Article Image
IPFS News Link •

Refuse to Pay Government Debt Incurred for Unlawful and Oppressive Purposes

There is an established legal principle that people should not have to repay their government's debt to the extent that it is incurred to launch aggressive wars or to oppress the people. These "odious debts" are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country's debt. Wikipedia gives a good overview of the principle: In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion. The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico's repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian's regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack: When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler. Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy, has stated that: by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served. A recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by dictators.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by David McElroy (1027)
Entered on:

 AMEN! We need to remind the liars, thieves, murderers and other so-called "public servants" in the District of Criminals of that old maxim that was supposed to be one of the planks in the original American platform: "Them that does the payin' does the sayin'!" We need to speak loudly against the ongoing financial rape and pillage spree we now suffer.  Yes, they have insidious ways to take "their cut" before we see our paycheck or our purchased goods and services. But a general strike bringing commerce to a halt will stifle their cash flow...a taxpayer revolt can be overwhelming (which is why the IRS is buying shgotguns!), and spreading the words of truth, justice, and liberty for all in brotherly love can win the day! 

Comment by Lola Flores (20562)
Entered on:

 Love the idea.  Nothing I would like more.  However, I ask the same questions I've asked before.  How exactly do you not pay taxes?  How do you get your employer not to withhold them before you even get your paycheck?  How do you buy food or shoes or clothes and not pay the sales taxes?  How do you not pay the taxes built into that tank of gas you need every week to get you to that job where they withhold 25% or more right off the top before it gets to you?  What happens when you don't pay your real estate taxes and the city forecloses on your home and puts your ass on the streets?  What then, huh?  See, in theory it's a great concept, one that I'm all for.  In practice, well not so much.