JeebusOctober 10, 2011 Tim WorstallRagging on Ritchie23 Comments* previousThe cost of country by country reportingnextAnd the Nobel Prize in Economics Goes To….Watch Live! 23 thoughts on “Jeebus” Anthony Masters October 10, 2011 at 11:02 am “The state is not agent for taxpayers. State funds raised by tax belong to the state and no one else” So much for democracy. Serf October 10, 2011 at 11:05 am No wonder he gets so confused over corporate taxes. He believes that organisations can own money for themselves. Noel Scoper October 10, 2011 at 11:05 am And in all its gory detail… http://www.searchingfinance.com/products/soon-to-be-published/the-courageous-state-rethinking-economics-society-and-the-role-of-government.html Dick October 10, 2011 at 11:27 am I thought one of the lefty holy scriptures was “property is theft”. Or does that not apply to Big Government? Ian B October 10, 2011 at 11:27 am All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. bilbaoboy October 10, 2011 at 11:28 am Give him a Chair in Politics at Oxford. First there was the State, then all the rest. By the way, I volunteer to run this State thing. I will be benevolent, I promise, sort of…. Andy October 10, 2011 at 11:41 am What happens when you go to a ‘university’ in Southampton. Johnathan Pearce October 10, 2011 at 11:59 am I see the Economist had this unintentionally hilarious article about Murphy and the Tax Justice Network the other day, giving the impression that this man is some sort of sage figure, an experienced accounting guru. Here is the link if you can stomach it.http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/10/avoiding-tax He’s a totalitarian who has little conception of liberty, property rights or the market. And yet the TJN react very aggressively if their hard-left views are pointed out. I had recent experience of this in my day-job. Arnald October 10, 2011 at 12:01 pm “I thought one of the lefty holy scriptures was “property is theft”.” Anarchists – Proud’hon. “So much for democracy.” Surely the state will be elected? Emil October 10, 2011 at 12:07 pm Jonathan, the Economist does seem to have gone down a completely wrong path since 2008. A real pity indeed. Ian B October 10, 2011 at 12:15 pm Johnathan, I think crediting him with a “little” conception of liberty, property rights and the market is being somewhat over-generous. 🙂 KMcC October 10, 2011 at 12:32 pm Arnald #9 his name was Proudhon, not Proud’hon. You are simply ignorant of everything and anything, aren’t you? Marksany October 10, 2011 at 12:40 pm But The State is benevolent, surely? Unless it is run by the Tories. Better not have elections after Labour is next elected, in case the voters choose evil Tories again. It is for the greater good. NICK LUKE October 10, 2011 at 12:43 pm Difficult to know where to start with tosh of this magnitude. The ‘state’ only exists as an abstract idea in the minds of those who choose to think of it and agree to live within the laws promulgated by whatever society encompasses it. This is evidenced by the existence of other ‘states’ with differing political frame works. It also exists only as long as we, the society at large, agree that it should so exist. When it comes down to it, if we, those who live within any given ‘state’, want to change it, we can do so; viz. much of the Arab world or’ indeed the Wars Of The Roses. We agree to maintain it by the payment of taxes, enabling the ‘state’ to undertake on our behalf the jobs we do not want to do individually. Again if we, ultimately, want the ‘state’ to do something different, we tell it to do so through the ballot box or by ripping up the streets and burning flags, shops Et c. Since the Civil War we have largely managed this without recourse to the sword, steadily evolving the slightly less bloody notion of ‘Parliament’. In this country we have arrived at a model that many in the world seem to find reasonably attractive, demonstrated by the rolling influx of immigration from other ‘states’. The ‘state’ has no mind of its own, no soul, power of thought or idea of it’s own existence. If political direction was withdrawn it would continue for a long time but would start to decay from that moment until lack of direction would lead to paralysis and destruction. It cannot redirect tax income to new uses, it cannot increase or decrease taxation without the political and mechanical institutions we have erected to direct it. It stands therefore that it cannot ‘own’ the taxes we agree to pay into it. It may hold and disburse them on our behalf and ultimately with our agreement. But own them? No. Robert Edwards October 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm Murphy really is the gift that keeps on giving. Is there no beginning to this man’s talents? He clearly enjoys the spotlight, though. Bless… But we are in danger of troll-feeding. Ritchie, as an accountant, is not qualified to comment on anything but book-keeping; he doesn’t seem to grasp the idea behind multilateral/multinational businesses. Because he is essentially parochial… Dick October 10, 2011 at 1:06 pm Those bored with Arsenald’s drivel might care to try this greasemonkey script: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/115193 Offshore Observer October 10, 2011 at 1:38 pm That schumpeter blog is a load of tosh, its not even factually accurate which is very poor from the economist. Guernsey has introduced automatic exchange of information under EUSD. Arnald October 10, 2011 at 1:59 pm “his name was Proudhon, not Proud’hon. You are simply ignorant of everything and anything, aren’t you?” No, not really, love. It’s an alternate spelling used a lot in France. Saying his anarchism is ‘lefty’ is the ignorant statement. He was very much against statism, doh!. Never mind, have a pop at me. I’m easy with that… KMcC October 10, 2011 at 3:11 pm forgive me for not realising you were writing in French Frances Coppola October 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm Ian B Good heavens, you’re surely not implying that our Ritchie is a fascist, are you? Paul Lockett October 10, 2011 at 9:52 pm I frequently make the point that the state is nothing more than a glorified protection racket, created for the profit of those operating it and giving only as much in return as is necessary to prevent its overthrow. Surprisingly, Ritchie seems to agree. Johnathan Pearce October 12, 2011 at 12:13 pm Paul, the trouble is, get rid of the state, then other, non-state “rackets” can also prosper. That is one of the arguments contra anarchism. Paul Lockett October 15, 2011 at 11:31 pm JP, absolutely. A stateless society could operate well, if enough people were committed to the idea of actively resisting coercive force in all its forms, but that would take a huge shift in mindset amongst a large number of people. The underlying point I was making is that states don’t hold power because of the consent of the governed, but because the governed view overthrowing the state is likely to result in somebody worse grabbing power. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.