Wirral Council – Admits That Council Tax Is Unlawful And Sets A Legal Precedent.

[huw]

You just admitted his point

He claimed their control of him was through force, and you conceded his point (above). Then you claim he is wrong, that their control isn't a matter of force.

By choosing not to walk away, when he can freely do so, he implicitly consents to their control.

Compare with a company that can use force (security staff) to control employees on its premises; few would argue that they exert some kind of pernicious control over the employees ... as long as the employees are free to quit their job and the premises.

The question of whether individuals or groups are morally entitled to exert control over a particular territory is a different issue IMO. My guess would be that anyone voting with their feet to leave one system of control, would soon find themselves attempting to set up a new (quite possibly different) system of control wherever they settled.

(edit: missing word)

Edited September 5, 2009 by huw

[huw]

I have to agree with Star's answer.

Additionally, I think you are making the mistake that because a society exists in a particular location then that location belongs to the society. If my fictional Knitting Society met on a piece of common ground ('common' as in common law) then that would not make the land mine - it is shared between the people and can be used for whatever needs they have (such as grazing cattle). In the same way, just because the society of the UK exists in England, Scotland and Wales does not mean the society owns the land. The society is not the land, it is a construct of man and that is the only place it exists - in the mind. You can not point to society - you can only point to a building, a person or a lake. The society does not exist outside the mind of the person (whether that person is a human-being or a dog - remember that person is a class of life, that which has personality and not just a human-being as I think is often assumed).

That's is the crux of the matter. I don't believe it's possible to come up with an answer that's morally fair to all parties, which is why I prefer a pragmatic "if you don't like it, the airport's that way" approach.

[Stars]

By choosing not to walk away, when he can freely do so, he implicitly consents to their control.

No more than they concede to his control by not walking away.

So why doesn't this work in either direction?

Claiming that the ability to walk away leaves your rights entirely intact, implies that an area can be cleared of undesirables perfectly legitimately without any infringement. It's moral codswallop. All you are doing is pushing the moral explanation back - 'they have control of him because we can assume they have control of territory' - I'm dismissing both as equivalent statements. Taking the territory under control is itself a forceful infringement upon the individual.

Compare with a company that can use force (security staff) to control employees on its premises; few would argue that they some kind of pernicious control over the employees ... as long as the employees are free to quit their job and the premises.

I would certainly argue that such is force and i contend it is (as presently arranged) an abusive infringement of liberty. Give everyone some notional ownership of land and such arrangements are no longer matters of justice, though.

The question of whether individuals or groups are morally entitled to exert control over a particular territory is a different issue IMO. My guess would be that anyone voting with their feet to leave one system of control, would soon find themselves attempting to set up a new (quite possibly different) system of control wherever they settled.

And if the world is owned by nazis, and you are a jew, you would lawfully cease to have a right to exist and this is not an infringement?

Edited September 5, 2009 by Stars

[erranta]

I have been looking into freeman stuff for a few months, and at first was very sceptical. The research that is being done seems to me to have a lot of merit, and throws up some interesting ideas.

As I understand the situation, the Bill of Rights 1689 gave the population the absolute right to trial by jury for all and any alleged crimes.

The current system of fixed penalties etc, are all a fairly new concept. Not that many years ago if you were caught speeding (that's breaking a rule, how can it be a crime) you either plead guilty by post or attended court to offer mitigation or whatever, ultimately you had the right to a jury trial.

It is this change in the judicial system, and of course the ease in which research can now be conducted via the internet, that has led people to research such things.

These people are beginning to upset the status quo, look at the bank charges issue, thousands of people are successfully challenging credit card and loan agreements, so much so that the statute was upgraded in 2007 to amend the section that forbade judges from enforcing faulty agreements.

Council Tax.

Fine in principal.

A group of elected local people get together for the good of the community, and set up services, rubbish collection, street lights and whatever. the cost is shared by members of the community who benefit from the services. Great!

