The Current Totalitarian State

[TGP]

Was it Oscar Wilde who wrote to a friend regretting that he would have written a short letter but he didn't have the time? Another intellectual lightweight I guess.

Well, I regret I can't demolish your arguments in shorter posts but like Oscar, I do not have the time.

You must think intelligence and power of argument is directly proportionate to the volume of words. Sadly, it's generally the opposite.

No, I just use as many words as I think will make my point clear. If thats too many words for you... thats your problem. I could understand your objection if I was writing multi-sides of A4 posts, but given everything I've written so far would fit on half a side of A4 it just stinks of you avoiding the arguments and using my writing style as an excuse.

Sorry, but to me it does.

Nothing I've written so far is even half the length of the article that started this thread. I don't see you berating lowyieldrentmakessense for that wordy and repetetive article.... so I can only assume you get snippy about length when you don't like the arguments.... and accept much longer and more repeatetive posts from your side.

PS I'd be happy to read half a page, it's just that you fit so little into it.

Well, if there's so little in it....... why the need to write posts about the style than deal with the point or two it includes ?

I always seem to spend as long, or longer, talking to you about why you don't want to talk as I do actually debating stuff.

Again, I can only assume you get tired of better arguments real quick and would rather attack the style than the substance, because my style is far more amenable to attack than my substance.

Yours,

TGP

[bogbrush]

I don't have sides. Your debating style is very teenage, but without the imagination of youth.

[TGP]

I don't have sides.

Fine, it was a shorthand for "people arguing the proposition that states are inherently co-ercive".

I find that, now, when I use the words I want thats too long ... and when I try to find shortcuts in order to fulfill your desires on length I get attacked for using inappropriate shortcuts. In niether case are you prepared to address the substance.

Your debating style is very teenage, but without the imagination of youth.

Fine, if thats what you think about my style, what can I do ? It is what it is.

But, again, whatever the style.... I find you can't handle (or refuse to handle) the substance.

Once more we have a thread that started with me and you arguing substance for a couple of posts...... the we had you quickly withdraw from that argument for some reason..... only to find you prepared to have a much longer discussion on style.

If you had the time, why not deal with the substance ? If you didn't, where did you get the time for a longer discussion on style ?

I'd suggest, if you want to argue style, some kind of literary board might be more in order. You'll be pleased to know I don't post there. Anytime you want to get back to the substance would be fine by me.

I just suspect you don't want to for some reason, and this discussion of style is the proof that it isn't lack of combative spirit or time.... it forces me to the conclusion you can't/refuse to handle the substance.

What would you think in my place ? If you constantly made your points to me, and found that I refused to answer them concentrating instead entirely on my opinions of your posts aesthetic merits ? For twice as long as we discussed substance ? I suspect you'd come to the same conclusion I have. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be shy of saying so too.

Yours,

TGP

[MarkG]

Easy. How many people have that as an option?

Canada only accepts 13,000 British immigrants a year, so not very many.

As I've said before, the left always shout 'IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S STATE THEN LEAVE!' then turn around and demand that the government build a wall around the country when the productive people take their advice and piss off. Plenty of them used to claim that the USSR wasn't a totalitarian slave-state either.

[erranta]

Geographic location does not justify extortion

,,,

geographic location DOES justify taxation

No it isn't.

weird how you think extracting money from people by threatening them with kidnapping and locking up in institutionalised rape rooms is somehow not extortion.

Afterall, that is what you'd do to someone squatting in your house and refusing to pay rent, right ? You'd point out it was your house.... and they're free to leave.... or they're free to stay and pay rent.... but if they stay and don't pay rent, it'll be jail for them eventually. How weird is that ? You extorting them and threatening them with rape rooms if they don;t comply ? You're freaking weird dude.

No ?

If you don't like the social contract in that area when it includes taxation.... then you have to go elsewhere, where there is a contract with no taxation or no contract at all.

No it isn't. In this geographic area there is a contract which all people within that area are expected to fulfil. In return they get the benefits of that contract. The responsibilities include taxation the benefits include, say, roads or public health.

Just as anyone in your house would be expected to pay rent (the responsibility) and in return receive the benefits (roof, walls etc). They can reject BOTH by leaving. Or accept BOTH by staying. You wouldn't allow them to stay and reap the benefit of the roof without paying for it. If they try to do so, and after you have taken all reasonable steps to settle this in a less extreme manner it'd be what you call the institutionalized rape rooms for them, although I'd prefer to call that jail.

