Isn\’t this just lovely from Ritchie?

According to the Guardian Putin intended this as “a bloody nose” to France. If so he’s failed. All he’s done is confirm he’s willing to debase the sovereignty of his own country by doing grubby deals in the tax haven market where nothing is of value bar the right of the individual to abuse the state of which they are a natural part.

It\’s this bit:

the right of the individual to abuse the state of which they are a natural part.

You, the individual, you don\’t get to choose which State you\’d like to be a part of. Oh no.

You\’re a \”natural part\” of a State. A State (no doubt a Courageous One) which has the absolute right to pluck you as it wishes. Because, you know, we\’re not going to allow any of this individual choice stuff, oh no. No exit allowed from Our State.

We are, truly, slaves to the State.

77 comments on “Isn\’t this just lovely from Ritchie?

  1. does this mean that he’s suggesting forced financial or fiscal repatriation of the diverse immigrant communities in the UK? After all, they have betrayed their countries of origin by shamefully emigrating to the UK.

  2. No exit allowed from Our State.

    Ironic that he’s berating a Russian over this. Why do I get the impression that our Ritchie would have been a fan of the USSR?

  3. Ritchie doesn’t see the irony in this despite having both UK and Irish passports and choosing the same for his sons.

  4. Its a measure of the stupidity of the man that he can use this sentence:

    …..the right of the individual to abuse the state of which they are a natural part…..

    In an article where Russia features prominently.

    In the courageous state that is Mr Putin’s Russia, abuse of the state is rewarded with radioactive sushi

  5. No. You’re wrong.

    Most ‘ordinary’ folk would not be able to go around changing their nationality willy-nilly. It’s absurd to think you can pick and choose which ‘state’ you belong to.

    Sure, live somewhere else, that’s different.

  6. “Most ‘ordinary’ folk would not be able to go around changing their nationality willy-nilly. It’s absurd to think you can pick and choose which ‘state’ you belong to.”

    Rubbish. It’s called naturalisation.

  7. A @ 2:20 pm

    “It’s absurd to think you can pick and choose which ‘state’ you belong to.”

    So everybody is owned by a state. In it’s mildest form, that’s called servitude.

  8. So now Depardieu is claiming asylum? Or has been in Russia long enough to be naturalised?

    You lot are an embarrassment

  9. “You lot are an embarrassment”.

    Why?

    Most of the comments above – for example that relate to basic personal freedoms, free choices, an inherent distrust of state authoritarianism – make perfect sense to me, and would I suspect to pretty much most sane decent human beings I know.

  10. “Please let him piss off Putin. Please.”

    First time I read this, I thought you meant “please let him piss off out of France.”

    The second time I read it, it was “Please piss off Putin.”

    After consideration, I’m OK with both interpretations.

  11. PW
    But Worstall is grasping at straws and is wrong.

    One may or may not believe that people should be able to choose to be stateless, but that in itself is not ‘freedom of choice’.

    Therefore the correct stance is that we do belong to a state and so should follow suit.

    All the times the idiots on here bleat on about ‘englishness’ and ‘immigration’….

  12. Another example of leftist thinking, the separation of a collection of people into an independent entity.

    States are people.

    If individuals are abusing “the State”, then they are abusing other people, something which is clearly not the case.

  13. Therefore the correct stance is that we do belong to a state and so should follow suit.

    “Correct stance”, you pathetic weasel? At the very most complimentary I can bring myself to be, you are egregiously confusing membership with ownership.

  14. @Arnald: (sigh)

    Look, this whole “what nationality are you” is all a bit 19th century don’t you think? I’m assuming that both you (Guernsey) and I (Manx) both have a “British Islands: Guernsey” / “British Islands: Isle of Man” passport?

    Okay, that whole concept is outdated, part imperial, part “ownership of the crown” all complete bollocks.

    If the UK was taken over by aliens for the planet Zog, would you accept your Zog overlords or declare independence for Guernsey and fight on?

    I know which I would do…

    As they say in Manx “Ta my haagh crowal lane dy astan”

  15. “Arnald

    Therefore the correct stance is that we do belong to a state and so should follow suit.”

