What an absolute load of bollocks, dear me How about this scenario then; Mr. Smith has been growing his own potatoes, carrots and beans for he and his family to eat and keep them going through the long winter months, but his neighbour, the nasty Mr. Bates has decided that they look so delicious, and becuas ehe is so much bigger and stronger than Mr. Smith and that as there is no legal system in place, no form of law and order and of course no police force to stop him that he's going to break into his garden and then eat them all himself, which he does. Poor old Mr. Smith now has nothing to eat, and he has wasted months growing those vegetables only for them to be stolen from under his very eyes by a bigger man with a big piece of wood in his hand. What's he going to do about it in your dreamland? And more importantly, what colour is the grass up there?
Hah. Mr Bates sounds a lot like HMRC. On a moral level: If it's able to be proven that Mr Bates stole the necessary items, of course Mr Smith has the natural right to self-defence of his possessions. He can therefore use whatever force necessary to repossess his goods from Mr Smith, including hiring others to help him defend/reclaim that property. On a practical level: In a voluntary world, Mr Smith would be able to buy weapons to defend himself and his property. He'd be able to contract private security if he were worried about stuff getting nicked. There would still be insurance if no thief could be found. There would still be neighbourhood watch collectives, and cameras on private land to monitor the property. In reality, Smith would probably just turn up with his security firm at Bates' house with a writ explaining why they want the vegetables back, and if Bates didn't hand them over, they'd knock down the door and take them. In conclusion, I never said there could be no legal system, law or order. Just that it's up to individials how they choose to protect themselves - whether they subscribe to a voluntary government, a police service, a citizens' co-operative or whatever. There's nothing to say the level of criminality couldn't be kept at least the same as it is now, if not brought lower since the unnecessary pain caused by the 'drug war' and lack of civilian rights to defend themselves would disappear.
That doesn't happen where guns are permitted now, and much like the nuclear question, if you go round shooting stuff, it's a matter of mutually assured destruction. Go on a killing spree and you'll end up dead in a society where arms can be borne. Simple as that. Well I suggest you're not thinking it through if you can't even come up with a proper response that answers the points I took time and effort to make.
But I'm still waiting for you to come up with a proper response to the fundamental flaw that I identified in your plan. That being in the involvement of human beings. Human beings are, and always have, been fuelled by greed and want, it's why communism failed. I don't like it and I wish it wasn't like that but I'm afraid that's just the way it is and with seven billion odd (and rising fast) of us I'm afraid there is nothing anyone could do about it. Unless you intend to brainwash and perform some kind of mass cull of those who refuse to subscribe and comply with every single aspect of your system, and ensure that there is absolutely no scope for corruption and manipulation of others then regardless how idealistic it's tenets may be it will still fail. You haven't even begun to expand upon how you would start the ball rolling with this, just saying it will work doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid. Yes there are plenty off 'good eggs' out there who truly do care for the greater good and for the welfare of others above growing a bigger and bigger bank account, I'd like to consider myself one of those people, but if just one small bunch of "right-wing military enthusiasts who are preparing for a global catastrophe" (source the Louis Theroux documentary you speak so highly of) are the only ones out of this seven billion odd people who live like this then surely even you have to question how the hell you think it could ever possibly work in reality. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly more of a communist than a capitalist, and I absolutely loathe everything the tory party stands for, but I'm also a realist and I'm afraid it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that your plan is riddled with flaws from the off. I've come to the conclusion that this is all a wind up anyway, and yes I probably have wasted my time in even bother replying, but it's good to flex the old grey matter some times and I can't be bothered to talk about Grant Holt
I did answer it, I said that if you're so against greed, surely the best way to contain it is by reducing it to the lowest level possible, which is individual persons. Let the power reside with them and not a corrupt political class, and it will be far less damaging to society. If you don't like something, why accept it? Those are the words of a defeatist, and if you don't like this system, why are you peddling excuses for it? It isn't a 'system' - that suggests top-down organization. It's quite simple, grassroots stuff. People live their lives as they like as long as they don't hurt other people or their property. You don't need to brainwash people for that to exist. All you need to do is have a big enough group of people refusing to take **** off the government, and the battle is won. I've already explained how aggression against other people could be viewed both morally and dealt with practically. It would be no more of an issue than it is at present. They're not the only people who live like that, and I never said most of them were right-wing or military enthusiasts, just that the documentary focussed on a section of that movement that held those views. There are thousands of libertarians and anarchists around the