But what we now have is gargantuan organisations that waste enormous amounts of money doing many things that not only don't benefit the community, actually harm it. My local Authority has gone big style in making all the town centre streets "Pay and Display parking" Thousands of spaces bringing in 50p-60p an hour, Magic, this should reduce my Council Tax bill, No, it is costing the community £1000 per day.l Not only does it cost, it has the effect of driving shoppers away, to the detriment of town centre shopkeepers.

I support any action that make the authorities think about their what they are doing and what they are for, if enough people choke off their revenue by lawful means, then they may be forced to review their actions.

No, it is costing the community £1000 per day.l Not only does it cost, it has the effect of driving shoppers away, to the detriment of town centre shopkeepers.

Exactly - it's to drive you insane!

Same as all the petty council regulations - where they spend more & give you less - whilst fining you and incriminalising you for petty non-COMPLIANCE!(key word!)

(They are playing with your basic function 'lizard' brain which 'controls' those behaviours too - for these idiot lizard fans)

Why do you think 'they' build supermarkets "out of town"? Have uber boring identical shopping malls in every town/city(another herd them in one place ploy )

Then instead of just food they have expanded supermarkets to sell virtually everything - even have banks inside! Gone from high street(less for more!)

New Tesco Bank etc

They are like the old Communist russian/Chinese style "Gom" palaces!

Built to herd you to one place & keep an 'ogling' eye on you and your spending!

[huw]

No more than they concede to his control by not walking away.

So why doesn't this work in either direction?

Claiming that the ability to walk away leaves your rights entirely intact, implies that an area can be cleared of undesirables perfectly legitimately without any infringement. It's moral codswallop. All you are doing is pushing the moral explanation back - 'they have control of him because we can assume they have control of territory' - I'm dismissing both as equivalent statements. Taking the territory under control is itself a forceful infringement upon the individual.

I've addressed that point in my previous posts -- basically I don't believe it's possible for humans to occupy territory above a certain population density, without imposing controls on one another. Some individual rights will inevitably be infringed, because there will be groups of humans claiming rights that are mutually incompatible.

And if the world is owned by nazis, and you are a jew, you would lawfully cease to have a right to exist and this is not an infringement?

Godwin's law receives further validation

Groups will always seek to control territory, and how others use it. It's human nature -- those who didn't have that drive, died out long ago. If people start acting in ways that harm the territorial group (even if simply by freeloading) they will be censured and possibly even ejected ... unless they can seize control and become the territorial group themselves.

The big problem is, as you suggest, that the statists do own most of the world, meaning that the vote-with-your-feet option is severely curtailed (though I suppose the dedicated FMOTLer could try his luck in Somalia, perhaps, or living as an aboriginal in Australia). Still, the FMOTL movement would have more credibility if they showed a bit more walk, a bit less talk ... and if the narrative was more about genuine individual responsibility and less about getting out of obligations.

Edited September 5, 2009 by huw

[doahh]

That's is the crux of the matter. I don't believe it's possible to come up with an answer that's morally fair to all parties, which is why I prefer a pragmatic "if you don't like it, the airport's that way" approach.

I agree that a solution is exceptionally difficult to come up with. However, just because it is difficult is no reason that I should be forced to leave the land of my birth. Where would I go? These problems are world wide (and not by my fault as they are millennium in the making) and I can not simply go to go 'where it is better'. The idea, as far as I am concerned is to find a way to reform the monetary and legal systems of the society that we choose to belong to. Just because there is no solution at the moment is not a reason not to try to find a solution. Unfortunately I think that most people do not even understand the basic arguments of freedom - maybe that is by design of our education system which would then be simply another way to control the people.

The question of whether individuals or groups are morally entitled to exert control over a particular territory is a different issue IMO.

I would have thought that is exactly the issue at hand. The UK government is controlling the territory of England, Scotland and Wales and forcing people to pay a Council Tax they have not agreed to - which is what started this thread in the first place.

No more than they concede to his control by not walking away.

