Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

The Great Train Wife's Robbery and a Truth Uncovered Over the Story on Feminine Sanitary Products.

TV 1’s Sunday program played a great piece this last weekend, in the form of an interview with Frances Biggs, wife, then ex, to great train robber Ronnie. She had a raw deal no matter which way you look at it. Having had nothing to do with the robbery, yet arrested and reviled by the public, then divorce, with the only money she ever saw from the whole episode being what she earned after selling her story to the media while Ronnie was sunning himself in Rio. However, the state then only compounded her victimhood:

That’s quite a tax bill: the thing about the great train robbery was, it was a oncer. There’s two thieves featured, the other has grown only stronger, assuming all the powers of the surveillance state. And I can explain, again, how that has happened.

Yesterday there was a story run by the MSM which ended up being a beat-up from misinformation fed by an anonymous – yeah, another one – blog, about Ms Beneficiary who was apparently denied money by WINZ to buy sanitary products. In the end the story was not true on all the facts, although if it had been, it would have been absolutely abhorrent: every human individual must be left their respect and dignity, to say nothing of this was also a matter regarding the most intimate sort of privacy.

There were many words written on it, and the Left Twitter was understandably appalled: my friend Deborah Russell, Massey University lecturer of taxation, socialist, penned her own piece also, and tweeted a link to it. To this I replied:

At this stage, the next day, I still have no reply. I then tweeted the same question generally, and again no replies, until I pressed Lew Stoddart whom grudgingly ‘sort of agreed’, but only after being led through hoops of context that were not necessary, as that question needs no explication.

My question is where were the Marxist feminists in being rightly appalled for their sister Ms Businesswoman?

Or, I’m thinking, does she not count? Over and over on this blog I’ve been through the shock and awe powers of IRD: before those bureaucrats Ms Businesswoman has no right to privacy or to be left alone, despite she has done nothing wrong. And just as in a police state, the onus of proof is turned against her in the tax courts: it’s not up to the state to prove her guilt, they just have to say you’re guilty and owe us this, then she has to prove them wrong. Believe me, Ms Businesswoman goes from interrogation room 101 into that court system terrified given the power arrayed against her, and it’s not cheap to defend yourself.

All this to pay, remember, for Ms Beneficiary’s necessities. Fair enough you say? Okay, but then why is Ms Businesswoman apparently dismissed by the sisterhood herself? It looks to me as if Ms Businesswoman has been objectified by Marxist feminists to merely being a purse and a bank account; apparently she has no right to respect, or to her dignity: that is, her humanity. She’s just a filthy capitalist. Is that right?

As I read somewhere yesterday, if socialism didn’t have so many double standards, it would have none.

Here’s a word: wholly.

I’m wholly unhappy about this unholy society I find myself in, and for which a five figure sum called my provisional tax will be leaving my bank account in just eight days’ time, despite I have no philosophical agreement with this society, and with now two houses damaged in earthquake zones, for which that money would’ve been bloody handy at the moment, given the run around we’re getting from EQC. Pity my vote means nothing every three years, and as a classical liberal, this representative democracy mobocracy, doesn’t represent me, or Ms Businesswoman, at all.



I cannot prove that question of the value of the private use of sanitary products is on the list of an IRD investigator auditing, say, the corner dairy, although, I have certainly heard of one instance of it, and in that case the taxpayer rightly refused to answer. I suspect it would not be routine at all, however, in the context of this post, that is entirely not the point, which is this proves a point entirely on a hypothetical scenario.


  1. This post and the previous post suffer from a serious fallacy of composition. You assume the government needs to collect tax before, and in order to, pay for things (including pensions, and benefits). This is entirely untrue, taxation doesn't fund any government expenditure.

    The deficit also conveys no information about the governments spending capacity. When the government makes spending decisions the size of the deficit should be ignored, and decisions should be made based on other more important factors.

    This makes raising the retirement age towards 70, and taxing NZ to pay for not raising it are both policies which should be off the table. You could consider cutting back pension payments to those who don't need them but I feel this is basically not a big issue anyway and in the present situation. I don't have a problem with wealthy people also collecting a state pension even if they could do quite well without one.

    1. Quote: "You assume the government needs to collect tax before, and in order to, pay for things (including pensions, and benefits). This is entirely untrue, taxation doesn't fund any government expenditure. "

      Excellent, I'll stop paying tax then.

    2. Do you want no tax? Or minimal tax? I want to see if you understand the full implications of what you are advocating here.

