Le vice Britannique

Published by Tom

December 13, 2012

I have been taken to task by readers here for over-generalising in my last post in which I referred to;

…the depths of ignorance, prejudice and hate-addled envy that now characterise most of the British people…

I would love to agree with my critics but the only places I encounter any other kind of Brit are this blog and others like it. Envy-free Brits who applaud commercial success and desire more of it (for anyone other than themselves) do appear to be in a tiny – or at least uninfluential – minority. In newspapers, on television and radio and even most blogs my countrymen seem obsessed with having the state "do something" about this, that and the other; the "something" usually being to punish anyone who has more wealth than them. And their views are expressed so intemperately that it seems quite reasonable to me to infer that they are driven by hate.

I had the misfortune to hear some "talk radio" during a recent cab ride. Vox populi seemed so far from vox dei as to make me fear it had become vox diaboli. Everyone has an opinion about issues (such as lawful tax structuring) that they could not even adequately define. This does not prevent them from campaigning against it by harassing hapless employees of companies they have decided, with a confidence entirely untrammelled by knowledge or understanding, to condemn. Is that not ignorance? Is that not hatred?

Perhaps talk radio is unrepresentative? I suspect that it may be evidence only of the damage caused by educationalists who, under the banner of "self esteem" have drilled into the masses that all viewpoints, however barmy, are of equal value. Part of what I find most irritating about the England I have returned to after twenty years away is not that more people are stupid, but that they are now so confidently stupid. They don't even have enough intelligence to know that they are thick. They might not know what global warming or tax avoidance means, but by God they will have their say. Maybe, optimistically, my impressions are mistaken. Perhaps it's just that the ignorant are now more confident than others about expressing their views?

This might all be harmlessly amusing were the consequences not so serious. Even a Chancellor of the Exchequer who probably privately believes in a free society and free market is obliged to feed the envy-trolls from lack of electoral fortitude. Even his, supposedly, free-enterprise supporting party rabbits on about the moral degeneracy of those who lawfully structure their affairs so as to minimise the state's depredations. Clearly the Tory Party shares my dim view of the average Brit's capabilities. What else can it mean when it prefers to pander to stupid views rather than to persuade people they are wrong?

Gentle readers, I want to believe well of my fellow-men. I really do. But where – except among yourselves – can I find the evidence to support that belief?

83 responses to “Le vice Britannique”

Mark

December 24, 2012

Mark -“You almost certainly don’t hate taxation to the same degree you hate hunger or physical torture or being constrained to one space.”
Tomsmith – “I certainly do”
Were you just messing around with that one?

LikeLike

Reply
Tomsmith

December 24, 2012

I don’t think I’ve read everything you have written on this site, only certain comments. It is difficult to tie these into a coherent belief system. As such I don’t think it is surprising that I didn’t answer your question in a way that accurately reflects what you feel are your core beliefs and this is why I used words like ‘probably’, ‘guess’ and ‘imagine’. I think this is more a reflection of the question than anything else which is why I was careful in how I phrased my reply.
What is your favoured method for raising the revenue to pay CI?

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

December 24, 2012

Tax is an evil to be minimised. All operations funded by force are intrinsically corrupt and state employees have a conflict of interest with taxpayers. The state should be limited to Army, Police, Judiciary and (unpaid, part-time) Legislature so that it never costs more than 5% flat in peacetime and 10% in wartime (as declared by Parliament). There should be ONE tax so that its incidence and scale are clear to all. I prefer a sales tax, but others may prefer income. No corporate taxes (they are a deception as they fall on individuals in fact). A Libertarian Government should implement it immediately, but levy an additional two temporary taxes for 10 years and 20 years respectively. The first would finance transition for state dependents to independence; scaling down benefits and state jobs over ten years. The second (not payable by taxpayers aged 18 or less at the date of its introduction) should fund repayment of the National Debt built up over decades by corrupt, dishonest, statist politicians buying votes. The latter should be deported for their own protection from the righteous anger of the people who would finally – by these measures – understand how they have been duped. I would declare an amnesty in advance on all violent assaults upon former MPs, 1st Division Civil Servants and employees of ACPO and other state fronts (eg fake charities, state universities) to encourage them to go quietly. Maybe Saudi would give them all bungalows like it did Idi Amin? Once the 10 year transition from a welfare state was complete, we could fire all border guards and permit unlimited immigration. They could come back then if they liked.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

December 24, 2012

Can you expand on that claim please? What threats were used?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 24, 2012

Fair enough.
Firstly, I don’t think we need to tax to generate revenue – we need to tax to reduce economic activity. With that in mind, probably — sales tax — flat income tax — land tax… ?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 24, 2012

or reduce amount of money flying around…

LikeLike

Reply
Tomsmith

December 24, 2012

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss which systems of taxation are respectively better or worse while also disagreeing with all taxation on principle. I can see the merit of systems of taxation which are rational and somewhat liberal; for example that based upon taxation of externalities or unearned rent, compared to other types of taxation. This does not mean that I think such ideas are not objectionable. All taxation is objectionable.