    I have both New Zealand and UK passports and live in Asia. What state do I belong too?

  16. @David Moore:

    Agreed. I have both Irish and Manx passports and my main home is in Penang, Malaysia (although I tend to work in Switzerland).

    For myself I subscribe to the late William Rees-Mogg’s viewpoint that we were all “Sovereign Individuals”.

    I use my passports to get me through the checkpoints of various states, but it neither defines who I am or what I stand for.

    This whole idea of nation states is just a hangover from the time of princes and kings and the sooner we abandon it for something more intelligent the better.

    For myself, I suspect that the future will be defined by successful city states like Singapore and Hong Kong.

    Neo-Seoul* awaits….

    *Cloud Atlas

  17. Moore
    Some people are able to choose dual nationality, I was, but I didn’t want to do national service, so I didn’t. But unless you have another passport, most people cannot just ‘give up’ being ‘a nationality’.

    Weevil, no I’m not. You can belong to a membership. You are not owned by the state. Exile is different to naturalisation, which can not be a given.

    I agree it all seems old-fashioned, but if everyone was stateless, and so no states existed, it would require a hell of a lot of co-operation to make things work.

    I like that idea, but to say there is anything other than nationality is peculiar, so defending Depardieu as some sort of hero for not wanting to be French is utterly juvenile.

  18. @Arnald: (sigh)

    Okay, come from another perspective then. As a statist, I’m assuming you accept or at least acknowledge Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s perspective of “the social contract”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract

    Since this is what most leftists attempt to force upon the rest of us, you should also acknowledge the right of the individual to exit from “the social contract” of his original state by going elsewhere, somewhere that will accept him and give him either residence or citizenship?

    Well Depardieu has done exactly that. He has said that he is no longer prepared to put up with the “Social Contract” of France which demands that he gives up the vast majority of his income to the state and has decided to go to Belgium (as empowered by European law) and live there as a permanent resident.

    So what is your fucking beef?

  19. Arnold:

    “..but to say there is anything other than nationality is peculiar,”

    I am not sure why? A passport is initially from birth. After that, as individuals, we all have choices to make through our lives; and that includes residency, where and how we commit our energies and efforts, etc? I have lived in other countries, now in the UK again, and I see myself as a British national. But if I don’t live in the UK at all, I certainly would not feel obliged to pay huge fees (tax) for helping it fund services to those who currently do live there.

    Re the passport, all countries tend to charge a small fee for use of the internationally recognised “pass” (aka passport) to help us (or not) across various other borders etc.

  20. @Arnald ‘I didn’t want to do national service’

    You didn’t want to serve the state that you belonged to? I’d have you horsewhipped, if it were not so obvious that you are a mental incompetent.

  21. but I didn’t want to do national service, so I didn’t.

    And isn’t it great that you had the choice.

    But you do realise that national service is just the state taxing your time rather than your money? So you are proud to be a tax evader (in your terms).

    You evaded this tax, on a legal technicality, by refusing to take up the other, or dual, nationality. Lady Green, who has never been a British citizen, choses to be domiciled in Monaco rather than the UK. But you’ll endlessly condemn her choices …

    Hubris and a pathetic lack of self-awareness.

  22. For a change I managed to get past the Filters on This post over at Tax Research Uk, and suggested to him that on this criteria, the North Koreans effectively imprisoning their populace was in his eyes perfectly acceptable. I can only assume his myopia has stopped his eagle eyes from deleting any mention of a Communist state.

    The comments below the original post, are, even by his standards, absolutely extraordinary. Nice to see Arnald back to chime in with his tuppence worth of justification as well. Your argument appears to be that:

    A:/ You cannot renounce your citizenship from a state, even if you are no longer resident in its geographical jurisdiction. Thus I am assuming the Inland Revenue is likely to start claiming back from every refugee or economic migrant living in the UK the relevant back taxes due to the treasuries of every state in Sub Saharan Africa and South East Asia?