An excellent point, I often forget to turn the tables in an argument.

Taking the territory under control is itself a forceful infringement upon the individual.

Another excellent point that I shall endeavor to remember.

Edited September 5, 2009 by doahh

[huw]

I agree that a solution is exceptionally difficult to come up with. However, just because it is difficult is no reason that I should be forced to leave the land of my birth. Where would I go? These problems are world wide (and not by my fault as they are millennium in the making) and I can not simply go to go 'where it is better'. The idea, as far as I am concerned is to find a way to reform the monetary and legal systems of the society that we choose to belong to. Just because there is no solution at the moment is not a reason not to try to find a solution. Unfortunately I think that most people do not even understand the basic arguments of freedom - maybe that is by design of our education system which would then be simply another way to control the people.

Quite so, it's not fair -- the world is not a fair place.

What you are proposing is what I meant in my post above when I said unless they can seize control and become the territorial group themselves.

If you achieve it, you'll be the one imposing control by force, no?

Edit: for the record, chances are I'd be in favour of your monetary and legal reforms, but to me this debate isn't about specifics, it's about the general rights/non-rights of groups to control territory. Whatever tax and laws you impose -- whether it's income tax, council tax, land tax, window tax, road safety, whatever -- you'll find someone who feels their rights are being trampled.

Edited September 5, 2009 by huw

[Three Pint Princess 2]

The Freeman lifestyle rests on the exisiting society being compelled to uphold our own sense of law and decency

while respecting the decisions the Freeman make.

Otherwise we could just arrest the Freeman and chuck them in the sea, because what protection do they have

as non citizens.

[huw]

The Freeman lifestyle rests on the exisiting society being compelled to uphold our own sense of law and decency

while respecting the decisions the Freeman make.

Otherwise we could just arrest the Freeman and chuck them in the sea, because what protection do they have

as non citizens.

There's also a certain degree of free-loading, e.g. a "free man" who chooses to drive without insurance or tax, and who gets involved in an accident (who knows, perhaps because of some mechanical fault that would have been picked up by the MOT he reckoned he didn't need) ... he's imposing risks on other road users, and on the levy-funded uninsured-driver-system, and on the emergency services.

[Authoritarian]

There's also a certain degree of free-loading, e.g. a "free man" who chooses to drive without insurance or tax, and who gets involved in an accident (who knows, perhaps because of some mechanical fault that would have been picked up by the MOT he reckoned he didn't need) ... he's imposing risks on other road users, and on the levy-funded uninsured-driver-system, and on the emergency services.

If car insurance was such a great idea it wouldn't have to be imposed by the state as a legal requirement for car ownership, people would naturally purchase it because the product was so desirable.

Given the choice I'd rather take my chances without insurance and only pay up if I damaged somebody else's property (I would have saved a fortune by now), if everyone took this approach then the roads would be a lot safer as it would be in the drivers interest not to rack up any unnecessary costs through careless driving.

Edited September 5, 2009 by chefdave

[frozen_out]

If car insurance was such a great idea it wouldn't have to be imposed by the state as a legal requirement for car ownership, people would naturally purchase it because the product was so desirable.

Car insurance IS something that would most likely be taken voluntarily.

It would actually give me great pleasure to hoist a freeman, driving without insurance, by his own petard. You would be able to sue him for loss and damage under common law and wipe him out financially for the rest of his life pretty easily.

Given the choice I'd rather take my chances without insurance and only pay up if I damaged somebody else's property (I would have saved a fortune by now), if everyone took this approach then the roads would be a lot safer as it would be in the drivers interest not to rack up any unnecessary costs through careless driving.

And if you maimed someone, resulting in a multi-million £ award against you? You would happily risk yours and your families entire future for the sake of a few hundred a year? There's more covered by your car insurance than just damage to property.

[Stars]

I've addressed that point in my previous posts -- basically I don't believe it's possible for humans to occupy territory above a certain population density, without imposing controls on one another. Some individual rights will inevitably be infringed, because there will be groups of humans claiming rights that are mutually incompatible.

