Sunday, September 21, 2008

I told you so – but I wasn't the first

Roger Thornhill has posted a speech by Ronald Reagan...
... talking about Socialized Medicine in 1961 and how it bootstraps all manner of Socialist thinking and controls into our everyday life. Witness how this happens now with the "cost to the NHS" being used as a cudgel to beat people up over smoking, drinking, diet and exercise, while forgetting that those people are now denied the option over the NHS. They MUST pay for it, so they MUST use it, so they are no longer a customer but a COST. Therefore, to reduce costs they MUST OBEY the State in all manner of ways.

This is a theme that I expounded upon when I talked about all taxpayers being in hock to the state.
The state is the provider of a service: the National Health Service in this case. Because the state provides and "pays" (through taxes, of course) for this service, it has the power to dictate to the population.

Obesity costs money over and above a "normal" person's treatment. Even if the obese person has private medical insurance, they cannot opt out of the NHS because they are forced to contribute to the NHS through their NICs. And, in fact, because of various laws—an ambulance can only take you to a state A&E, all GPs are employed by the state—no one can opt out of the state-provided system entirely.

In this way, everyone is in debt to the state. And as long as everyone is in debt to the state, the state, fundamentally, has the right to tell the population how to behave. And this debt can never actually be discharged: you are in debt to—and thus subject to the whim of—the state from the moment that you are born until the moment that you die.

And, remember, there is no actual contract to sign (or not sign) so the government can—and does—keep on shifting the terms of this agreement as and when it likes.
...

As such, no one in this country owns their own body; no one in this country owns their own life. Everyone is effectively in hock to the state because you can never, ever opt out of state provision.

Of course, much of the power that the state has over you could be countered were you able to show that you are, in fact, a net contributor to these services. If you could point to your contibutions "pot" and say, "look! I have credit in my pot and you cannot tell me what to do because I am not using or abusing these services."

The trouble is there is no "pot": as I have pointed out before, National Insurance is a Ponzi Scheme.
Does this sound at all familiar?
Ponzi was bringing in cash at a fantastic rate, but the simplest financial analysis would have shown that the operation was running at a large loss. As long as money kept flowing in, existing investors could be paid with the new money, but colossal liabilities were accumulating.

As with NI, the money was not actually invested: it was simply used as income and the liabilities were paid out of that income. The Ponzi scheme was a massive fraud, and so is NI. As with tax—or, as I prefer to call it, extortion with menaces—if it wasn't the state doing it, the whole scheme would be illegal.

As with the health service and NI in general, as it is with any other tax: whilst we are forced to pay tax in return for services, the providers of said services can dictate how they are delivered—especially, and I cannot stress this enough, because we have never been shown or allowed to sign a proper, binding contract.

This is why—along with the destruction of our ancient legal constitution—local councils are able to change the rules of rubbish collecting; it is why they are able to fine people for dropped cigarette butts (with no evidence) and why they are always, constantly, able to harry us and bully us.

Were there a plurality of providers, we could at least shop around. Even were said providers just as bad at actually delivering the services as the state is, at least we would not be sent to prison for refusing to pay for services that we did not engage or ask for.

The tax system makes slaves of us all: we have no option but to pay the tax, and thus we are serfs to our lords and masters. Because they have the law to back up their means of collection, and thus we must pay said taxes whether we wish to use the services provided or not, our lords and masters force other providers out of the market—both through monopoly laws and through ensuring that no one has the money left over to pay competing providers anyway.

I can only agree with Roger when he says...
Wicked is too mild a word for Socialism.

The state is really not your friend: it is the one, unassailable monopoly of the modern world and it must be destroyed or it will, most assuredly, make slaves of us all.

To the extent that it has not already done so, anyway.

4 comments:

whoops said...

amen.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Agreed.

It is evil to make people pay for stuff through income tax (and other even more evil taxes on the productive economy like VAT) and then make them pay again if they want to use the services they have paid for.

I would humbly submit, that it is just as evil to make tenants (like thee and me) pay for the COSTS of running the country via income tax etc, and then make us pay again for the VALUE that this generates (and compared to Zimbabwe, this country is pretty well run, to be fair) because our landladies can charge us a market rent for access to whatever it is that we have paid for out of income tax etc.

Why don't they charge taxes based on the VALUE of what you get from the State, which in the case of landladies, is the difference between the rent we pay for the bricks and mortar (which truly belongs to them, fair play) and the rent we pay for the right to live where we would like to live because it is handy for work, or close to the Tube station, or near the kids' school or whatever (rather than on a remote Scottish island, for example)?

Oops ... sounds like Land Value Tax ...

Dick Puddlecote said...

Pure quality DK

xelent said...

A great synopsis of taxation DK...

You very clearly and eruditely defined the ‘gulag’ for us all, that is taxation..

However, I would add to this the taxation we pay on services other than VAT.. For instance, we pay the companies tax they must pay, we then also pay for his employees tax as well.. And of course the ubiquitous import duties to boot..

Someone pointed out to me once, that the probable actual cost of say a car that is valued at £20,000 is more likely to be worth £10,000 in real terms, if we removed all taxation completely.. Quite staggering from that perspective I think..

I don’t think it can be assessed entirely accurately the negative impact that taxation has on production.. But it clearly is a lot.. Particularly when you consider the less productive in society have a net gain on taxation resources compared to those that pay more, for whom gain significantly less access to those same resources...

We truly are slaves living in a cotton candy gulag, serving our masters quite well…