    B:/ That Murphy’s increasingly unhinged output has any connection with reality – in truth, his level of (and by extension your) historical ignorance is so overwhelming that I can only presume for all his self -lauded expertise in the fields of economics and tax, he has no historical knowledge beyond the 35 years or so since he attained adulthood. This, or rank stupidity is the only explanation that accounts for his complete failure to understand anything of Communist economic history. He’ll be advocating building walls to prevent the population escaping soon, no doubt without irony.

  23. I’ve just had a look at his comments (below his article) as well.

    I do find this level of authoritarianism quite remarkable, even by his standards – and particularly when he has previously claimed to be libertarian!?

    I also find it quite worrying when someone with these kind of extremist views is deemed to be “influential” in any way?

  24. So Richie does not like self abuse?

    Arnald, you do not get to tell others what to do sweetie. Piss off.

  25. You’ve all got this completely arse over tit, as usual.

    No one is saying that anyone can renounce or do whatever with their lives. No one has said anything totalitarian. You’re just looking for an angle to vent your tired spluttering disgust at anything you are to stupid to understand.

    Galt
    Who gives a fuck what an individual does, that’s their business. But to dress up someone handing in his cards, and joining another jurisdiction’s ‘envelope’ as some sort of “anti-statist” statement of pure individual freedom is fucking rubbish. It’s petty and inconsequential. Oh and Galt, it’s not Belgium that this article ia about, but Putin saying he can have Russian citizenship – based on the fact he acted as Rasputin once.

    The argument is that if everyone could be “that free and wonderful” then all manner of shit would happen. That’s why you’re all so stupid.

    The rest of the shit here isn’t worth responding to, it all sounds like petty self justification for having insane opinions.

    Subshite Bieber

    You haven’t got the faintest idea, have you? Conscientious objectors were executed, yeah? You twat.

    Oh and Andy, so other people here do get to tell others what to do? Have you read this fucking mire of a blog?

    It’s so up its in own arse but without a single merit for being there.

  26. MellorSJ (#33)

    That’s a valid link most certainly – the point I was making is that neither Arnald nor his leashholder @RichardJMurphy would appear to care less. A number of things I can discern from the man’s output, and that of the equally odious TJN.

    1/ High tax is the Only valid way in which to run a Society – Anything other than this is a cowardly abrogation of the state’s responsibility- (Hence the term ‘Courageous State’)

    2/ Any state indulging in ‘harmful tax competition’ is ‘undermining’ democracy in other Courageous States and as such is actually a ‘Secrecy jurisdiction’ and the full weight of a nebulous ‘International Law’ needs to be brought to bear on it.

    Try arguing that you want to ‘renounce’ your citizenship of said state, you will effectively have to refund all the money that the state has shelled out for you in terms of infrastructure, and even leaving its jurisdication will not assist you as all the other states will be of a ‘Courageous’ Type as well.

    The similarity with Soviet writing of the 1950s and 1960s is really quite stark – Despite Arnald’s increasingly ludicrous protestations that :

    ‘It isn’t Communism’

    ‘If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a Duck…’

  27. So … if one is, due to birth, inherently, naturally and unchangeably attached to a state … isn’t that raw nationalism?

    It’s inarguably hostile to immigration, certainly. These immigrants will have to have rejected the state of which they were “a natural part”, after all.

  28. Hmm.

    Who is “Subshite Bieber”? I’d normally expect, with the fucking cretin’s usual standard of miserably failing to adhere to the principles he demands we do that that would be me.

    I can’t find anybody else this might be.

    So where the flying fuck does

    Conscientious objectors were executed, yeah?

    come from?

    Honest answer – no – mostly they were imprisoned or given shit jobs. If you are talking about the “Great War”. And, frankly, if you’ve pratical experience of avoiding conscription in 1914-18 wtff are you doing here pretending to be a spliffed-up Trotskyite moron?

  29. Arnald
    How old are you?
    My first girlfriend’s eldest brother did National service but I was too young.

  30. Patten said this “High tax is the Only valid way in which to run a Society”

    You ignorant shit. I hope there’s a hanging soon.

    1) Nowhere, not one single utterance, has there ever been an indication that justifies this imbecility. Fuck off and do some research.

    2) Really, what do you know about ‘tax competition’ and how it affects global capital movement, and its causal effects. You blinkered and despicable blow hard. What the fuck do you know about secrecy jurisdictions? You’ve never even bothered to understand. that makes you an ignorant tosser.

