The
biggest surprise I’ve had since our politicians unwisely took to social media
is how uninformed are our members of parliament who believe they have some
type of qualification, and worse, moral mandate, to govern my life. I’m saying ‘govern’ and 'mandate', rather than
represent me, because not one MP in Parliament represents me: each three years
the vote I make is useless – I simply throw it away in principle on
Libertarianz.
IRD Audit.
Andrew
Little belongs to that party which upon taking over the sand-pit in the
Fortress of Legislation again will be unleashing an orgy of new and increasing
taxes, despite current taxation already allows government to constitute a
ludicrous 44% of the entire spend in our planned economy. Yet, he has no idea of
the vicious surveillance state such taxing unleashes; indeed, I posted
the following tweet to him while he was crowing about how he was trying to stop
that trite side-show the GCSB Bill (which, as bad as its mass surveillance of
our metadata is, has nothing on the power of the tax surveillance state):
People
in the tax community will be interested in the final part of his response:
What?
What?
So
you heard it here first: who’d a thought dealing with IRD over an audit is
voluntary, if you are an individual :) When the next investigator rings you (which they tend to do before
sending out ‘the letter' stating it's now too late to make a voluntary disclosure if your affairs are not in order; you are stuffed), cite the Magna Carta, say no thanks, Andrew Little says I don’t have to
attend interview room 101.
Good
luck with that.
And yes, I realise Andrew was trying to take some type of bean-headed literal view that the auditor would have to send you a letter and official notification before audit, but really, that is a nonsense argument. The sense that I was talking about is quite evident, and if Andrew could not deduce even that then go back and read my first paragraph again. Although, of course, there are IRD raids ... no notifications of those, as twenty nine Chinese restaurants in Auckland found out some time ago.
Somalia Comparison.
In
the course of the Twitter debate Andrew also brought out that pearl of wisdom
against the free society, that unless we have a near-communist, or near-fascist
state that comprises half of the activity in an economy, stifling it, and that
has given itself the shock and awe powers to ensure the individual has no power or volition against it, and so
must be subservient, we will all be living in … wait for it, we all know it:
Somalia.
The
last statist who used that on me was Standard(less) writer Sacha Dylan who
accused me of being juvenilely anti-authoritarian, but when I then tried to
hold a reasoned debate with him over the topic, threw a tanty and not just
disengaged, but like Joe Stalin proceeded to re-write history by deleting
his whole side of the Twitter debate, (and do I even need to say he's been blocking me ever since, just like nine out of ten of the Left I try and engage in constructive debate).
Here’s
the argument against that proposition in the bullet-points they’d use in
Somalia:
This
is Somalia:
The country is in a state of
anarchy where power is wielded solely by force: by the gun. That is, the
initiation of force is behind every transaction.
The country has no individualistic
ethic, it exists solely on tribal allegiance: if you’re from the wrong tribe
from in the wrong area, then group-identity is the only reason needed to kill
you.
The country has no rule of law.
Again, law comes from the tribe with the biggest gun.
The affairs of the tribe are more
often than not ruled by the opposite of reason: that is, primitive mysticism.
And hence the barbarity and brutality we see practiced there, for as Voltaire
stated, ‘those who believe in absurdities become capable of atrocities.’
Compare
with the New Freeland I advocate:
Based
on a written constitution of New Freeland, that protects the smallest minority
in society, the individual, and that especially from abuse of the state.
The
only role of the small state is to police the non-initiation of force and fraud
principle: run a police force, army, criminal and civil justice system (could
be done by a voluntary 2% tax).
Based
on, in other words, the rule of law.
Based
on reason, humanism, et al: that is, based on a classical liberalism fought for
and gained by blood over hundreds of years of Western history (remember the Enlightenment)
that until the socialists and statists destroyed it, had made Western
civilisation the peak of civilisation that humans had yet reached. An ethic
that once wisely questioned every member and every tenet of authority, and so
broke the shackles of monarchy.
Now
compare how woefully short our modern day Western tax surveillance states fall short of that ideal. Read this blog – we have been shackled
again by the vote of the tyranny of the majority.
I
don’t know where we lost the fight for freedom, but lost it we certainly have. And every time our Fortress of Legislation sits behind the trough on its ever-widening combined chuff, it makes our lives worse, not better.
(End note: throughout the Twitter debate Andrew argued without 'much' ad hominem, and never disengaged, through to after 1.00am Wednesday morning. He argued reasonably, even if without reason ;) I thank him for that.)
Combating subservience and protecting your right to privacy should be a huge priority. There are many tools,techniques and methods once can employ in order to ensure that no one is violating your rights. Counter surveillance is a big part of any effort to protect yourself using tools such as a spy listening device or CCTV cameras.
ReplyDelete