Of all the tax payments I make in a year, either direct or indirect, the largest cheque I’m compelled to write has to be registered in Her Majesty’s Treasury by January the 1st, each year. This is so Gordon Brown can then burn it, of course, on even more government regulation, on even more government corruption, and on even more government waste. And today was the last day free for me to get the ink onto the paper.
Ho ho ho, Gordon. I hope you choke on it.
Having just returned from the Post Office, where I schlepped the loot over, I wondered whether the British state has ever had it so easy. The Sheriff of Nottingham, in Robin Hood’s day, had to go round digging up peasants’ gardens, to see if they’d buried any taxable wheat. Here, in modern Britain, even one of Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s (slightly critical) Austro-libertarian extremist disciples will calmly walk into a government controlled bank, and just hand the loot over, knowing full well that every penny of this hard-earned moolah will be wasted on Guardian Reader parasites.
No, not every penny. Most of it will be wasted on Guardian Reader parasites. The rest of it will be spent on making the life of this humble Austro-libertarian even worse, with an even greater intrusion into his life, and an even greater government commitment to increase the regulation over his already over-regulated life. Don’t ya just love state socialism! And there he was, the libertarian fool, desperately trying to make sure he got the cash in ‘on time’, and making sure he got a dated receipt for it, ‘just in case’ some drunken government half-wit, on January 2nd, pulls a sickie holiday, and fails to register my payment until after the ‘deadline’. Can you imagine asking a mugger for a receipt, and then making sure they get the full amount from your wallet, in plenty of time for the bus, without going to the trouble of threatening you for it?
This institution of monopolised judicial state control and taxation is a madness, and I must do something about it. I can’t just sit here and take this government abuse any more. I must help Professor Hoppe in his quest to free the world.
So, choices.
Should I pick up a Kalashnikov and run down Whitehall seeking out that fat slob Gordon Brown? No, I’ll only end up dead. Should I run back to the Post Office to grab the cheque and rip it up? No, I’ll only end up in jail.
No, it’s time to be radical. I shall order the Professor’s new book, The Myth of National Defense. With it I shall try to remove my own personal stumbling block on the final road to full Austro-libertarianism, namely the big question over societal defence and security.
Hey, I know it’s not much, and it’ll be slow getting to me because I’ve ordered it on standard shipping from American Amazon in a grouped consignment with Ludwig von Mises’ slow-to-order Bureaucracy. But it’s the best I can do without a government agent either filling me with lead or placing me behind bars.
And no, it doesn’t amuse me that I paid for the lead, or that I paid for the steel in the bars. What does amuse me is that I wrote out the cheque to ‘The Post Office Limited’, a privatised Post Office counters company, because despite the valiant attempts of the British state to control everything that moves in this country, even the old government Post Office monopoly is being broken up by the malevolence of evil market forces. Why? Because even with a government-protected monopoly, it’s considered a financial triumph if the government-owned Post Office delivery service doesn’t lose more than a billion pounds in a single fiscal year.
And long may this break-up process continue. For my New Year’s resolution is to try to play my part in the break-up of the British state, for as long as I can draw breath.
Though I do hope the Professor’s philosophical ammunition gets to me before Easter.
Here’s to hoping that with his help one day we will all be free.
Happy New Year!
Yes, I’d love to see more discussion of this sort of thing on Samizdata. How exactly do we go about ridding ourselves of the state? Or at least most of the state.
Before we rid ourselves of the state we must have the ability to deal with murderers, thieves and rapists. And contract breakers as well.
What might take the place of the state’s legal system?
And what if we rid ourselves of the state but other groups do not. How do we protect ourselves from agression from their state.
kj
The madness begins with a population made up of people convinced the State, and only the State, will be a positive force in making their lives better. The hijacking of the force turned over to the State by various ‘religions of good’ is the problem. Convince the mass of the people that they alone are the only force in their lives that can improve it then we will have the culture necessary for a free society.
Obviously more easily said than done, but as an individual all I can do is seize the opportunity to talk with people as circumstances arise and try and shift their point of view. Opportunities arise all the time as people are always complaining about the government, in between trips for their handouts and services, so perhaps one can tear the mask enough that they can see that the government handout costs them more than they think, especially after the bureaucracy takes its slice off the top. Quixotic perhaps, but it is all one has when one is a rather fundemental libertarian as a major, cohesive movement of some sort is unlikely to happen by definition.