world who refuse to pay tax. Millions more who know that if they don't, they'll spend years behind bars with a truncheon against their temple. It's not a matter of trying to battle the ruling class until the numbers are sufficient. Until then, any attempt to do so is self-defeating at best, suicide at worst. Well I'm certainly not a communist, I abhor the coercive nature of any philosophy which demands that peaceful individuals are violently forced to subsidize the lives of other people, and which strangles success, liberty and ingenuity. In fact, I'll go out and admit I am a capitalist and I think the free exchange of possessions is a very positive thing for society, although that doesn't mean I support the evil corporations that are increasingly entangling themselves with the state in a bid to rip off and exploit people more effectively. That sort of corporatism, military-industrial complex, whatever you want to call it, is a cynical extension of the kind of aggression against the little man that drove me initially to defend Jimmy Carr on moral grounds. You say you're a realist - well why is it unrealistic that people like you who want to be managed by politicians voluntarily subscibe to a government, hold elections, have an NHS, pay into a communal pot for your kids' education and get a state police service; but simultaneously that people like me who might want to live without those constraints can do so without having to cough up needless money and be threatened with great physical harm? I've already debunked one of your 'flaws' in my plan - i.e. property defence/justice, so please fire away with some more and I'll explain those too. People usually go for 'who'd build the roads', 'what about cancer sufferers' and 'everyone will be drugged up' after the general safety point, just to give you a heads up. It would be an extremely sad wind-up if it were one, even by my standards. Seriously though, there are a lot of people who believe the same as me, you'd be surprised. Nothing wrong with a bit of armchair philosophy, at least you're not just apathetic like most people.
don't know if anyone caught 8 out of 10 cats last night but i thought carr handled it well and sean lock and jon richardson (quite rightly) tore him to shreds. it was extremely funny but also covered some serious points really well. i think the fact even louis spence was able to 'rip him a new one'... actually, i may re-phrase that! i think the fact louis spence was even able to take the piss was a good thing.
TBH I thought Cameron caught it worst.It's one thing being a tax dodging comedian but it's pretty obvious that his lot didn't get where they are today by paying their whack.If we are talking hypocrisy the coalition millionaires take the biscuit.As for Garl Barlow if there was any fairness in the world the talentless oaf's clogs would be echoing down the street at five a.m. on his way t'mill.
I'd like someone to ask Cameron about how his father made the family fortune using offshore tax havens along with the rest of his cabinet! Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
I have a little bit of sympathy for him. In all likelihood, he doesn't get THAT involved in tax. It is probable that his accountant came to him with some forms and asked him to sign them as it would be the most tax-efficient way to handle his earnings. In the same situation Iwould imagine that most of us would do the same. He probably doesn't actually know the exact percentage of tax he pays. He probably does actually even know his exact earnings! He is basically taking a huge battering from a load of politicians who are just pissed off that a clever accountant could come up with a loop-hole in their tax laws. IMO they should go off and change the law rather than simply bitch at those making the most of the situation. Not his fault that the politicians were incompetant.
In fairness closing all loop holes is rather more tricky than herding cats.With the huge financial incentives that exist many Premiership financial minds work constantly on this.Meanwhile HMRC by necessity employ Championship minds to prevent them.The outcome is invariably chasing around closing stable doors after the occupants have trotted off to Monte Carlo.
Everyone knows the basic rate of tax is 20%. Jimmy Carr knows the rate of tax as much of his humour is based on taking the piss out of wealthy peoples finances. To say he didn't know is unbelievable. He knew alright and encouraged its use. He knew because this is the same Jimmy Carr, who caught speeding in 2009 and fearing losing his licence because he already had points hired "Mr Loophole", a brief well known for getting people off on technicalities. He actively sought out this guy on advice to get him off even though he was guilty. No, I'm afraid Mr Carr, brought up by a multi millionaire, educated at Cambridge and an ex marketing executive for multi national Shell, knows full well how to manipulate his affairs and do what is right for him even if it is legal. I would prefer to say its not illegal.
The question to ask though is how many of our highly paid football players are doing the same as Carr ? It's called having people working for you who are clever enough to do this. I also was earning a lot of money abroad and paid no tax at all, the reason is that I spent less than 90 days a year in the UK, and was paid in the isle of man.
I didn't. I just know that the money that hits my account is less than my gross earnings. Payrol sort that kind of thing for me. If I didn't have a set salary and know my monthly gross income every month then I wouldn't have a clue how much tax I was paying.
There is a distinct difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Is it Jimmy Carr's fault there are loopholes in the tax rules to allow this ? I was self employed and used everything legal to lesson my tax burden. I used a very clever accountant to find me ways not to pay as much, Carr did the same.