But this is just a sidestep

I might well accept your point, but it doesn't get you to where you want to go.

We may have to loose some liberties in a crowded room (i can't start juggling live grenades) but if we lose them equally and as concessions to each other's basic rights then there is no net issue of justice (we all gain on the swings what we loose on the roundabouts). I don't see how this concept leads to you being able to charge me for working or trading; both those actions help to alleviate problems caused by crowding.

Godwin's law receives further validation

Nope - I didn't liken your arguments or position to Hitler's - nice try though

Edited September 5, 2009 by Stars

[Authoritarian]

Car insurance IS something that would most likely be taken voluntarily.

It would actually give me great pleasure to hoist a freeman, driving without insurance, by his own petard. You would be able to sue him for loss and damage under common law and wipe him out financially for the rest of his life pretty easily.

Thats fair enough if they caused a large amount of damage on purpose, otherwise I don't really see your point.

And if you maimed someone, resulting in a multi-million £ award against you? You would happily risk yours and your families entire future for the sake of a few hundred a year? There's more covered by your car insurance than just damage to property.

You can freely purchase insurance to guard against this sort of thing if you wanted to and you can sue me if you think I'm liable; I'll take the chance. I can even insure myself against this (If I wanted to). See eveybody's insured and nobody's been coerced into it by the state.

Edited September 5, 2009 by chefdave

[Stars]

Quite so, it's not fair -- the world is not a fair place.

It isn't helped by people reflexively defending injustice

What you are proposing is what I meant in my post above when I said unless they can seize control and become the territorial group themselves.

The dilemma you are outlining leads to the conclusion that a pragmatic compromise needs to be reached about the nature and scope of power implicit in control / ownership of territory - so that people do not need to keep fighting over it in order to retain their rights.

It does not lead to the conclusion that forcing people to give up their work because you are the owner is reasonable

[MongerOfDoom]

If car insurance was such a great idea it wouldn't have to be imposed by the state as a legal requirement for car ownership, people would naturally purchase it because the product was so desirable.

It is a great idea because it stops you imposing costs on others. I just wish the concept was extended to compulsory insurance that would pay for the treatment of injuries sustained while fighting drunk on a Friday night, STDs, and pretty much everything else that is paid for by the state and that invites moral hazard.

BTW, I believe you don't always have to have insurance, you just need the ability to pay for any damage you are likely to cause. I am not sure what the practicalities are, but a quick google search found a mention that companies can self-insure their vehicle-fleets.

If everyone agreed that compulsory car insurance was a bad idea, it would have been abolished through the democratic process. There are very few things the government do that would alienate all voters.

Given the choice I'd rather take my chances without insurance and only pay up if I damaged somebody else's property (I would have saved a fortune by now), if everyone took this approach then the roads would be a lot safer as it would be in the drivers interest not to rack up any unnecessary costs through careless driving.

And I'd much rather have a good chance of actually collecting the compensation if you should maim me by reckless driving. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that people driving cars on roads build for taxpayer's money obey the laws of the land. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to do that no matter what they do while living here.

I have seen lots of mad threads on HPC, but this beats goldbugs and "money is an illusion" hands down.

One final question (for anyone). Can "freemen" print money indistinguishable from Sterling?

[doahh]

What you are proposing is what I meant in my post above when I said unless they can seize control and become the territorial group themselves.

There are gradients of 'siezing control' and so I find your point extremely difficult to answer. If my perfect world were implemented then I could be considered as siezing control but that would not make the world a worse place by default.

The problem is that the current 'territorial groups' idea of money and law is heavily skewed in there favor. The monetary system is designed to profit the powerful as is the legal system (take Blair removing the treason laws for politicians when people attempted to press charges for the wars in Iraq). I would be proposing a system that treated everyone fairly and did not leave 25,000 a day to die of starvation in the third world, even though it means I must accept a reduction in my quality of life. It doesn't really come down to territorial control but fairness. Some people would always feel aggrieved about an event, that is unavoidable.