“Quixotic perhaps, but it is all one has when one is a rather fundemental libertarian as a major, cohesive movement of some sort is unlikely to happen by definition.”
I really don’t understand why everyone insists that a cohesive libertarian movement is some kind of contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is about opposition to coersion, not voluntary association. In fact, a stable free society would depend on groups like the Red Cross and Salvation Army stepping into the roles now occupied by government.
Nathan – The Red Cross? Are you mad, sir? They are one of the bossiest of the tranzis. “We predict massive famine in X by tomorrow at 4 a.m. and therefore the west has to send X tonnes of stuff to be distributed under the eagle eye of our trained observers … otherwise we predict a humanitarian disaster …”
The Red Cross, which used to be known for the bravery of its ambulance drivers and attendants in the battlefield, is now famous for banning Christmas in Britain (in case the birth of Christ offends) and confines itself to self-described “humanitarian disasters”, which it alone is competent to manage.
“Quixotic perhaps, but it is all one has when one is a rather fundemental libertarian as a major, cohesive movement of some sort is unlikely to happen by definition.”
I really don’t understand why everyone insists that a cohesive libertarian movement is some kind of contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is about opposition to coersion, not voluntary association. In fact, a stable free society would depend on groups like the Red Cross and Salvation Army stepping into the roles now occupied by government.
The two organizations cited fill a void between those in need and those who are willing to give voluntarily (and the salvation army is based in a christian ethic which is galvanizing force that (secular) libertarians are not likely to be a part of). To some extent there seems to be a built in desire for individuals to associate with others with the aim toward helping third parties, which there is no problem as long as the association and transfer are voluntary. Meanwhile the task of trying to educate the masses that they should rely on themselves itself is a contradiction; “take it from me, rely on yourself” doesn’t seem to be an easy thing to do much less the unlikelihood that a unified association will arise to promote it. The libertarian party of the US is an example, hardly a high flying outfit.
There is hope, though, that the message will get out, there are sites like the CATO institute, blogs such as this, and even a relatively new program on a premium cable movie channel, Showtime, called Bullshit with the magic/comedy duo Penn & Teller that is about the only program I’ve seen in an age that beseeches people to think critically.
I guess when it is all said and done, the group dynamic, when applied to a large group, seems to require generalizations and the need to require its adherents to operate on faith. Having a united association of a significant size endeavoring to educate people to think critically is a dream. That is what makes it so difficult for the individual or a small association to make a difference. That is why the US Federal Government, which after all only co-opts 20% of GDP is an undefeatable force as there is no counter-balancing force of the same size, nor can there be. I’m afraid people will only learn the hard way when the promises made fall through.
Slaves cooperated with their keepers, even though they out-numbered them and could, if organised, have probably revolted successfully.
So are you going to stay a house trained tax-slave?
What to do?
Simple,quit working,go on the dole and send a nice thank you letter to Gordon for all the free time you now have to promote the True Faith of lower taxes and less government.
Hey,it worked for Osama’s boy’s.
I have never paid my tax on time. The “punitive” interest rate + pathetic fine (£100 last time) has always been below my return on capital, so I refuse to pay it on principle until I get several months worth of threatening letters. Then I know that the cost of chasing up the tax owed is in the top 5th percentile of any taxpayer – I have cost this sick political society some money, thank f*ck.
In the long run, the solution is simple – get the f*ck out of any country that charges you a percentage of income simply to exist. I always laugh heartily when people hold up the USA as an example of some kind of “free” country. Sorry but that’s absolute b*llocks. That country is a theiving parasite just like most of the others.
The fact is that to become “free” requires becoming, to a large extent, “free” of tax. That cannot occur if you remain resident in a western country. The only alternative is to reside in a tax haven or structure your affairs so as to benefit from the various low-tax regimes or structures available. Anything less is to collaborate with statists. You are literally funding their violently oppressive social edicts. Sadly, most so-called libertarians baulk at the idea of having to change their geographical base – “shock, horror, you mean I have to leave Wisconsin to stick to my principles???” Sorry, my dear freedom-lover, but most commie b*stards fought for far less at a far higher cost – and you’re telling me you want to give in for the sake of health insurance or baseball games? Get outta here you f*cking pussy.