    Do some research, understand what you are trying to say. Stop bleating your refrain. you are absolutely wrong.

    Subhuman Shit and the other wanks here

    No one has said anything about not being able to choose. You see the man before the discussion and spout bollocks like children.

    john77

    As I said, you choose, if you are lucky enough, or have put in the hard yards – or by law, where you commit your ‘self’ within a ‘society’.

    Plenty of places do Nat. Serv., take dual nationality then you live by both, in that respect.

    I don’t have to be old.

    Truth be told, I’m probably more internationalist than most of you petty barrel-scrapers. Your worship of anthing *other* than the current shitstorm makes you all an intellectual irrelevance.

  31. Arnald’s in fine form today isn’t he?

    Obviously had a transfusion from Obnoxio the Clown’s bile duct, shame some of the personality and clarity of thought didn’t come across as well.

    So who ARE you draft dodging from then Arnald, ‘cos I’m fucked if I can figure it out…

    Your not Swiss are you? That would be a fucking laugh…

  32. Arnald
    Since you have chosen not to answer my simple question I think you are a liar.
    Incidentally, I should have done National Service if required.

  33. Arnald

    Initially – You make the perfectly valid point quite frequently that the blog Author himself here sets the tone, so the swearing and suchlike isn’t a real problem- it illustrates the poverty of your argument but that’s by the by.

    I’m struggling to understand your objection. You say that my comment is :

    ’1) Nowhere, not one single utterance, has there ever been an indication that justifies this imbecility. Fuck off and do some research’

    So, you’re saying that isn’t your, and by extension, Murphy’s contention? – you believe in low taxation, or that countries like, say, Monaco, the BVI or the Channel Islands have their tax rates set at fair levels – Please clarify?

    ’2) Really, what do you know about ‘tax competition’ and how it affects global capital movement, and its causal effects. You blinkered and despicable blow hard. What the fuck do you know about secrecy jurisdictions? You’ve never even bothered to understand. that makes you an ignorant tosser’

    I’m questioning what you know. There’s no evidence beyond a casual insult. I’m surmising it’s based on Murphy’s work and on what the Tax Justice Network are spouting. If that is the case (and feel free to actually indulge in a civilized debate at some point) then it’s little wonder that you’re getting flamed here on the rare occasions you trouble to show yourself. From what I can discern from their output, this is an ‘independent’ coalition of organizations with a vested interest in keeping taxes at high levels. This can be seen by the apparent belief that countries like Denmark and South Korea are ‘Secrecy jurisdictions’. Men in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, as the old adage says, and yours is more Swarovski Crystal rather than reinforced Plate, I think you’ll find.

  34. Arnald,

    Want to answer the point raised at #40? Probably not but, let’s be honest, on the vague chance you actually have a conscience rather than relying on the CiF approval rating of any idea you might have, when and where do you (that is Arnald, not some socialist collective or distant memory – and remember it was the left that executed those who refused to fight back in the Spanish Civil War) think you (same Arnald – citizen of Guernsey and non-holder of some other, almost certainly cheese-eating-surrender-monkey passport) might have been executed for being a ‘conscientious objector’?

  35. Arnald you are an idiot.
    You think you get to tell others what to do, to tell us what tax to pay so I presume some arse like you can spend it. Sorry sweetie that is not how it works, none of us are slaves to the state.

    I suspect you are a halfwit, unable to coherently put together an argument but confined of your own ability, the very model of a lefty thicko. Run along now, your village is ringing the idiot bell.

  36. Well if Arnald starts making wild assertions like being persecuted by some unnamed government for evading his national service obligations, then fails to follow-up with fact, evidence or reasoned argument then we can only conclude the following:

    A. He’s actually Ritchie posting here in disguise.

    B. He’s just a lying, annoying little troll.

    C. With a name like Arnald he’s a Swiss French draft dodger.

    Me? I’m guessing C, but also probably B as well.