But the person squatting in your house signed no contract with you to pay rent. He just walked in the door one day, sat there, and demanded to live rent free. When you point out to him it's rent or leave or jail. He refuses to pay rent or leave. BUT he made no agreement with you to do so. There is no written contract you can point to. Does he, therefore, have a right to live their rent free ?

Are you saying that because there was no agreement between you..... then he is entitled to sit there enjoying the walls, roof and other amenities you paid for rent free ?

No. He isn't. Despite the fact that there was no agreement for him to pay rent.... if he stays he has to pay.... and if he stays and refuses you are entitled to have goons come and take him to court (where if he is found guilty he'll go to jail/institutionalized rape rooms for trespass).

Taxation/States work off the same contract Property Rights/Your house do. In neither case must everyone in the country sign an agreement. You own your house and have the right to levy rents there even IF some people refuse to accept that as valid. The people of the UK "own" this geographic area and have the right to levy taxes there even IF some people refuse to accept that as valid.

You no more have a right to stay in that area and refuse....... then I have a right to climb in your window and live in your house without paying rent. In BOTH cases if the person refuses to leave we are entitled to start justice proceedings that may (if he's found guilty by 12 randomly chosen peers) end in men dragging him away to jail.

Because the land IS developed, even those bits of it you think are not.

British people chopped down the woods that were once over this entire island. They defend it with their blood from attack today and have done so for thousands of years. Any building materials you made your houses from would be protected by their laws and arrive through the transportation networks they built. When you needed goods not grown on your subsistence farm, they would also be protected by the same laws and arrive via the same infrastructure. Whatsmore, you are protected on that land by the police and the "institutionalized rape rooms" that are holding murderers and rapists who would otherwise be free to access that land and murder/rape you. Other humans you meet and interact with would have been educated by that country, so they could read and count well enough to do business with you. You wouldn't catch cholera from them because of the public health measures, like sewers, and you wouldn't catch other nasty diseases because they were immunized..... .and so on..... that land IS developed.

You are entirely free to go to some land that is genuinely undeveloped (and whose social contract reflects that) and build your tax free house there.... perhaps an ice floe in the arctic.... or somalia.... or places like the pakistan/afghanistani tribal areas.... even some tax havens have social contracts you might find more agreeable. If you want to live tax free, go there.

Build it HERE .... on the island the british people own in commonwealth, and have developed and protected, and who continue to do so.... and you have to pay the "rent" that our social contract specifies for that. Thats known as "taxes".

Yours,

TGP

Old values "LAW of the LAND"

1. Protection from laws that plunder life, liberty, and property, both individual and collective.

UK GOVT Partially DENIED

2. The right to security in your home, family, and papers.

UK GOVT = DENIED

(Immigants/Tramps can now set up home in your garden!)

3. The right of free speech, and free expression.

UK GOVT = DENIED

( Any meeting larger than a small group will be broken up and people forced to move on. Photographers banned from taking photos in public places = example denial of free expression!

4. The right to be free from unreasonable searches.

UK GOVT = DENIED

Stop & Search etc multi excuses used!

5. The safety net of judicial warrant requirements, and habeas corpus.(historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action)

UK GOVT = DENIED

Raves etc just a group of people having a laugh together!

6. The right of free assembly, and association.

UK GOVT = DENIED

No marches/Large Gatherings without State permission. Try having a rave in a few fields miles from anywhere > State forces move you on/smash up your vehicles etc

7. The right to a trial by a jury of your peers in a system of due process.

UK GOVT = DENIED

(you can be thrown in prison on a mere whim by various authorities)

8. Reasonable bail and recourse for false arrest, and the right to redress grievances.

UK GOVT = DENIED

You can be held in jail for 40 days without evidence or a trial by your peers against you which can be 'renewed' indefinately

9. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

UK GOVT = DENIED

(False arrests+Punishment+Torture in Guantanamo Prison of British citizens who attended a wedding, in spite of UK Authorities knowing victims were innocent, they did nothing!)

10. The right to own private property over the right of the ‘government’ to ‘steal’ it.

UK GOVT = ?

Damning of our ruling Elitists isn't it - the real 'rapists' of the UK people and it's land!

Write your own stuff in the spaces I left

[TGP]

Canada only accepts 13,000 British immigrants a year, so not very many.

But there are plenty of countries with no immigration controls, why not go there ?

Places like India will accept any that arrive. So would most african countries.

Of course, you might not like their social contracts.... and their lack of development.... but, hey, you get what you pay for, right ?

As I've said before, the left always shout 'IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S STATE THEN LEAVE!' then turn around and demand that the government build a wall around the country when the productive people take their advice and piss off. Plenty of them used to claim that the USSR wasn't a totalitarian slave-state either.

