The scientific application of state force
Thursday, December 06, 2012
How one family were brought to their knees by the taxman - Telegraph.
This appalling story gives the lie to those who claim the British state is not funded by force - that there is, in effect, some "social contract" by which we all agree to be taxed. As regular readers will know, I regard any word prefixed by the word "social" with suspicion. "Social" usually means nothing more than "I wish to restrain your actions or steal the proceeds of your life's work in the name of a group I purport to represent." Especially when if features in the word "Socialist" or in that most dishonest expression in the English language, "Social Justice."
The initiation of force against your fellow man is wicked. That it is done by the state makes no difference at all. In the wake of Leveson, as I watch my fellow-citizens talk naively of the most vicious, violent, vengeful organisation in their midst as if it were their trusty defender, I despair for this country.
Absolutely wonderful post i really appreciate it and i wana read and increase my knowledge more
Posted by: Supporting Organization | Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 05:37 PM
I know exactly what it means in general - "stuff I don't like". ie not much.
Posted by: Mark | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 01:04 PM
Sorry.. creditors lose their money.
Posted by: Mark | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 01:02 PM
The above case is inexcusable and incredibly worrying - as are the "secret courts" and the fact that the same old faces are guarenteed to be elected despite these abuses - I'm not suggesting that you are anything but a outspoken critic of that kind of thing - and more power to your elbow.
I do, however, find it hard to square your desire to reduce government debt with your hatred of taxes - surely from your perspective it would be preferable to let the creditors (who have chosen to lend money to he state) to go bankrupt, rather than tax to repay them.
Posted by: Mark | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Mark you can't pretend you don't get what "force" means used in the context it is here generally.
You had it explained enough and you pretend to take it as something else in your arguments and that is just plain 'disengenuous' and smirky.
Force is not defined as immoral, as you know perfectly well.
The _initiation_ of "force" is what is immoral.
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 09:32 AM
I am focused on debt reduction. Deficit reduction is only slowing the rate at which the government goes into debt on our behalf. Deficit elimination is what's needed. As most government spending is squandered, the best way to reduce debt is to eliminate most spending and then maintain tax rates (except all those on business and IHT) until the debt is paid off (save for reasonable long term debt to acquire longer-life infrastructure). I can't see why wanting the deficit reduced (to zero in my case) equates in our mind to supporting abuse of power and avoidance of due process. Straw man again? Or did you mean something else?
Posted by: Tom | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 04:01 AM
All profound statements, perhaps all true statements, are tautologies - "survival of the fittest", "God is the greatest" ... "1+1=2"..
Their purpose is to remind us of something - but it is a form of trick to associate these truths with an unrelated conclusion - "survival of the fittest therefore there is no God"... "God is the greatest therefore evolution can not exist" "1+1=2, so you are wrong".
Posted by: Mark | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 03:05 AM
I think this is probably a good idea as long as some poll taxes or property taxes had to be paid in pounds.
Posted by: Mark | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 02:37 AM
That is a feature not a bug Mark.
Eventually one assumes the government is starved of revenue and have to stop frivolous spending.
Posted by: cascadian | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 02:06 AM
Cascadian - if the government was unable to tax non-sterling transactions, what would happen?
Posted by: Mark | Friday, December 07, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Yes, the initiation of "force" (where force is defined as immoral) is immoral - thanks for the tautology.
In this case, I agree that the mad tax grab being embarked upon by our government is immoral - because it serves absolutely no purpose and simply prevents people from doing things they want to do.
Obviously, you, Cascadian and others concerned with crude deficit reduction must actually view this as a sensible policy - so on what grounds do you object to it?
Posted by: Mark | Thursday, December 06, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Unfortunately the state is missing all its revenue targets and thus must dream up new and more onerous schemes to extract taxes. You should expect more hideous examples of the state confiscating earnings in the belief that they are doing something that is socially responsible. Drinking, motoring and smoking always bring out governments facist tendencies to control and moralise.
There runs through too many governments the belief that because money is now produced by state banks that they actually own it all. It is way beyond time when private banks start issuing their own private "scrip" backed by real assets.
Strange that you commented on "social justice" I had occasion to comment it on another blog just yesterday.
Posted by: cascadian | Thursday, December 06, 2012 at 09:29 PM
Social Justice, Social/Liberal Democracy, like strawberry flavoured and non-milk fat promise to be something they are not.
Posted by: John B | Thursday, December 06, 2012 at 05:53 PM
OK, that is awful and unfair. But if you think the tax man is bad then what about "social" services and their secret courts no one is allowed to attend or question in public.
Posted by: Moggsy | Thursday, December 06, 2012 at 02:14 PM