LikeLike

Reply
Tomsmith

December 25, 2012

Why not minimise taxation completely?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 25, 2012

Saying that “Taxation is an evil to be minimised” is a bit like saying that “traffic lights are an evil to be minimised” – no, they are something which we need exactly the correct amount of… not too many or too few.
Come to think of it… what is your opinion of traffic lights?
…” fund repayment of the National Debt”
What do you make of this?
“History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kelton-fiscal-cliff-economy-20121221,0,2129176.story
I hope that the plan for former politicians is a joke!

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 25, 2012

So do I,
but when you said this,
“I am baffled Mark as to why you think the forced imposition of a system I disagree with in every way is somehow an example of minimising the use of force against me?”
You were stating that there could be no minimisation of force, no preferable system as long as some form of taxation were used.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

December 25, 2012

What do I think about traffic lights? I think your use of them as an analogy for the massive complexities of state management of an economy is highly revealing. Your mental vision of an all-knowing central body directing, by the careful application of taxation, every individual and every business in their productive activities is the root of your every mistake. It might be how you would LIKE the world to be (though it disgusts me) but thank goodness it just isn’t.
As for your “evidence” of a correlation between depressions and “not enough debt” you are intelligent enough to construct your own reductio ad absurdam.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

December 25, 2012

You think in caricatures. The owners of the bonds are not, for the most part, rich men at all but pension funds, life assurance companies and other institutions holding the savings of the prudent of low and middle incomes. And yes, as the debt was contracted for freely, it should be repaid. Your sneering does you little honour in that connection.

LikeLike

Reply
Tomsmith

December 27, 2012

This is correct. I am only comparing different systems of taxation based on their coherence, rationality and believability, all other things considered. I do not support any system of taxation.

LikeLike

Reply
Tomsmith

December 27, 2012

Reduce economic activity where, and why?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 28, 2012

Yes, it IS a perfect analogy!
If we were to suggest that some central body should dictate exactly where every person should go, it would be mad – for the sake of people’s happiness they must be free to go where they choose.
But at the same time we need traffic lights and some planning to make sure they can get anywhere at all…

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 28, 2012

I stand corrected

LikeLike

Reply
Tomsmith

December 29, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4SHl3guPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOo3e0nxSI

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 29, 2012

It depends on the situation, but to free up resources for other uses – or simply because we want less of that activity.
For example – a consumer tax to lower private consumption might free up resources for use on public projects – but there isn’t much point in a tax unless there is a shortage of something we need ( most likely labour).

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 29, 2012

I support a tax on cars or gasoline, because they produce nasty gas and I think the environment could do with less of this. At the same time, the space opened up by fewer cars could be used for public transport.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 29, 2012

Hmmmm..

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

December 29, 2012

Eh?
Do we need traffic lights?
Why on earth do we have them if they aren’t necessary?

LikeLike

Reply
Suboptimal Planet

December 29, 2012

I managed to resist feeding the trolls over Christmas (I’m sure you didn’t go hungry), but I’ll offer up a final morsel or two …
“Frankly… we have allready decided as a society that we will support those who won’t work.”
Following your logic, not so long ago we’d “decided as a society” that homosexuality deserved punishment through the criminal justice system.
We’ve since “decided as a society” that this was immoral and costly.
I hope one day we’ll “decide as a society” that theft doesn’t become legitimate just because it’s conducted through a middle-man called the State.
In truth, only individuals can decide. Decisions “by society” simply involve one group of individuals forcing their decisions on others because they are in a position of superiority (numerical or otherwise).
In any case, the fact that we’ve been doing things a certain way is not a compelling argument that we will or should continue to do things that way.
“As a libertarian …”
LOL. Anyone with your enthusiasm for the compulsory redistribution of wealth cannot rightly be called a libertarian.

