------
This seems to be a general acknowledgement of some form of 'first right of land use' to american natives in regards to their territories, including both that which grows and the animals of the land. Locke was living in Europe and he seems to have only given the subject a cursory glance. But if we follow his next principles, we can keep in mind that he attributed the same rights of property to all humans.
---------
"Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (Chapter 5.27, page 130)
--------
Following the meaning of this statement, it becomes evident that slavery is an attack against property rights - an attack against the right of every human to own themselves and to own the fruits of their labor. Slavery understandably disallows a man the fruits of his labor.
---------
"As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property."
---------
While this is an incomplete definition that leaves room for interpretation, it seems it would include native americans using land for cattle hunting, foraging and homesteading. If he fails to describe all manners of land use I wouldn't assume that his intention was to dispossess other people living on another continent from himself, but that it would more likely be an omission based on his cursory treatment of this narrow subject. He assumes that natives have the same property rights as everyone else, so it isn't something he dwells on.
‐-----------
"Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature.
But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war" (Section 2, chapter 3.19, page 126)
------------
So, what did Locke mean with a state of war?
--------
"And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Section 2, chapter 3.17, page 125)
--------
Next, another similar passage:
--------
"So he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." (Chapter 3.17)
-------
------
"It being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction" (Chapter 3.16)
-----
This is clearly a general defense of anyone who is being abused, to have the right to stand up against the abuse and enter into a state of war against the aggressor.
To sum up, contrary to some claims that Locke was hostile to native americans, I think that Locke's principles would have supported the rights of american natives to fight back - to enter a state of war - if their liberty and natural rights to use their land was at stake.
Thank you for reading.
View quoted note →