But I'm not claiming the USSR wasn;t a totalitarian slave state and never have.... nor am I neccessarily of what you'd call "the left" (depending on how you define that).... nor am I, nor anyone "of the left", advocating raising any walls in the UK today or in the future.

Indeed, in recent times it's been the UK left that has advocated removing such walls, at least within the EU.

You can thank us for the fact that there are now no walls preventing you from working anywhere in europe.

By all means, if you find a social contract you'd prefer go and live under it.

What I'm objecting to here (among the bloody stupid throwing around of terms like "totalitarian state") is the insistence of certain "anti-state" posters that they should be able to BOTH reap the benefits of the UK's social contract AND not shoulder the responsibilities incurred under it.

It's not as if mechanisms aren;t freely available to change it.... or anyone is preventing you from trading it in for an alternative.... Why the insistence of that it's current existence is unacceptable in some form, that "taxation with representation, and freedoms of person, movement, free association, thought and organization" equates to totalitarianism ?

Yours,

TGP

[Guest Noodle]

But there are plenty of countries with no immigration controls, why not go there ?

Places like India will accept any that arrive. So would most african countries.

Of course, you might not like their social contracts.... and their lack of development.... but, hey, you get what you pay for, right ?

But I'm not claiming the USSR wasn;t a totalitarian slave state and never have.... nor am I neccessarily of what you'd call "the left" (depending on how you define that).... nor am I, nor anyone "of the left", advocating raising any walls in the UK today or in the future.

Indeed, in recent times it's been the UK left that has advocated removing such walls, at least within the EU.

You can thank us for the fact that there are now no walls preventing you from working anywhere in europe.

By all means, if you find a social contract you'd prefer go and live under it.

What I'm objecting to here (among the bloody stupid throwing around of terms like "totalitarian state") is the insistence of certain "anti-state" posters that they should be able to BOTH reap the benefits of the UK's social contract AND not shoulder the responsibilities incurred under it.

It's not as if mechanisms aren;t freely available to change it.... or anyone is preventing you from trading it in for an alternative.... Why the insistence of that it's current existence is unacceptable in some form, that "taxation with representation, and freedoms of person, movement, free association, thought and organization" equates to totalitarianism ?

Yours,

TGP

What social contract?

The one where I had to bailout my contracts manager when he got laid off and after 25 years of paying tax he was told to piss off by the DSS. He had a kid and missus and a mortgage.

I ended up shelling out 6 grand to move him to Aus.

Or me, now I'm sick after a decade and a half of living in toxic shit pulling 14 hour days . . . entitled to nothing so I take care of myself and family in the 3rd fvcking world.

What social contract?

Oh yeah . . . that fvckin' social contract.

I can add numerous others to this list. All shafted by your 'social contract'.

Or the social contract where everything else is either privatised or bailed out. That social contract?

Or the illegal bogus wars? That social contract?

List . . . . on and on and on . . .

[MarkG]

But there are plenty of countries with no immigration controls, why not go there ?

You were the one who brought up Canada, I believe.

Edit: sorry, I was wrong, I just noticed that someone else made the post.

Places like India will accept any that arrive. So would most african countries.

No they won't.

If you're going to bring up the lame old lefty 'if you don't like it then ****** off!' crap, then at least learn something about immigration laws first. Britain is one of the very few countries in the world which lets anyone turn up and stay, which is one of the reasons why most Britons have little choice but to stay there.

Edited May 2, 2010 by MarkG

[TGP]

What social contract?

The one where I had to bailout my contracts manager when he got laid off and after 25 years of paying tax he was told to piss off by the DSS. He had a kid and missus and a mortgage.

I ended up shelling out 6 grand to move him to Aus.

Or me, now I'm sick after a decade and a half of living in toxic shit pulling 14 hour days . . . entitled to nothing so I take care of myself and family in the 3rd fvcking world.

What social contract?

Oh yeah . . . that fvckin' social contract.

I can add numerous others to this list. All shafted by your 'social contract'.

Or the social contract where everything else is either privatised or bailed out. That social contract?

Or the illegal bogus wars? That social contract?

List . . . . on and on and on . . .

Well, you're misunderstanding the term "social contract" with "social security" and other things.

The social contract that says........ you can use the roads, but you pay taxes..... that says you can't murder people, and if people murder you we will try to find the criminal..... and so on. A Rousseau-ian social contract that may or may not include social security and DSS and things like that.

If you friends was told to p*ss off by the DSS..... it is because (whatever you thought the contract was) he didn't qualify for what you/he thought he did under that contract.