LikeLike

Reply
Suboptimal Planet

December 29, 2012

“levy an additional two temporary taxes”
What’s the old saying about temporary taxes? 😉
“The second (not payable by taxpayers aged 18 or less at the date of its introduction) should fund repayment of the National Debt built up over decades by corrupt, dishonest, statist politicians buying votes.”
Why punish those who are 19, 20, 21?
Even those who are 30 bear less of the blame than those who are in their 60s and 70s.
Far better to simply repudiate the national debt.
As a matter of transition, even I would support basic welfare provision (hostels, soup kitchens, acute medical care to basic standards) partly for those who had been accustomed to dependence, and partly for pensioners who’d foolishly (perhaps unwittingly) invested only in tax slaves. But lets not reward the slave owners this time around.

LikeLike

Reply
Suboptimal Planet

December 29, 2012

I am by no means a ‘blood and soil’ type, as you know, but I have to disagree with you on this point, Tom:
“Once the 10 year transition from a welfare state was complete, we could fire all border guards and permit unlimited immigration.”
Even assuming that all of the immigrants would be good libertarians, it would be a shame to see Britain culturally swamped.
Of course, I see no reason to assume that the immigrants would be good libertarians. And as long as Britain remains a democracy, it seems extremely rash to allow unlimited immigration.
Unless a benevolent dictatorship was achieved through a military coup, the libertarian government presumably got into power because a plurality became sufficiently enlightened. Shifting demographics in the absence of immigration might easily tip the balance back to statism, but it seems the height of folly to allow unlimited immigration while billions around the world have not yet seen the light.
Did you imagine stricter criteria for citizenship?
Even then, the presence of unlimited numbers of foreigners who don’t really believe in freedom (perhaps they prefer theocracy) could lead to significant social unrest and a reversal of the libertarian victory. We might discover too late that we lacked the manpower to expel them.
I’d be content for us to serve as an example to the rest of the world. We’d take in a few from the best and brightest who share our values, but keep out the rest. They’d be free to pursue a libertarian journey at home, with the benefit of our experience. State restrictions on migration should disappear altogether only when states themselves disappear. At the very least we should wait until foreigners can no longer pose any threat to our freedom.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

December 29, 2012

Now now. Mark is not a troll. He’s most welcome here and helps us all sharpen our rhetorical swords. Nor is he the most egregious redistributor, as he only wants – like the Greens – to steal enough to fund a basic income. We may know from Soviet experience that the damage to productivity would soon drag all but the apparatchiks down to that level, but he doesn’t plan that. My only problem with him (apart from resorting to foul abuse when his arguments run out) is his addiction to violence. He can’t imagine a society without it and I find that rather sad. Humans are – potentially – far better creatures than he thinks.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

December 30, 2012

Without our Welfare State, who would want to come to these rainy, windy, self-important and culturally rather barren islands? Only those who think they can offer something of value. I would be happy to see them place those bets. Immigrants would have no access to the transitional welfare arrangements as the Welfare State was run down.
Foreigners who don’t believe in freedom are not our problem. They could only be shipped in by Labour because of the welfare benefits on offer. It’s our own people who don’t believe who are the problem.

LikeLike

Reply
Suboptimal Planet

December 30, 2012

“Now now. Mark is not a troll.”
Perhaps that was too harsh. I’ve not been following his comments as long as you have.
“he only wants – like the Greens – to steal enough to fund a basic income”.
There are plenty of other sinister aspects to Green philosophy, as I understand it, but the crucial question here is what counts as ‘basic’.
“We may know from Soviet experience that the damage to productivity would soon drag all but the apparatchiks down to that level, but he doesn’t plan that.”
I accept that a basic ‘citizens income’, ‘negative income tax’, or whatever could actually be less damaging and costly than the system we have at the moment, and preserve a fair bit of inequality, provided the rate is set low enough.
My main problem with it is that it cements the notion that people have the right to live at the expense of others, rather than trading value for value.
“He can’t imagine a society without [violence] and I find that rather sad.”
For my part, I can imagine a society without violence, and I think we’ll probably get there one day, but libertarianism, like egalitarianism, is a revolt against nature.
The difference is that one is moral and the other isn’t. And while a renunciation of violence can be the natural result of a very unnatural prosperity, equality must always be forced, and can’t be fully achieved even in a dystopian society of clones collectively reared. Someone must run the show.

