20 comments on “The non-payment of tax is an abuse of human rights

  1. Pellinor

    I’m surprised Tim didn’t comment on the link ‘quiet word to the trolls’ from yesterday. I seldom bother going to TRUK anymore – it’s the same utter drivel, callous disregard for liberty and blatant belief that society would be best served by A:/ listening to the pompous ass and adopting his deranged analysis & B:/ paying him handsomely for the privilege of doing so. I’m afraid dangerous simply won’t suffice any longer – the man is a psychopath – a modern Day Lavrenti Beria.

  2. Property rights are created by law

    Tax is also created by the same process of law

    Tax is therefore a property right

    What? X is a function of Y. Z is a function of Y. Therefore X = Z?

    This would only make logical sense (irrational bullshit assertions can still be logical – this isn’t) if he asserted that “property rights are the only thing that can be created by law”. Which is clearly nonsense. Which is why he didn’t do it. Yet he assumes it for his conclusion.

    Also, the useful comment from Ironman that the “rights” of the state are simply not “human rights” flashed straight past the idiot.

  3. Today has been such fun!!!!!

    My sympathies lie with the poor little Courageous State, having its human rights abused by its nasty citizens.

    They’ll be demanding freedom with menaces next.

  4. P.S. Pellinor

    No, I don’t need to compromise any of my views with his! If I don’t believe tax is theft – and I don’t – then I haven’t earned any insult from him. It’s really quite simple: I believe in personal freedom; he doesn’t. I believe that right can and should be fettered by the need to co-exist in a society; he lost track of the argument about two sentences ago.

  5. Sorry Ironman, I don’t mean you should compromise with him, I mean you should compromise one right with another.

    You can’t assert the right to swing one’s fist freely as well as the right to have an unpunched nose: you need to find a compromise between those two rights.

  6. Pellinor

    Oh agreed…and self-evident (to us).

    And to continue with the fun… I once enjoyed a wonderful exchange on Ritchie’s blog with a supporter who described the right to punch someone on the nose as a “lesser” right than the right not to be punched on the nose. I suggested it, kinda, wasn’t really a right(?)

  7. This is why Courageous States used to have walls, razor wire and armed guards to keep their subjects from fleeing.

  8. I said I wouldn’t, but I did. I went there. Again. Bumping up his traffic.

    Tim, apparently, you are the lowest common denominator. Wear it as a badge of pride.

  9. Rights for homosexuals to marry are created by law
    Tax is also created by the same process of law
    Tax is therefore a gay wedding

    Sound and logical

  10. Usain Bolt is far more recent and relevant than Rod Stewart. HMRC reluctantly agreed to let him, a Jamaican citizen, compete in the Olympics without paying tax to HMRC on his earnings outside the UK because Cameron and Osborne insisted.

  11. @ Rob
    The Roman Catholic Church thinks that Thomas More is a Saint, largely because he tried to pursue that aim.

  12. Can we play the Richard Murphy or Murphy Richards game? I’ll start:

    “Arguing in absurdum is a sue sign of trolling”

  13. @Dave: I know that one, it was me that provoked it!! The great man himself deigned to call me a troll. Just because I asked him if Parliament passed a law taking 100% of his (and his alone) income that would be an abuse of the State’s right to tax its citizens.

  14. Jim – “I know that one, it was me that provoked it!! The great man himself deigned to call me a troll. Just because I asked him if Parliament passed a law taking 100% of his (and his alone) income that would be an abuse of the State’s right to tax its citizens.”

    Well the British government did at one time take what was it? 98.5% of people’s income. Norway took over 100%.

    You could have asked him the historical question. Or the other one – is it a violation of someone’s human rights if their slave runs away and denies him his labour?

  15. “You could have asked him the historical question. Or the other one – is it a violation of someone’s human rights if their slave runs away and denies him his labour?”

    That’s the reducto ad absurdum of the whole nonsense of “rights” outside a legal context. Did the slave holder think the slave had an obligation to serve him? Did the slave? There isn’t a mutual obligation.
    Works just as well with the swung fist analogy. If you have a mutual obligation not to punch noses what’s done with a swung fist is immaterial.
    It’s obligations. not rights.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.