I'm sorry your friend didn't get benefits he thought he should. All I am concerned with is that he got what the law said he should. If he did, there is no conflict. Everyone kept the contract. It was only breached if he didn't.... and I'd advise him to seek legal recourse if that was the case.

Incidentally, your choice to reject that contract and go to Thailand was your choice. You now live under their contract, and have the rights and responsibilities it defines (although you can return here and re-adopt ours at any point). In moving to thailand you gave up any claims to the benefits of our contract, and it's responsibilities.

I am not talking here of anything you might think of as social security..... this is the broader contract everyone participates in. By living in Thailand you agree to follow their laws, and their govt. also agrees to follow them, that is the social contract. That agreement. You pay thai taxes as the law says. You obey thai law as the law says. The thai govt. obeys the law too. They provide any benefits the law stipulates. That is the social contract.

No they won't.

If you're going to bring up the lame old lefty 'if you don't like it then ****** off!' crap, then at least learn something about immigration laws first. Britain is one of the very few countries in the world which lets anyone turn up and stay, which is one of the reasons why most Britons have little choice but to stay there.

OK........ First....... the Uk is not responsible for other countries social contracts and immigration laws. We are only responsible for our own. Our own state you may leave at any time should you wish. Whether anyone else wants to have you is between their state/social contract and you as a "sovereign individual". I originally said you can leave any time...... we cannot guarantee anyone else wants to take you (in principle) although we do (in practice).

Second...... despite this not being our responsibility the UK HAS agreed "no rules" immigration agreements between the Uk and a number of other countries allowing you to be guaranteed the right to work and stay indefinitely. Principally the EU. Youc an enter and work within any EU country as long as you like.

Third.......... the countries I specified WILL let you immigrate, as will many others........ again something our govt. has agreed as a benefit to UK citizens. HOWEVER, whether you can work or not is between you and their social contract. You have to obey any rules THEY want to impose about whether you work or not..... or over how long you can stay..... although many will allow you to do both.

I said you could immigrate there, as you can....... I did not say how long you could stay or whether you could work, thats up to them and their social contracts...... although our govt, as a service, has made agreements that you can do so in a number of countries including the EU..... and in many countries like India and many african countries their contracts are so lax as to allow you to do so fairly easily.

Yours,

TGP

[stormymonday_2011]

They are.

Had a chat with a US friend today. He's 50, now based in South Korea. Works in a fairly right-wing industry.

He won't return to the US. Reckons 'there's no hope', 'it's an unfair system bought and paid for', 'freedom is myth', 'we Americans are conditioned to live in fear' . . . ponzi stuff, bent politician stuff, bent baks, health care stuff about living in fear of the insurers, etc.

So how is this different to amy other era in US history going back to Tammany Hall.

Unfair systems and totalitarian systems are not the same thing.

Stalin's Russia was totalitarian but was extremely fair since both the masses and members of the politbureau were at equal risk of being sent to the Gulag or being shot.

Indeed, the evidence suggests that insiders such as members of the Communist Party were more likely to be liquidated in the regimes purges than non members who were more likely to be sent to the camps as slave labour.

Edited May 2, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits

[Guest Noodle]

Well, you're misunderstanding the term "social contract" with "social security" and other things.

The social contract that says........ you can use the roads, but you pay taxes..... that says you can't murder people, and if people murder you we will try to find the criminal..... and so on. A Rousseau-ian social contract that may or may not include social security and DSS and things like that.

If you friends was told to p*ss off by the DSS..... it is because (whatever you thought the contract was) he didn't qualify for what you/he thought he did under that contract.

I'm sorry your friend didn't get benefits he thought he should. All I am concerned with is that he got what the law said he should. If he did, there is no conflict. Everyone kept the contract. It was only breached if he didn't.... and I'd advise him to seek legal recourse if that was the case.

Incidentally, your choice to reject that contract and go to Thailand was your choice. You now live under their contract, and have the rights and responsibilities it defines (although you can return here and re-adopt ours at any point). In moving to thailand you gave up any claims to the benefits of our contract, and it's responsibilities.

I am not talking here of anything you might think of as social security..... this is the broader contract everyone participates in. By living in Thailand you agree to follow their laws, and their govt. also agrees to follow them, that is the social contract. That agreement. You pay thai taxes as the law says. You obey thai law as the law says. The thai govt. obeys the law too. They provide any benefits the law stipulates. That is the social contract.