My belief is that 99% of “libertarians” are just Republican-voting whining blowhards. What I find strange is that I’ve hardly ever met an American abroad who has actually espoused libertarian principles and given some indication that he actually lives by them. IMHO, the vast majority of internet “libertarians” are just talk-loud bullsh*tters who have no convictions and wouldn’t act on their alleged *beliefs* if you paid them. IMO they are basically gutless cowards.
I hope to be proved wrong, but so far I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary.
For what it’s worth, I am emigrating in March to a proper tax haven. Goodbye statists and high-tax societies. Eurow*nkers – from now on I am going to exploit both your fit nubile young blondes *and* your remarkably liberal narcotics laws. Thank you for letting me free ride on your middle class. If only your middle class would realise this, and then slit your throat and beat you up as painfully as possible, then roger your daughters senseless. Hers’s hoping.
xxx
Pissed off libertarian.
P.S. as for the yanks – get your head out of your ass and get your bayonets up Ashcroft’s ass. What is the matter with you guys?
Toolkien – People are indoctrinated from when they’re tiny to look to “the government” for everything. They grow up taking for granted that the government is an all powerful being which controls their lives, but will keep them safe.
The NHS is a particularly vivid illustration of this, because we do not see the state of dependency wrought so clearly in countries that don’t have nationalised health services.
First: when one suggests that the NHS be scrapped and dumped in the dustbin of failed socialism, everyone, without exception, bristles. It just needs to be “improved”. It just needs “better management”. Blah blah blah.
Second: when one points out that individuals could purchase very good health insurance for far less than the government extracts for their foul NHS, they take fright. I have concluded that what it boils down to is, they don’t want to be responsible for their own health. They don’t want their extortionate contributions to be freed up to spend as they choose, because, uh, what if they didn’t spend the money on health insurance? What if they took extra holidays instead? Or had the kitchen refitted? In other words, there’s safety in someone else assuming responsibility over your life for you.
That’s why a libertarian state will never get off the ground. Americans are not quite so dependent on their government, but socialist systems foster dependency and then people are fearful to give that dependency up. Like adult children in their thirties who are still living at home.
Hope Hoppe does better than Rothbard:
“Even if our nation is directly attacked by another, justice for those who look askance upon war efforts and levies still requires that the scope of state action be kept within responsible limits. The goal of all state action at such times must be a negotiated peace, so that the burden of destruction and taxes will cease.”
The Real Aggressor
How would your employment of your SMO, in lieu of state armies, be less coercive of me other than with respect taxes?
Lew Rockwell seems to believe that this “vindicates” Rothbard:
“The election of 1956 pitted Dwight Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson, both of whom offered statist domestic policies. But Stevenson was against conscription and less pro-war, and thus garnered Rothbard’s support, the moral priority being the prevention of another massacre of young men. Rothbard even worked the phones from the Stevenson campaign headquarters in Manhattan. His turn against the Republicans got him tossed off the Faith and Freedom masthead, led him to appeal leftward for allies, and sparked a lifelong war with William Buckley and the mainstream of the conservative movement.”
Rothbard Vindicated
Stevenson was virtually the anti-libertarian and no peacenik. Anti-war madness.
Cobden where are you moving to?
when one points out that individuals could purchase very good health insurance for far less than the government extracts for their foul NHS, they take fright.
Well, I don’t personally believe it is true, at least not under the current UK model.
It might be the case elsewhere.
But it depends on what you’re expecting to have to deal with I suspect. If you’re an average healthy 30 year old with no family history of problems I guess that might be the case.
If you’re a 45 year old executive with hyper tension and a family history of heart disease who smokes moderately and is a few kg’s over weight, I bet you’d be starting to look at some stupifying insurance bills for a comprehensive policy in comparison to what you pay for the NHS every year.
I might be wrong on that. I’ve not got private cover myself at the moment. But I have paid for private consultations as necessary.
Its hard to say what I actually pay for the NHS. My NI contributions are in the ball park of £2,500 or so a year. Obviously, its more complicated than that but looking at Axa PPP insurance I find that I could insurance myself on a comprehensive basis for myself and my wife (currently not working) for around about the same amount of money. So no household win there.