  37. He could (unlikely, though) be Turkish. They’re quite well known for draconian enforcement of their national service obligations. But then they disregard any refusal of Turkish citizenship …

  38. @VP: “Try arguing that you want to ‘renounce’ your citizenship of said state, you will effectively have to refund all the money that the state has shelled out for you in terms of infrastructure,”

    It’s pretty close to that now. I heard some R4 person the other day telling us plebs that ‘we’ had the right to tell someone to stp eating because their health costs are a burden to “us” all.

    And then there’s http://www.isla-offshore.com/second-passport/usa-expats-exit-tax/

    “and even leaving its jurisdication will not assist you as all the other states will be of a ‘Courageous’ Type as well.”

    That too. All the more reason for as much “tax competition” as we can muster.

  39. @SJMellor

    It’s odd that Murphy has such a downer on the US as a Secrecy jurisdiction when, really they have
    Led the way in the pursuit of people across the Globe who merely feel that the wealth they create might be better spent by themselves rather than the bloated bureaucracies currently finding new ways to waste , and extort money from the citizenry on both sides of the Atlantic.

    The desire for A Global State is implicit in practically everything I see from Murphy. As PW says (#32) that anyone with such beliefs could have influence tells us much about the state the nation is in after the 13 year regime of the worst government in UK history.

    Oh, and Arnald, You seemed to have more important matters to attend to and your absence made the blog all the more pleasant to read – any chance you could go back to attending to you business more urgent, please? There’s a good chap.

  40. “It’s odd that Murphy has such a downer on the US as [snip] they have led the way in the pursuit of people across the Globe who merely feel that the wealth they create might be better spent by themselves”

    By removing Murphy’s bizarre abstraction (Secrecy state, indeed!), it is no longer odd.

    It’s _because_ the US generally believes (in theory) that you should keep your own money that Murphy is down on it. His own abstraction just gets in the way …

    Surprised? Not.

  41. Tim:

    “We are, truly, slaves to the State.”

    Yup. Slavery was never abolished. It was nationalised.

    Which means that Richie, in practical terms, is dead right. The State owns you and me, hide and tallow included. We’re farmed livestock, and schoolznhospitalz are just good husbandry, to keep the herd contented and productive, and less disposed to break fences and gore herdsmen.

    I’d think more of him if he had the self-awareness to acknowledge this in plain terms, instead of dressing it all up in Hampstead morality.

  42. Shame it moved towards the brawl! However unappealing, I am always interested to understand better the various counter arguments. There is very little of value from Murphy on his own site, even in response to some perfectly sensible analogies put forward relating tax essentially as a charge for collective services that the state provides (which is often an argument used by the left to justify a big state).

    A thought – is this simply more “goal post shifting”? Ie, shift to the argument to the left – by suggesting that actually you are “owned” by the state (or the provider of your passport), and in defence people then argue that “but no, current taxes are the proper price for collective services being delivered by the state we live in, and if we leave the country, we cannot still be bound by these”. Ie, “bank” the current high tax argument and all that, by moving the conversation away from considering levels of tax / efficiency of the state (collective versus individual) in delivering various services, etc?

    Just a thought? He seems to employ this technique with tax avoidance (legal) versus evasion (illegal); ie keep repeating that avoidance is somehow “sort of” “morally” “illegal”, and the next thing you know some of the more stupid politicians are aping him word for word?

  43. Well, Arnald’s real name is Lawrence Aegerter, and I believe it’s a Swiss-German surname by origin. But of course his ancestors could have moved out of Switzerland and migrated to various other countries who require their citizens to do national service.

  44. and the next thing you know some of the more stupid politicians are aping him word for word?

    I think that is underestimating the position that the Murph holds in the TUC/PLP/raving idiot collective. Not through the UKUncut/TJN side – they are useful for publicity – but as the tax advisor to the TUC, who have a charisma-vacuum place-droid as leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

    Unlike some here, I don’t see him rising to “chief economic advisor to President-for-Life Milliband”, but a SPAD to the egregious Hodge as Chief Secretary to the Treasury? No probs.

    Oh, and Phil? We know who our pet troll is, thanks. But he gets awfully upset when people remind him of it.