LikeLike

Reply
Suboptimal Planet

December 30, 2012

“Without our Welfare State, who would want to come to these rainy, windy, self-important and culturally rather barren islands?”
That’s surely overly pessimistic.
People come today illegally. I don’t think they all do it because they hope to sign onto the dole.
It may be rainy here, but it’s also green and pleasant, and far from culturally barren.
It’d be interesting to know what you have in mind here, though. I suspect high culture is pretty low down the list of priorities for the majority of potential migrants. And if they prefer their own culture, they’d presumably be free to bring it with them.
There’s little doubt, though, that a massive influx of “those who think they can offer something of value” would drive down wages, at least in the short term. And while this may benefit people as consumers, it will hurt them as producers. This would probably be enough to undermine support for the fledgling libertarian government.
We really can’t throw open the borders until the rest of the world is as prosperous and as free as we are. Until then, some sort of restriction, however lax and unbureaucratic, seems appropriate.

LikeLike

Reply
Suboptimal Planet

December 30, 2012

“And yes, as the debt was contracted for freely, it should be repaid.”
Have you read Rothbard on this point?
http://mises.org/daily/1423
Government debt is fundamentally different from private debt. The former is by no means contracted freely. I did not consent to any of ‘my share’ of the national debt, any more than I consent to the current tax system. At every opportunity I have voted against expansion of borrowing. My one year old daughter hasn’t even had that chance.
Government debt is the only kind that passes from father to child. Collective contracts, unless unanimous, are invalid.
Government borrowing is actually far more immoral than taxation. It confiscates wealth by stealth. Borrowing renders honest debate about the size of government impossible. It kicks the can down the road, and creates the illusion that we can painlessly live beyond our means.
The deficit should be eliminated, but the debt should never be repaid. We should balance the budget, then repudiate.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

January 3, 2013

I think there is more evidence in favour of society being the base decision making unit, rather than the individual.
I do all manner of things every day and I’d be hard pressed to name one that isn’t in some way determined by the ideas and culture I find myself in.
At the very least we should recognise that it is damned difficult for the individual to make a decision and that if this is our aim, it will only exist with the help of friendly institutions and culture (society)…

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

January 3, 2013

“For my part, I can imagine a society without violence, and I think we’ll probably get there one day, but libertarianism, like egalitarianism, is a revolt against nature.
The difference is that one is moral and the other isn’t. And while a renunciation of violence can be the natural result of a very unnatural prosperity, equality must always be forced, and can’t be fully achieved even in a dystopian society of clones collectively reared. Someone must run the show.”
Great comment.
My personal feeling is that wars are not mostly fought for wealth and that therefore prosperity will not lead to an end to war – quite the opposite. There is a danger that it is not prosperity which has reduced violence – but that mass society was necessary for prosperity, prosperity resulted in strength and that therefore the mass society won. If mass society is no longer necessary for prosperity – if we can replace unseen and unknown workers with machines – there is no reason why a society which regards these others as enemies cannot prosper.
The answer is of course, not to base society on production, but instead on love.

LikeLike

Reply
Suboptimal Planet

January 3, 2013

“I do all manner of things every day and I’d be hard pressed to name one that isn’t in some way determined by the ideas and culture I find myself in.”
I don’t think anyone would dispute that we’re influenced by our environment, and that environment includes other people acting individually and in concert.
Even so, you don’t turn to the collective to decide most things in your life. What are you going to have for lunch? Where are you going to buy it? How much will you spend? What will you do with your evening? Will you have children? Where do you want to live? How do you want to earn a living?
In non-totalitarian societies, these choices are rightly left to the individual. That’s not to say that we have complete freedom. We can’t suspend the laws of physics or economics. But within the limits of the possible, individuals decide and act.
As societies slide into totalitarianism, individual choices are further restricted by arbitrary and artificial constraints imposed by other people. An individual thus constrained doesn’t think that ‘ideas and culture’ are ‘in some way determining’ his choices; he knows full well that other people are telling him what to do.
Now, you could argue that our universe is deterministic, and that this leaves no room for free will. I’d struggle to dispute that, but that way lies fatalism and nihilism. I choose not to go down that path, and from what you’ve written here (indeed from the very fact that you bother to comment here), so do you.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

January 4, 2013

I’m really not sure about free-will…. but for the time-being I’m prepared to assume that we have some kind of choice, based on (infinitely emergent?) rationality…
The problem is that our means of thinking rationally, our language, is social, so I’m not sure what form a purely individual thought could take. Presumably the most individual thoughts we have are the least rational… but then, the instincts which drive these decisions would, on the level of the individual, be deterministic.
So, if you rely on individuals, you must rely not on them making rational decisions, but on the fact that their instincts will lead to an ordered society. In this sense, the totalitarian society, based on ideas, is actually more of a product of free will.

LikeLike

Reply