Looking at our example of a 40+ executive with pre-existing conditions… hmmm… can’t seem to get a quote on line. They need more data. If I pull everything back slightly and make him a healthy exec, it drops for an individual cover to £1700 – but there are some exclusion clauses even in that policy.
So, I’m not sure that the individual wins much there either. This also all ignores the fact that UK medical insurance is part subsidised by the NHS. Anyway, that does ignore the point that people get the health care they pay for and in the end of the day, they don’t like paying for it.
Dave – Yes, they don’t want to pay for it responsibly and willingly. They want the state to *make* them pay; have the choice taken out of their hands. That means they get whatever the state dishes up. That £1700 a year would get you treatment on demand in a private or semi-private room with decent food, clean surroundings and courteous staff. Even adding on another £600, say for pre-existing conditions, or whatever, you would still be better off buying your own health insurance than paying 500,000 bureaucrats to handle your health for you, because you would get treatment when you needed it, not when the massive machinery of the NHS clanked around to your turn.
The police service should be privatised because then it would serve its customers, not the government. Same with major roads. You have to pay to get on a train. Why not have to pay to get on a road? I know tollroads have just come to Britain, but I say all major roads should be privatised and one should have to pay to travel on them.
This would save huge amounts on money on taxes, freeing up personal income so people could make a choice of where to spend their pounds. People are frightened of taking control of their lives, the way an animal that has been kept in a cage will not leave the cage even when the door is left open for it. I have come to the pessimistic, but I believe realistic, conclusion that the state is not forced on the population. People cleave to the state to make their decisions for them. They complain, but they want it that way. There are very few truly independent spirits who are not afraid to take their own decisions.
Verity writes:
People cleave to the state to make their decisions for them. They complain, but they want it that way. There are very few truly independent spirits who are not afraid to take their own decisions.
You’re right, but I think there’s a bit more to it than this. I think most people, certainly the ones I know, in Britain, think they’re getting more out of the State than they’re putting into it, under P.J.O’Rourke’s mooch factor. That’s one of the major planks of general state support.
They think ‘somebody else’ is paying. They’re amoral about this, and don’t really care who it is, but as long as they think they’re getting something for nothing, the State looks like a good option.
And of course the state encourages this, with its cackling promises to make the pips squeak for the rich. That the rich can afford good accountants, so they pay even LESS tax than the ordinary man in the street, is immaterial.
It’s like the thing with Employers’ National Insurance. A typical employee will say something like “I’m glad Gordon Brown is putting the Employers’ National Insurance up, and not the Employees’ National Insurance, so that my employer pays and not me.”
Have you ever tried to convince someone that it makes no difference what you call it, national insurance is always money stolen from the same employee’s pocket? It took me a while to work it out myself, until I became self-employed and started paying both out from the same bank account. Then the penny dropped. Right into HM Treasury, of course! 😉
Although I’m principally a libertarian for moral reasons (eg: that it is wrong for one man to harm another man by stealing from him), I’m also convinced that we’ll all be far better off if we adopted a freer system, as we won’t be propping up your 500,000 NHS pen-pushers.
Those 500,000 lickspittles will be creating wealth, rather than destroying it, plus the other several million government seat warmers.
Get the state out of the propaganda industry, in the schools, colleges, and broadcasting, and then convince people that they’ll be far better off under a system of freedom rather than one of forelock-tugging coercion, and I think you’ll see this support for the state slip down to something much weaker than it is now.
More easily said than done, of course, but I don’t think we should be too pessimistic about it. Just look at the voting figures, down at every election. Despite all the loud cries from people like Blair, and his neo-conservative wars to boost the role of the state (either manufactured or due to government security incompetence), the state is becoming less important every generation, and less relied upon. Just wait until all the various worldwide government pension crises hit the colostomy units. Then we’ll all see just how reliable the state is.
People are paying for what they receive from the state,through the nose, and they’d pay a lot less if they got rid of the state. And they would be safer, and less intruded upon, and more secure in the infirmities of old age. Now all we have to do is go out and convince them. Over to you! 🙂
Andy, clever post, but no. You destroy your own points. Everyone thinks someone else is paying and they’re benefitting from a giant safety blanket.
