PRISM: The Huge Contradiction for the Left. Retort to Chris Trotter.

Following is something approximating the comment I have made to Chris Trotter's otherwise fine post made today, opining the size and intrusiveness of the authoritarian surveillance states now standard in the West. (I didn’t take a copy of my actual comment, and as you’ll see below, Chris isn’t going to post it).

My comment:

Chris, what would be your defence to my claim that anyone who holds the redistributive taxing state as their central ethic cannot then bemoan loss of privacy to the state?

The taxing state can only work on a single premise: that the state takes away my right to be left alone, and my privacy: this is the only way they have ‘legal’ access to my money, and via that, my effort. Every other post you make is to support, and strengthen, the existence of the surveillance state in the West. The Left’s crocodile tears over this issue, is nothing more or less than rank hypocrisy. You, Chris, and your thieving rotten ethic of a world based on need, created this damned world where the state is now a theocracy, an individual’s privacy left behind to a still-born Western classical liberalism that should’ve been our birth-right.

And note well the difference between the issues surrounding PRISM, and the as complete global surveillance state set up by the taxing authorities: the taxing surveillance state operates not to protect us from terrorism or harm, as PRISM supposedly is – and no, for the record, that does not excuse PRISM – rather, the taxing surveillance state exists only to ensure the state can take the money/effort of its own citizens; it exists solely to plunder its own citizens, as with every thug state in the twentieth century.

Chris’s reply:

To: Mark Hubbard

We've had that debate, Mark. We're not having it again.

This is not a blog for libertarian venting.

Sorry.

That’s alright, Chris. I understand this is yet another impossible contradiction for you. It is no wonder for me, either, that Labour and the Greens are also contradicting themselves as between their stance on Snowden, which I commend, and their stance on Peter Dunne and the leaker of the GCSB report.