OK........ First....... the Uk is not responsible for other countries social contracts and immigration laws. We are only responsible for our own. Our own state you may leave at any time should you wish. Whether anyone else wants to have you is between their state/social contract and you as a "sovereign individual". I originally said you can leave any time...... we cannot guarantee anyone else wants to take you (in principle) although we do (in practice).

Second...... despite this not being our responsibility the UK HAS agreed "no rules" immigration agreements between the Uk and a number of other countries allowing you to be guaranteed the right to work and stay indefinitely. Principally the EU. Youc an enter and work within any EU country as long as you like.

Third.......... the countries I specified WILL let you immigrate, as will many others........ again something our govt. has agreed as a benefit to UK citizens. HOWEVER, whether you can work or not is between you and their social contract. You have to obey any rules THEY want to impose about whether you work or not..... or over how long you can stay..... although many will allow you to do both.

I said you could immigrate there, as you can....... I did not say how long you could stay or whether you could work, thats up to them and their social contracts...... although our govt, as a service, has made agreements that you can do so in a number of countries including the EU..... and in many countries like India and many african countries their contracts are so lax as to allow you to do so fairly easily.

Yours,

TGP

You're not sorry at all. You couldn't give a flying one, mush.

Ten years ago I'd have agreed with you. Not anymore. I don't believe you.

Tory's managed to privatise the water and Labour managed to nationalise the banks.

Some sad state of affairs.

It's gone too far, all in the wrong direction. Been going that way for some time, sure. But now it's coming to an end and hopefully real social justice will happen.

I'm tired of the bullsh1t and I'm sick of paying for it.

Find another mug.

Oh, I wasn't entitled because I was self-employed by thw way, but paid the same as the rest of you,

Yours,

Mug

Edited May 2, 2010 by Noodle

[Guest Noodle]

. . . and add to that I moved here 1. because I could afford to house our kid and 2. because UK immigration wouldn't grant a visa.

I'm fvcked with you lot.

Bunch of bast@rds.

Stick your social contract up your @rse.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

That's not a totalitarian state - now's that a totalitarian state.

[Guest Noodle]

That's not a totalitarian state - now's that a totalitarian state.

I'm guessing it's Crocodile Dundee my dear. I can't see the image.

Anyway, how are you? How's Aus? Long time no see.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

I'm guessing it's Crocodile Dundee my dear. I can't see the image.

Anyway, how are you? How's Aus? Long time no see.

Boring me senseless.

A fully functioning society is so uninspiring.

[Guest Noodle]

Boring me senseless.

A fully functioning society is so uninspiring.

LOL!

You're welcome over here anytime Al.

Plenty of chaos to keep you amused.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

LOL!

You're welcome over here anytime Al.

Plenty of chaos to keep you amused.

I might pop through on my way back to blighty - when I return to start my life in a proper country with real Technicolor.

[Guest Noodle]

I might pop through on my way back to blighty - when I return to start my life in a proper country with real Technicolor.

'liveinhope' is coming up in a couple of weeks too.

So you're leaving Aus?

[Alan B'Stard MP]

'liveinhope' is coming up in a couple of weeks too.

So you're leaving Aus?

Yes. It's a nice place but I wouldn't want to take it home to meet mum.

[Guest Noodle]

Yes. It's a nice place but I wouldn't want to take it home to meet mum.

Home sickness Al, it's all it is.

Go somewhere nice like . . . like Ilfracombe. Lovely spots along there.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Home sickness Al, it's all it is.

Go somewhere nice like . . . like Ilfracombe. Lovely spots along there.

Absolutely. Home is where the heart is.

[Guest Noodle]

Absolutely. Home is where the heart is.

Too true Al.

A nice Cornish pasty. Real one. Not that Ginster's sh1t.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Too true Al.

A nice Cornish pasty. Real one. Not that Ginster's sh1t.

Man walks into a bar dressed as a cornish pasty.

"Pint of beer and a packet of crisps" says the man.

Barman replies - "Sorry, but we don't serve food in here. Youll have to go somewhere else."

Sorry - my only cornish pasty joke - modified from a curry joke as it happens. Very versatile - equally unhumorous

Edited May 2, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[Guest Noodle]

Man walks into a bar dressed as a cornish pasty.

"Pint of beer and a packet of crisps" says the man.

Barman replies - "Sorry, but we don't serve food in here. Youll have to go somewhere else."

Sorry - my only cornish pasty joke - modified from a curry joke as it happens. Very versatile - equally unhumorous

It's actually funny.

Nice.

[kudukid]

And wheres the bit in the sig which says "If you don't like the taxes/services taxes pay for you can go and live somewhere that doesn't tax you, taking all your wealth, and not a souil will stop you" ?

Where is this Mythical place?