My own conclusion, arrived at without any satisfaction at all, is – as long as someone else is paying, why shouldn’t I be a passenger?
You say: “I’m also convinced that we’ll all be far better off if we adopted a freer system, as we won’t be propping up your 500,000 NHS pen-pushers.
“Those 500,000 lickspittles will be creating wealth, rather than destroying it, plus the other several million government seat warmers.” Excuse me, but how do you get half a million voters to vote against their own self-interests? Also, how do you get employers in the private sector to give jobs to this dross to get them out of the public trough and into the wealth-creating community? I thought so. So that point is now demolished.
Next: “Despite all the loud cries from people like Blair, and his neo-conservative wars to boost the role of the state … the state is becoming less important every generation, and less relied upon.”
No. The state is clawing an ever-more intrusive role for itself. Under the fat and squishy Gordon Brown, the state now forces middle class, fairly high earners, to give their money over to him and then fill in forms to beg back their rightful “entitlements”. Not money they should never have been forced to pay in the first place, but “entitlements”. In other words, they are beggars at the feast they have paid for and there is little to differentiate them from 15-yr-old single mothers.
I would argue that the British state under the current socialists has elbowed its way into British private life and private finances in a way that is unprecedented. Far from decreasing in importance, it is becoming daily more powerful.
That £1700 a year would get you treatment on demand in a private or semi-private room with decent food, clean surroundings and courteous staff. Even adding on another £600, say for pre-existing conditions, or whatever
It might get you treatment in a private or semi-private room, but its hardly a guarentee unless you have one of the ailments that private healthcare looks after.
My wisdom teeth, for example, are perfect for a nice private hospital like the one I used in Wimbledon. OTOH my father’s heart attack or his cancer were not. He was treated in a standard NHS hospital because a private hospital under the British system cannot undertake the kind of treatment that serious illness handles.
Likewise Roads, who then owns the roads and what regulation do you put on the tolls? Do the owners charge what they like? How do you handle an exodous from the main highways onto smaller roads. I recall you live in France, but you might remember what the A1 in the UK is like compared to the French equivalent. They are much smaller. Likewise the road system in the UK is much more interconnected due to scale differences.
I’m not even sure what you think the police do.
I have huge sympathy with Libertarian perspectives, I want as little government in my life as possible, and I want to keep as much of my money as I can. I pay a lot of tax, more than half my income is at 40%+ but frankly, I don’t begrudge it. Well, actually, yes I do because its spent badly, but I can afford to pay it.
Ultimately I’m not convinced that people will be better off under your system. I would be. But I’m a social animal, we evolved that way.
I would argue that the British state under the current socialists has elbowed its way into British private life and private finances in a way that is unprecedented. Far from decreasing in importance, it is becoming daily more powerful.
I’ve lived in France, the US and UK.
This statement could be applied to any of those countries and I’d still think it was inaccurate.
Verity writes:
My own conclusion, arrived at without any satisfaction at all, is – as long as someone else is paying, why shouldn’t I be a passenger?
Yes, many people think this, but they’re wrong. They are the ones paying, usually far more than they should, for shoddy Soviet-style services. This means we can take two tacks. First on the moral front, to ask the question, even if someone else was paying, do you think this is morally right? Second, convince them that it is in fact they who are paying, and that therefore they should demand more for their money, in fact, they should just demand all of their money back, and get a much greater use out of it.
No, you’re right, this won’t be easy, and there may even be nothing we can do about it. The general population may just have to work all of this out for themselves, with our constant irritant support and help of course.
Look at Ludwig von Mises. For much of the 20th century he was the only classical liberal economist in the world, cranking out books like ‘Socialism’ and ‘Bureaucracy’, and even in the 1920s proving why socialism/communism will always fail. He was up against, and ignored, by every government, every government economist, Keynes, and basically the entire establishment of world government everywhere. And yet, in the end, he won. His long dormant arguments were finally retrieved, by defensive politicians like Thatcher and Reagan, via their advisers such as Airey Neave, Keith Joseph et al, and the soft left were kicked back into touch, in the west, and the old hard left of Eastern Europe crumbled under the force of Von Mises’ ideas, propagated by his students and disciples.