This thread was about Council Tax but I have never had a signed bill of exchange detailing what I am paying for, even under statute law that is illegal. The only way they can get people to pay is by the use of force, which in the end is what it comes down to. I accept that I need to pay for schools, hospitals etc. if I want to use them but if I don't want to use them then I should be allowed to take the risk. Hopefully I am educated enough to make my own decision and decide what risks are suitable. As for shared items such as road and pavements that I am almost forced to use then the situation gets more complex and I don't have a solution - payment needs to be made but I am unsure of a fair system for this. However, The government does not treat us that way, they treat us as children (I have read in law that we are considered 'imbecile children' by the judge in a court if we use a solicitor) and tell us what is best for us. They impede themselves upon my freedom by force and abuse my trust in them (where is that signed bill of exchange please Mr. Council Officer?).

[quibble]

Sounds all well and good until you want to have a job or run a business and I expect if you tried to do these things on a foreign passport you'd have to 'write yourself in' so to speak to some sort of contractual obligation that requires paying taxes, as an unregistered entity they wouldn't let you do these things.

Presumably freemen can still own things, as they do an automobile. Can't they just register & own a limited company, which acts as the contractual intermediary (as many contractors do today)? A limited company only pays tax on profits, AFTER wages have been paid. The freeman is paid wages by the limited company, yet - as a freeman - pays no tax.

[Three Pint Princess 2]

It is a great idea because it stops you imposing costs on others. I just wish the concept was extended to compulsory insurance that would pay for the treatment of injuries sustained while fighting drunk on a Friday night, STDs, and pretty much everything else that is paid for by the state and that invites moral hazard.

Debtors prison is what you end up with, then you have to pay 30K a year to look after them.

[huw]

If car insurance was such a great idea it wouldn't have to be imposed by the state as a legal requirement for car ownership, people would naturally purchase it because the product was so desirable.

Given the choice I'd rather take my chances without insurance and only pay up if I damaged somebody else's property (I would have saved a fortune by now), if everyone took this approach then the roads would be a lot safer as it would be in the drivers interest not to rack up any unnecessary costs through careless driving.

The moral justification for compulsory motor insurance does not arise from damages an individual could reasonably pay. It's from damages that he can't pay -- e.g. someone gets killed or ends up in a wheelchair, or the at-fault party is killed in the accident.

Rational market behaviour would be not to insure against costs you can externalise. Therefore, the costs get allocated back to the cost-causers by compulsion (through the mechanism of compulsory insurance).

[doahh]

If everyone agreed that compulsory car insurance was a bad idea, it would have been abolished through the democratic process. There are very few things the government do that would alienate all voters.

Unfortunately, I do not really have any faith in the democratic process, I am of the opinion that it is there to profit the powerful. Insurance is a highly profitable business and the people who control such companies are far more likely to nobble the politicians who called for a removal of compulsory insurance than to allow it to be removed.

I have read the Statute law database regarding driving without insurance. Until recently you could post a bond of £15,000 that would act as insurance, it has now been altered to be £500,000.

It is perfectly reasonable to demand that people driving cars on roads build for taxpayer's money obey the laws of the land.

I am not sure that this is a sensible statement. I did not ask for the roads to be build, the society of the UK simply did it and now you think I should obey their laws? If I built a wall around your house and then charged you to go through my gate should you also obey all my other rules, such as you should bow and scrape before me?

One final question (for anyone). Can "freemen" print money indistinguishable from Sterling?

I would be of the opinion that Freeman are not interested in committing an act of fraud as that would be against common law.

[huw]

The dilemma you are outlining leads to the conclusion that a pragmatic compromise needs to be reached about the nature and scope of power implicit in control / ownership of territory - so that people do not need to keep fighting over it in order to retain their rights.

It does not lead to the conclusion that forcing people to give up their work because you are the owner is reasonable

Force <> morality, but it's far more likely to influence how the world works, sadly.