  2. We also note your claim that the present government has a democratic mandate for its present policy. Apparently the majority of NZ supports this. This is put to lie by the few scientific polls conducted which show 75% of NZ are at least concerned about the GCSB bill. This figure would obviously be higher if there was less conflation with NZ's security policy regarding this bill.

    The present government, line and most policies, implement a tyranny of the minority.

    1. Is that the royal 'we'? Do you actually read my blog?

      I am implacably against the GCSB Act. Every post I've made this month is against the GCSB Bill, and the government. This entire blog is against the surveillance state, which has its sanction in the tax surveillance state you exhort.

      I just want a minarchy, where you, the prime minister, everyone, can have absolutely no influence on me, so long as I harm no one.

      I hate the present government, because I hate government.

      I'm an anarcho-capitalist: you are someone who doesn't even give me the respect of reading my blog before you comment with your asinine assumptions.


    2. Sorry? You got this completely wrong.
      What I said is that we can't tell what has a public mandate without polling them. Most government policy doesn't in my opinion have a mandate.
      Neither does the GCSB bill.
      Calling any bill a tyranny of the majority is just making excuses for the government of the day (sans evidence for a mandate).
      Your the only one who made any asinine assumptions here.

    3. You come busting back into my blog with all this anger, and you're not making a lot of sense.

      I want a tiny state, a minarchy, that has no over-arching politicians, just the mechanisms - army, police, criminal and civil legal system - to police the non-initiation of force and fraud principle, established by a written constitution - Google Constitution of New Freeland - that has the sole function to protect the rights, and in this case including privacy, of an individual.

      The issue of a public mandate is therefore irrelevant as what the 'public' think can have no influence on me.

      Such a minarchy to be funded voluntarily, not by the coercive state through taxation. And because your view is a cynical one of Fallen man, which is why the Left believe man must have compassion et al forced from him, you will say no one will pay such a charge voluntarily: rubbish. Of course I will pay, for the same reason I pay my insurance voluntarily..

    4. Its funny that you sense anger where there is absolutely none.

      Now onto the question. You realise I hope that with no taxation the value of the NZ dollar is zilch?

      Either the economy becomes non-monetary or must adopt a foreign currency.

      It may be that democracy has no influence over your system, but you raised the question by excusing the governments anti beneficiary policy (through the analogy of an imaginary supposition about government discrimination against business women) as democratically mandated. There is little evidence this is publicly mandated discrimination (the real or hypothetical cases), so claiming it is is making excuses for the governments actions here.

    5. I'm going to bed now, Nic, but please explain to me, in detail, how with no taxation a currency becomes worthless?

      And I'll save for later post, my thoughts on our fraudulent, fiat money, centrally banked systems. Other than to say, if there is a central bank, then it is not a laissez faire system.

    6. The only reason a currency has any value is because economic participants must pay tax in that currency. Because the NZ government creates the NZ dollar it can buy anything which is for sale in NZ dollars by simply creating the necessary funds. People will exchange their economic output in order to defray their tax obligation.

      You will probably ask for evidence here. Well a nice simple clear example is the eurozone countries. Each had a national currency and every single one fell out of use and became worthless when the stopped collecting tax in it (and started collecting euros).

    7. All the more reason to leave behind these fiat money systems to currency that has value by not being an instrument of governments.

    8. So you are suggesting there are monetary systems which exist sans taxation? Or you are proposing a non monetary economy (typically associated with utopian socialism).

      Evidence for monetary systems without taxation is lacking of course. I set the standard at wages paid in said currency, and economic exchange happens in that currency, and multiple competing organisations all use it to set prices and wages. I dont know of a single example even a historic one. This leaves the problem, not of how to fund the state, but of how to get anybody to work for it.

      Obviously this makes a lie of your characterisation of government taxation. It doesnt fund the state and the state faces no hard spending constraints (as long as it controls the currency issuing organisation). When the government taxes it doesnt steal resources from the private sector, it reclaims something it originally created (and nobody can be in any doubt it would do this when the currency was acquired). You could claim the theft is implemented when the government spends but this should probably be dismissed as the exchange here is voluntary.

    9. Turn that around, if you get rid of taxation do we still have currency, trade, markets: yes, of course.

      The ability you laud of governments to create credit and money supply is the phenomenon that almost saw the demise of the Western economic system from August 2008, and yet might. As we wait for that, quantitative easing continues to destroy the value and choices of the savings of retirees.