It is not going to be either easy or quick wiping out socialism, but if we think in terms of decades just look how strong world communism was in 1930, having soaked up virtually every western intellectual, and look where it is now. The same will happen, with the New Left, eventually, if they don’t kill us all first. This is because socialism doesn’t work. The truth will eventually out. Though like you, I’m not holding my breath.
All we can do, is keep telling the Emperor he is wearing no clothes, and hang on to the memory of old Ludwig, a single man taking on an entire world and then eventually winning. One day our own Emperor will be seen for the naked fool he is. We just gotta keep plugging away at it, primarily, in my view, getting the state out of education. Which makes it hilarious for me, that the Labour Party are trying to promote tuition fees, making people pay for their own education – the ghost of Ludwig must be cackling, as his ideas continue to drive socialists demented, as they twist and turn upon them. I don’t think the New Labour executive have the faintest idea that they’re doing our work for us, though I suspect their backbenchers might! 🙂
Excuse me, but how do you get half a million voters to vote against their own self-interests?
Hence Professor Hoppe’s book on the merits of democracy. Have a read and see what you think.
On his analysis I think he is correct. As well as constantly chipping away, until people themselves wake up, we may just have to leave them to collapse from socialism, while we are somewhere else building a better future, or among them waiting for the collapse, to help them rebuild afterwards into something far better.
If you do want to go down the democratic road, it’s not the half million sops whose votes you should worry about. It’s the three million private sector wealth generators who are supporting them.
Persuade them to sack the half million, to make them go out and actually work for a living.
Also, how do you get employers in the private sector to give jobs to this dross to get them out of the public trough and into the wealth-creating community? I thought so.
Employers in Hong Kong used to have this problem, back in the days of Britain’s control. People would escape from communist China, to find the land with the streets paved with gold, but at first these new immigrant workers were absolutely useless. They just wanted all the benefits of the golden rice bowl, rather than the iron rice bowl, but without having to work for it. In other words, they were work-shy, sullen, lazy, and basically unemployable, having grown up under welfare state communism.
But Hong Kong being Hong Kong, in those days, and possibly even now, there was no welfare for these moochers to fall into, on their arrival in Hong Kong, and their only way out of total and immediate poverty was to start working, and start working hard, in the plenty of jobs available. Within a few months, these people usually changed out of all recognition, and became as indistinguishably hard-working as everyone else in Hong Kong.
Yes, the typical government bureaucrat is pretty much unemployable, right now, for anything useful. But give them a few months with absolutely no income, old Hong Kong style, and I think we’ll see them change. With all the wealth released from their sacking, the economy will quickly deliver them real work if they want it. If they don’t want it, well, give them a one-way ticket to France, or some other socialist paradise where the government employs more than half the work force.
I would argue that the British state under the current socialists has elbowed its way into British private life and private finances in a way that is unprecedented. Far from decreasing in importance, it is becoming daily more powerful.
I will adopt the Obi-Wan Kenobi defence. We are far more powerful when they think they have defeated us. As they become more powerful, their failures will become ever more apparent. The inconsistencies of their policies, and their hypocrises, and their lies, will become ever more obvious, as their tight-fisted control slips through their fingers and all of their policies run into the sand. The government may be passing more bits of paper through parliament granting itself more and more controls over our lives, but ordinary people in this country trust it less every day, and rely on it less every day. Just witness what happened over the petrol crisis a couple of years ago. Trust in the all-powerful socialist government collapsed within literally hours, and the UK became for a while almost a government-less country, three meals away from the proverbial total social collapse.
The government cannot do anything it likes, it must have the support of the governned, and this support is waning. The government worshippers becomes shriller and more active, as this support drains away. Again, just look at the dwindling voting figures in general elections. No politician, of any party, is trusted, no government is trusted, and we’re quickly coming to the point where even no old-school British civil servant will be trusted. A break down point is coming. I don’t profess to know when it will arrive, and what will be the result when it occurs, but coming it most certainly is – we saw a flavour of it in the petrol crisis – and we must be ready for it.
— mad_staring_eyes_on —
Again, I come back to old Ludwig. One man, against an all-powerful world filled with totalitarian regimes, and complacent welfare state socialists, and still forty years later he won. We can win, too. We’ve just gotta keep sticking at it. Because our way is the right way for the human condition, indeed, the only way which truly works.
— mad_staring_eyes_off —