Like it or not, overwhelming force in the hands a state seems to be a highly effective way of avoiding constant fighting to retain rights. If it were otherwise, there'd be a lot more state-free territory in the world.

[huw]

We may have to loose some liberties in a crowded room (i can't start juggling live grenades) but if we lose them equally and as concessions to each other's basic rights then there is no net issue of justice (we all gain on the swings what we loose on the roundabouts). I don't see how this concept leads to you being able to charge me for working or trading; both those actions help to alleviate problems caused by crowding.

I would argue that the requirement to buy motor insurance (since it's an example of a state-imposed charge currently being discussed) is precisely an example of everyone making equal concessions -- it's those who refuse to make the concessions that are really trampling others' rights. In the case of motor insurance this trampling takes the form of the levies on complying drivers, that go into the uninsured driver fund. Or in the absence of such a fund, it takes the form of un-redressed damages to innocent parties, caused by uninsured drivers.

[Stars]

I would argue that the requirement to buy motor insurance (since it's an example of a state-imposed charge currently being discussed) is precisely an example of everyone making equal concessions -- it's those who refuse to make the concessions that are really trampling others' rights. In the case of motor insurance this trampling takes the form of the levies on complying drivers, that go into the uninsured driver fund. Or in the absence of such a fund, it takes the form of un-redressed damages to innocent parties, caused by uninsured drivers.

I wasn't discussing insurance with you

Edited September 5, 2009 by Stars

[huw]

There are gradients of 'siezing control' and so I find your point extremely difficult to answer. If my perfect world were implemented then I could be considered as siezing control but that would not make the world a worse place by default.

The problem is that the current 'territorial groups' idea of money and law is heavily skewed in there favor. The monetary system is designed to profit the powerful as is the legal system (take Blair removing the treason laws for politicians when people attempted to press charges for the wars in Iraq). I would be proposing a system that treated everyone fairly and did not leave 25,000 a day to die of starvation in the third world, even though it means I must accept a reduction in my quality of life. It doesn't really come down to territorial control but fairness. Some people would always feel aggrieved about an event, that is unavoidable.

This thread was about Council Tax but I have never had a signed bill of exchange detailing what I am paying for, even under statute law that is illegal. The only way they can get people to pay is by the use of force, which in the end is what it comes down to. I accept that I need to pay for schools, hospitals etc. if I want to use them but if I don't want to use them then I should be allowed to take the risk. Hopefully I am educated enough to make my own decision and decide what risks are suitable. As for shared items such as road and pavements that I am almost forced to use then the situation gets more complex and I don't have a solution - payment needs to be made but I am unsure of a fair system for this. However, The government does not treat us that way, they treat us as children (I have read in law that we are considered 'imbecile children' by the judge in a court if we use a solicitor) and tell us what is best for us. They impede themselves upon my freedom by force and abuse my trust in them (where is that signed bill of exchange please Mr. Council Officer?).

I have a lot of sympathy with your position BUT I am also mindful that someone paid for me to be educated, for the hospital in which I was born, and so on. Going further back, people were rounded up by the state and sent off to shed their blood, which I believe to have been to my great benefit. The people who provided and did those things didn't have the choice of opting out; I'd find it hard to sustain the position that I should be able to, when I believe that such an opt-out would reduce the chances of current/future generations (we're already doing quite enough to harm their prospects, IMO).

I suspect that the "imbecile children" point is for the person's protection, i.e. to avoid unwarranted assumptions in court about their knowledge of the law.

When it comes down to it, a lot of people ARE like children ... take a look around

[huw]

I wasn't discussing insurance with you

Presumably your underlying point was about land tax?

edit: I was addressing:

"I don't see how this concept leads to you being able to charge me for working or trading;"

-- where working or trading involves driving, compulsory motor insurance represents such a charge. The same goes for many other state-imposed costs on working and trading.

Edited September 5, 2009 by huw