  45. @Phil:

    “Well, Arnald’s real name is Lawrence Aegerter, and I believe it’s a Swiss-German surname by origin”

    John Galt shoots and he bloody well scores! It’s the internet equivalent of Archie Gemmill’s goal against Holland in the 1978 World Cup.

    GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  46. Interestingly Ritchie has edited his post to moderate the fascism but makes no acknowledegement of the fact it ad been so edited…

  47. Andy managed “You think you get to tell others what to do”

    When?

    Galt tried this “Well if Arnald starts making wild assertions like being persecuted by some unnamed government for evading his national service ”

    No I didn’t. You’re just delusional.

    Yeah, and Phil, you are pathetic. You’re in good company. A bunch of extremist nutters.

  48. Why do people keep responding to the loser from guernsey. He’s an evidenced liar. Just ignore his nonsense and hopefully he’ll eventually move on.

  49. Arnald
    “Some people are able to choose dual nationality, I was, but I didn’t want to do national service, so I didn’t. But unless you have another passport, most people cannot just ‘give up’ being ‘a nationality’.”

    Well, the only reason that is the case is because you are required to have at least a passport to travel. That passport then infers a nationality.

    The idea you must ‘belong’ to a state is really rather feudal isn’t it?

  50. “Therefore the correct stance is that we do belong to a state and so should follow suit.”

    Are you not telling people which stance to take? Telling them what to do, how to approach life. Sorry sunshine, you are not in charge. So piss off again.

  51. Reference the fucking post, yeah?

    Why? Not capable of remembering the bollocks you’ve posted in your hallucinogen inspired seizures?

    You could just read the thread – search for “Arnald” or, of course, if you have a context sensitive search engine “utter tripe”. You can read, can’t you?

    It’s your cuntribution at #17 he’s referenced if you are sufficiently full of hubristic git to fail to notice.

  52. Arnald – which national service did you avoid ? French, Swiss or German ? And which war was going on at the time that you were objecting to ?

  53. Penis

    The original post by Worstall was bleating on about

    “the right of the individual to abuse the state of which they are a natural part.”

    and Worstall trying to be clever in thinking that this is somehow a one man mission for totalitarianism.

    It’s bollocks, and all you lot have done is highlight how far from reality your devotion is from the truth.

    You are truly blinded by your faith.

  54. Lawrence – how can leaving a country be “abuse of a state”. Did you “abuse” your state by evading national service. Most countries allow pacificists to do something like hospital work as an alternative.

  55. No Arnald, I think you are the fool and you don’t seem capable of remembering the rubbish you write.

    Now run along, unless you are getting paid for being this foolish your time would be better spent elsewhere.

  56. The original post by Worstall was bleating on about

    “the right of the individual to abuse the state of which they are a natural part.”

    Well, yes, you cretin. It is an appalling abuse of the word “abuse”.

    I don’t abuse Tesco’s by shopping at Sainsbury’s. I don’t abuse Guernsey, hell, I don’t abuse England, by living in Scotland. I don’t actually think you abused wherever it is you should have done your national service.

    this is somehow a one man mission for totalitarianism.

    The totalitarianism comes in the insistence that a state has rights over you, even ownership of you, because you are a ‘natural part’ (whatever that means) of it.

  57. As mentioned previously in response to both Ritchie and Arnald, they both fundamentally believe in their enlightenment hero Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of “the social contract” and deem anyone born in the UK to have ‘signed up’ by virtue of their birth.

    They negligently fail to remember (or ignore) that Rousseau explicitly said that those who have no wish to abide by the social contract can terminate it by going elsewhere.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract

    Poor Rousseau however didn’t envisage (or acknowledge) the inequity of high marginal tax rates would lead the sheep to flee the sheering.

    Despite Ritchie and Arnald’s bullshit about basing tax liability upon citizenship being about tax avoidance, this is just a lying ruse to keep shearing the sheep as the US IRS does with US citizens.

    Ritchie and Arnald will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes…

  58. Ritchie and Arnald will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes…

    Arnald’s not nearly that important. He’s a minor annoyance in an unexceptional corner of the blogosphere. Not worth the price of a bullet, even in the Chinese style, never mind a proper firing squad.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>