re: #415 freetoken

Well, that was pretty dense with concepts, and I’m not sure I followed all of it.

Partially based on “Property Economics” as espoused by Steiger/Heinsohn (see e.g. in ISBN 3-89518-482-9).

My take on it is twofold, one that since government is needed for private contracts to be universally enforceable (i.e. also that property titles in regards to these contracts to be universally executed against) through the absolute rule of law before which all are equal (including the government!), it should follow that it is within the sovereign right of the government to define, in principle, what private contracts can extent to and what property rights can entitle to.

And that two, if you posit the freedom of property holders to be absolute and that their titles may not be touched by law (including the legal redefining of what contracts and titles can entail or touch) or law enforcement, that then the government is not sovereign and cannot reasonably be expected to uphold a civil society under the rule of law. But if there is no inclusion of the people under the common and universal rule of law by the government, the government seizes to be of any other use than protecting the rich against the poor.