      Now I'm busy today.

    10. ... oh, remember I'm a minarchist: get it?

      And remember when taxes started they were to fund wars.

    11. Get rid of taxation you will still have the currency, but it wont be worth much of anything. We could do an experiment here. The market thinks Italian Lira are worthless however they are no longer taxed or spent by the Italian government. To be consistent with your theory then this currency should be highly sought after? If you were to offer a fair exchange rate I am sure there are still a few around.

      Your statement of the causes of the financial crisis are of course completely incorrect.

    12. No taxes are not needed to fund wars. What you need is people willing to manufacture munitions in exchange for currency and soldiers willing to fight in return for currency. Then the government can afford as many resources as are for sale.

    13. You can't see past your statism, and state justification, on any point, Nic.

      Outside of enforcing contract, and applying rule of law, I don't want the state in the economy at all. Re-think use of currency for exchange outside of that. Even look at new currencies that are operating completely outside the purview of any state, such as Bitcoin.

    14. Also, what do you know about Free Banking?

    15. Re wars, I was talking about why taxes were created historically.

    16. Oh, and regarding cause of the collapse that happened, and the further one coming, I may well be right. And I'm by no means alone: many economists far more learned than myself agree, in what I write I am merely citing my reading of them: read Cafe Hayek, Eric Crampton, et al.

      Back to work ....

    17. Name calling (Statist, though that's not exactly an insult) is still not a valid argument about anything. The reason I can't see how money functions without taxes however is that I can't see any examples of it.

      Bitcoin is exactly the sort of thing which is worth looking at, but it doesn't meet the basic criteria of payment of wages, exchange of goods and services and multiple competing organisations using it for wages and goods and services. This means that in destroying the currency (to eliminate taxation) you also lose markets.

      Freebanking, well you would need to find examples where the banks didn't have a government standing behind one or several of the banks collecting taxation in its tender. I know of no examples which fit this criteria.

      In describing the origins of taxation you are incorrect. That's not a surprise as I can see you have been reading the miss-leading Cafe Hayek but tax was not created to fund wars. Alexander the Great apparently used to set-up taxation, government and currency after he had conquered a region which is the closest early analogy I know of. He did this by imposing a tax in his (government) coin, then he would give his coin to his army to spend. This created a market place where the soldiers could now provision themselves from the local region and produce. This solved two problems for his government, they didn't want to long large supply lines in place to keep the army provisioned and they didn't want to leave too large a force behind (to police the region).

      The problem with the government funding wars using tax is that the government also creates all the money, so it has to spend it before it can collect it in taxes. That is to say its logically impossible for the government to raise funds in this way!

  3. Now, if by the impending collapse, you are talking about the many negative consequences of the Fed cutting back on its QE policy then this is well anticipated. The problem with the QE policy however is its monetary policy and doesn't address the many problems in the economy. This means that it has not fixed the underlying problems in the economy (poverty, unemployment and indebtedness, or the fraud epidemic in second tier mortgage lending) though it has made Wall St recover to pre-crisis levels. When the stimulus is taken away we can expect Wall St to fall back into line with the rest of the economy then.

    As I understand it however you (and Cafe Hayek) are against the use of fiscal policy which is clearly the only thing which can resolve the underlying real problems in the economy. Also as I understand it you (and Cafe Hayek) are against prosecuting (and then actually regulating) the multiple accounting control frauds in the US economy (I take that from your support of the accounting control frauds in NZ commonly called finance companies, and vitriol towards any form of regulation) which would provide a dis-incentive to them doing the same thing once again. As far as I can observe the financial crisis is mostly caused by measures Cafe Hayek is quite keen on.

    The other problem is that the good people at Cafe Hayek have been predicting hyper-inflation of the US economy for several years now. Meanwhile when there is another financial crisis or serious problem and deflation sets in they will quietly absolve themselves of this completely illiterate forecast by pointing at the deflation, unemployment and misery and claiming look we were correct, a problem has emerged. Of course the problem is the exact opposite of what they predicted and they will be advocating more urgent deflation as a solution at the same time. Still no doubt many will be fooled and the clowns of economic analysis will be heralded once again.

    Hayek was originally in the camp of people who demanded further liquidation and deflation after the great depression, but he quickly changed his mind when the government obliged and what he called a secondary depression set in. At this point he realised that things had been made worse, and he changed his mind. He must be rolling in his grave at what gets written in his name.