US Federal Debt – Problem Solved

The US federal debt is not legitimate, and thus no one should expect repayment:

  1. The federal debt is unconstitutional.
  2. The federal debt is Taxation without Representation.
  3. Most of the money loaned to the US government was stolen.
  4. Most of the money loaned to the US government was fiat.

Now let’s elaborate a little to help those who are being defrauded to defend themselves.

The American government has been spending trillions of dollars on programs it had no Constitutional authority to create, and such unconstitutional expenditures exceed the amount of the federal debt. Therefore,

The federal debt is unconstitutional.

Not only are most government programs themselves unconstitutional, but the debt used to pay for these unconstitutional programs, which were created by previous taxpayers, is paid for by future taxpayers. Therefore,

The federal debt is Taxation without Representation.

Taxation without representation is also unconstitutional. In fact, it is the reason America seceded from the British empire.

Given that the US Constitution is pretty simple, then anyone who loaned money to the US government should have known that they were loaning money to a fraudulent and illegitimate enterprise and thus should not expect repayment.

Of course, there would be a huge consequence – no one would be willing to loan money to the US government again until it started obeying the Constitution, which would be …


Although the US federal debt is not legitimate, most of the lender’s themselves are not legitimate either:

Most of the money loaned to the US government was stolen.

Much of the money loaned to the US government came from other governments as well as from the US government itself. However, all taxes collected by all governments are an initiation of force or fraud unless the taxpayer is paying voluntarily, and I have not met a single voluntary taxpayer in any country. We know this because even the tiny percentage who say they want the government to take taxes from them have never paid one penny more than their government takes by force, and of course, they have no right to take any of the fruits of other men’s labor. Therefore, governments should not expect repayment.

Over 90% of the money loaned to the US government was created out of thin air by central banks, governments, and fractional reserve banking. They also have a monopoly on the creation of money; whereas, in reality, money is a product like any other. Such monopoly money out of thin air is known as fiat currency. Now consider that:

Most of the money loaned to the US government was fiat.

More specifically, most of the money loaned to the US government was loaned by governments or banks who created it out of thin air while forcibly preventing competition with their fiat from honest money. Therefore, those who created fiat and loaned it to the US government should not expect repayment.


Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 6 comments
Peter Lance - March 16, 2012

I felt mislead: the title lead me to believe that there was a "solution" as the title says US Federal debt… problem solved. The response does not offer a solution to the problem. A solution might be proffered that every citizen does something that raises the funds necessary to pay off the debt and includes passing a balanced budget law. I'm not speaking of what's happening now, by taxes but of an innovative approach never thought of before. I'm thinking of "something like" (though I'm not sure if this is the precise solution but it's a start)the web site: http://www.PromoteTheGeneralWelfare.com/applications.htm

Jim - March 22, 2012

Either the debt will be repaid, or it won't. Either it has to be repaid, or it doesn't. Either it is legitimate, or it isn't. Fortunately, it is not legitimate, and thus does not have to be repaid.

Perhaps you think it is unacceptable for baby boomers to lose any social security payments, but boomers elected politicians who already wasted that money.

Your link says the solution is to do a service for someone, who will then be obligated to donate to the charity of your choice. There are many obvious fallacies in this idea.
1. They won't really be obligated to do ANYthing.
2. Also, if they have money to pay to a charity for your service, then they could more easily pay YOU for your service.
3. If they paid YOU for your service, then you could more easily and more reliably pay the charity.
4. If they wanted your service and had some money, they would already be paying someone for that service.
5. If you were more bold, honest, industrious, and innovative, you could provide a service to whoever valued your service the most, and then you would have far more money to give to charity.
6. If they can't pay someone enough to persuade them to do the service you had in mind, then they must not have been providing very valuable services themselves.

The truth that you are trying so desperately to avoid is that: In a free market, the person who makes the most money is the person who is the most helpful.

Schemes like yours that try to circumvent the free market are why we don't have a free market today, and why the highest incomes often go to people who are not providing the most valuable services. Is your solution to return to a free market? No. Your solution is to double down on the failed policies of the past.

Anonymous - March 28, 2015

In response to your answer to him I take into account a comment from another blog post of yours.

"If everything were voluntary, then that raises an obvious question:

In a free market, who would save a dying child?

The answer is:

In a free market, the child wouldn't be dying.
A free-market creates greater wealth and innovation, and thus the child is more likely to be healthier, and if the child still needed help, then more people would be able to help him, and better technologies would be available to help him"

So taking into account #1 from your above post "They won't really be obligated to do Anything". I ask now: If a person is not obligated to do anything for a dying child and since a nation is a multitude of persons, then who would help the dying child?

Ancient Chinese proverb: Sacrifice is an important virtue…..in someone else.

Overall my personal beliefs are extremely anti-(this current) US government but I do believe in Rousseau's social contract.

Jim - March 30, 2015

In a free market, less than half as many children would die, so when you champion big government you not only kill twice as many kids but you burden us with all the oppression of big government too.

In a free market, in one of those rare cases where a child were actually dying, no one would be obligated to help him, except those who created him, and yet … he would be far more likely to get help.

If you read Rule Of Market – The Next Leap Forward, it may be clear why in a free market it is far more likely that one's reputation would be hurt if they never helped anyone when they easily could have.

So, you have to choose which gives you more satisfaction, a system that helps everyone the most, or a system that forces your political opponents to help others but which actually helps less.

I don't see the 51% who voted for Obama pooling their resources to help anyone – except Obama, so I am doubtful of their interest in helping anyone. They are hypocrites and fascists.

Frank Furter - September 6, 2015

OK, just look down below the surface a bit with a modicum of logic and see what's there! ALL of these numbers are just fictitious electronic bookkeeping entries that were created out of thin air, and so therefore logically do not in fact exist at all!! So that being the case, how can there be any legitimate debt to pay off or pay back?? If I loan you my "new" power saw in a box that you never opened to inspect, and then you find out that there's just a piece of broken up junk in there once you get home, do you really owe me a new saw in the box when you return it to me?
Since the banksters are the only ones who are allowed to create "money" out of thin air or print up fiat paper currencies, from WHERE do the additional funds come from to pay any interest on the fictitious loans that the banksters make to the fools, suckers and buffoons of the world? If 100 units go out from the banksters, how is it possible for even just one more unit to come back in? Where does it come from??


Jim - September 7, 2015

There is no reason that electronic entries cannot represent actual money, such as gold, that was paid to someone for honest labor.

Fiat money is indeed one of the reasons why the federal debt is not legitimate.


Leave a Reply: