Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State.

The Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and understand all spammers die in my world. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

FATCA: The (NZ) Officials’ Report –A Crime That Deserves a Revolution.



Opening synopsis and challenge:


To every one of the Left who protested against the GCSB, NSA, PRISM spying trilogy in New Zealand, understand that through the (below) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the US and NZ governments’ over FATCA (below), our government is using the huge powers IRD have to spy and exchange information outside the purview of the Privacy Act, to implement an American spy operation in our shores that has nothing to do with the New Zealand tax-take. If a government can corruptly bypass the rule of law for this, they can do it for anything else, demonstrating why a taxing authority must never be given the powers they have been given in the West; the powers of the full surveillance state.


So, why aren’t you all out protesting? How big a double standard can you personally take with your cult of redistribution?


Truth Telling:

Hundreds of thousands of words in the MSM on Kim Dotcom owning a copy of Mein Kampf, yet our public officials yesterday published  a copy as the manual they’ll be following from 2017, and not a squeak. It’s like Pearl Harbour printed in a half inch byline after the lonely hearts ads.

Think hard on this: did anyone reading this blog think they would live to see the day that middle of the road US citizens would feel their only option to live free lives would be to defect ... from the USA? Well they are now, due to FATCA.



New Zealand tax officials have just confessed, quite casually, the creation of the full, one-world police surveillance state under the auspices, sorry, the outright bullying, of our US masters.


This post will make more sense in the context of my previous one, but in summary the recent Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) privacy debacle demonstrates the single reason for New Zealand's Privacy Act granting some limited protection from ACC and other government departments, but allowing no protection at all against the IRD, must only be justification on the grounds of the sacred New Zealand tax take which is the God the Cult of Redistribution worships at the price of individual rights and the free society. Therefore, the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the US and New Zealand governments implementing FATCA, (see below), which cynically uses the IRD’s God-like powers that render our consent null and void, as with our privacy, to an end which is clearly not in pursuance of the New Zealand tax take, but only the US tax take, must logically be corrupt. Every New Zealand politician signing that IGA, to bypass our privacy legislation, should stand down in disgrace.


It cannot be underestimated how important this is. To recap again how the mammoth US FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act which implements the US’s citizenship based tax ) legislation works:


These are the facts spelled out. The supply by New Zealand financial institutions – … including every bank - of the requested information to IRS [on all account holder US citizens in New Zealand] would rightly contravene the most sacrosanct provisions of our privacy legislation. Thus, under a cynical work-around IGA between US and New Zealand governments, which allows them to avoid the political fallout of breaching that privacy legislation and creating second class citizens in New Zealand, these same financial institutions now simply provide that information to the IRD which can legally, albeit immorally, send it to IRS given our privacy provisions do not cover IRD


And:


Our politicians have signed the New Zealand taxpayer up to FATCA which has no benefit, indeed, is a cost, to taxpayers and to every New Zealand bank and financial institution account holder, given the US government is reimbursing no costs to administer ‘their’ law. FATCA was cynically put on us via the privacy law circumventing IGA only to provide the US information on its citizens, and to fund the US tax take, not New Zealand’s. There is absolutely no benefit for New Zealand.


Yesterday IRD Tax Policy published a 310 page document, part of which was the officials’ response to the IGA between NZ and the US, and FATCA, and the submissions made against both by the public. That report becomes a good object lesson to all submitters of what a whitewash such exercises are, and what a sham our statist captured democratic processes have become.  The report proper started at page 112 of the document: it is sadly unsurprising the first 111 pages dealt with what you might have thought was such a simple thing as how employee allowances are to be dealt with (such is the complexity of our taxing legislation). Although I could only make it to page 117 before my eyes were so blurred with tears of fury, and I had no interest in reading on, even in these five pages, look at what this report says about our society, and our world, in 2014.


I said above that FATCA has no benefit to New Zealand.  What an innocent I still am. The first three pages sets up the officials’ premise of why this legislation must be legislated because, quote, ‘it is beneficial to New Zealand’. There is no contradiction here, only the difference in point of view between a man who knows the principles of a free society necessarily based on individualism and individual rights, and government drones who’ll be having none of that nonsense. Tell me why this next bit is not sensational? The officials’ believe this legislation beneficial because:


Without an IGA, in order to avoid FATCA penalties, New Zealand financial institutions would need to enter into separate agreements with the United States’ Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Under these agreements, the financial institutions would need to:


* identify US accounts and report certain information about these accounts to the IRS on an annual basis;

* withhold 30% on payments from the US to a non-participating foreign financial institutions or to a recalcitrant account holder (account holders who have not provided the required information); and

* close the accounts of these recalcitrant account holders.


Officials consider that New Zealand financial institutions would not be able to comply with these agreements under our existing legislative framework. Private details of individuals may be able to be collected and shared if appropriate amendments were made to customers’ terms and conditions. Terms and conditions may also be able to be used to close accounts in appropriate instances. However, it is not clear that a financial institution could ever legally act as a withholding agent for a foreign government. Entering into separate agreements would also impose significant compliance costs on all New Zealand financial institutions.


The only way such agreements could be effected would therefore be for New Zealand to enact specific legislation that allowed financial institutions to comply with their terms.


I’ll summarise soon, but first the killer bit:


In essence, not entering into an IGA and not enacting enabling legislation of some sort would leave New Zealand financial institutions with a choice of:


*  not investing either directly or indirectly into the US (to avoid withholding); or

 * investing in the US and suffering the withholding penalty.


So, the IGA is beneficial to New Zealand only because it lowers the cost and penalties – I said PENALTIES - which the US government will otherwise impose on our local banks and  institutions for failure to implement their tax take.


Think about that: 'to implement their, as in the US government's,  tax take'. Penalising a New Zealand bank for not spying and collecting tax for the US government.


This is sheer US bullying of the highest order. It is US colonisation of its tax surveillance state at the expense and extreme prejudice of its allies and their rights, and their sovereignty. There is no financial benefit to New Zealand of FATCA, only cost as we are having to pay to administer the US government taxing its citizens abroad, most of whom have no plans on living in the US, and the best our politicians can think of is to try and minimise the cost to us. What a joke.  A free country and principled politicians would have declared war against the US for this infamy (truly), or at least asked for reimbursement of costs; circa 2014 our politicians legislate their own people’s rights away to accommodate it, all the while through our own tax take forcing them to pay for it. Win win for Obamamarx. Chamberlain’s sycophantic cowardice has got nothing on the yellow bellies that occupy the sandpit in our Fortress of Legislation.


As I said in the previous post, at least the Canadians are looking to test the legality of the US IRS being able to impose penalties on non-US banks:


As a side note, the Canadians are looking at their legal options over IRS’s assumed ability to impose penalties on non-US banks which don’t comply with FATCA: good on those Canadian politicians. Compare that to our gutless politicians who just signed the dotted line: ask yourself, what right does the US IRS have to penalise our banks, our bank account holders, over a matter that has nothing to do with us, and when we are forced to administer their information bureaus and their tax take at our cost for no benefit? It’s ludicrous.


From this point, the officials report just mimics every other piece of tyrannical literature that has destroyed lives though our modern history.


On privacy it is appalling; the full communist ethic:


Officials accept that, under the IGA, information will be collected and shared which is not currently being collected or shared.


It seems obvious from submissions that many of the individuals concerned do not consider information-sharing in this case to be appropriate. However, government is in the position of having to make such judgements on a national, rather than individual, level. As set out in ―Entering into an IGA‖ section of this report, officials consider that a sound public policy argument exists in this case that justifies New Zealand entering into an IGA – a necessary part of such an action being that the information collection and transmission contemplated in the IGA will occur. The privacy of the individuals concerned was a factor that officials examined in reaching this view, but it was, on balance, deemed to be outweighed by other public-interest considerations.


My highlighting at the end. Stated in cold black and white: the public good outweighs individual rights. For regular readers of this blog, that’s where the penny will drop.


I quote just two of my previous blogs on the tyranny of common good: from TheTyrant’s Call:


the common good has been the battle cry of almost every tyrant throughout history. The common good has been so important, apparently, that hundreds of millions of individuals over the twentieth century had to be exterminated or killed by the state for it. Rights cannot attach to a collective, when you try to, you open the gates to tyranny and atrocity. That same common good is currently being used in Christchurch to usurp private property rights on a breath-taking scale. Just as the common good is used as the excuse to steal the property and effort of productive individuals while making those individuals victims to a department of state with literally the powers of the true Orwellian police state. To be meaningful, and cause no harm through the force of state, rights can and must only attach to individuals. A society must only base itself on protecting the smallest minority: the rights and property of an individual (and especially from the abuse of state).


And – politicians note – from this blog’s most read post, still with hundreds of weekly reads, and growing, despite having been written in 2012, 1984 Comes to2012, talking of how children in the UK were in a school education unit being taught to dob in suspected tax evaders in their neighbourhood (including mum and dad presumably):


Look at the ‘good citizens’ these children are taught to be in our schools, with all these ‘obligations’ to each other. And so strong is the programming, that I am confident more than ninety percent of those reading this would feel, deep down, that they have to agree with the teachers’ ethic here, with what this tax course in the schools is founded on: that self-sacrifice for the common good, is a noble thing, and the needs of others are what social democracies must hold at their centre. This is what New Zealand Socialist commentator, Chris - The Fist - Trotter forces on us.


But it’s a magic trick, an illusion, that’s been done in our minds by Gramsci, a linguistic sleight of hand, all the more evil because it initially appeals to our 'better natures'. All we need do to understand it, see the reality of it, is change the focus, the narrative point of view, and see what it really says, which is that for you to live your life, it is acceptable that the lives of others, total strangers, be sacrificed to you, their pursuit of happiness destroyed for you, and that the state will initiate force to back you up in this, and mince up the livelihoods, and freedom, of those who will not bow down to you. And part of being a good citizen, now, is for you to dob these people in, so they can be dealt to.


Free men know that the civilised society is not based on such an extinguishment of life, but founded on a bed-rock of the non-initiation of force, particularly the state against the people, and on each individual being responsible for themselves, and self-reliant. That a civilised society works on the natural love and affection between families and loved ones, on compassion and charity freely given for strangers, and on voluntarism.

The officials’ document then gets even worse, were it possible. I once thought the one world conspiracy theorists were flakes: apparently they were prophets. In that area of your life where the police state meets your wallet and your rights, tax, FATCA is finally the integrated one-world police state that had previously been working its way out steadily via information sharing double tax agreements:


From a Government perspective, officials also note that FATCA is now part of a major global initiative to combat international tax evasion. FATCA is based on the idea of global automatic exchange of certain information by financial institutions. Previously these information exchanges have occurred either on an ad hoc or ―on request‖ basis, or annually by way of agreement between tax authorities under various double tax treaties.


Automatic exchange of information between multiple jurisdictions is now the new international standard for automatic exchange endorsed by the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).


Officials consider there would be a severe reputational risk for New Zealand if it were not to be involved in this international movement. All OECD countries have either signed, or are negotiating, IGAs with the United States in respect of FATCA. The OECD itself has dedicated resources to devising a common reporting model for financial accounts, based on the FATCA model. This tax transparency is seen as complementing its base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) work. The BEPS initiative is aimed at ensuring that entities and individuals that operate in numerous jurisdictions pay an appropriate amount of tax. Automatic information exchange and transparency in tax affairs is seen as an important compliance tool for this programme.


Read that again. For every clueless Lefty out protesting the GCSB, NSA and PRISM, that is the full big brother, information swapping, spying, one-world police state. It is Orwell’s Oceania on a global basis in the real world, in the world we live, because a faceless official who can read your financial transactions, can read your life, plus worse, this official owns your income. And you retards, worshipping at the altar of redistribution, created it.


And I’m only on about the fourth page of the report. It’s just full of gems: here’s a lovely piece of doublespeak:


The New Zealand Government should not be funding FATCA.


As set out in the ―Entering into an IGA‖ section of this report, the decision to enter into an IGA is at least in part an attempt to lower compliance costs that would be imposed on financial institutions in any event. It is anticipated that, by centralising some of these costs, the compliance costs on New Zealand as a whole will be reduced.


I don’t have to explain the contradictions inveigled behind every word of that.


Under submitters concerns regarding ‘overreach’ occurs a real concern for all Kiwis married or partnered to someone with a US passport, and to their partners. Ironically, under submitter concerns on overreach it is evident there will be massive amounts of IRD time spent screening the data to be transferred to IRS to ensure Kiwi partners of US citizens privacy is protected by not being sent to the IRS – again, you can’t make this doublespeak bullshit up.


Submitters appear particularly concerned that information on the spouses of ―US persons‖ (where those spouses are not ―US persons‖) will be reported.


[Snip]


 Inland Revenue has established an IT working group with the financial services sector to ensure that only the necessary and correct information is transferred (noting that the first transfer of data to Inland Revenue is not due until about mid 2015).

 Inland Revenue’s proposed technology solution for IGA information will result in data transferred from financial institutions being electronically screened to ensure it complies with minimum requirements. From the 2017 reporting period, one of the required data fields will be the US social security number (called a TIN for tax purposes and essentially an IRD number equivalent) of the relevant person. A person that is not a US taxpayer will not have a social security number. So, even if a financial institution did try to report on a non-US person, the data would be rejected by Inland Revenue systems as being incomplete.



I would point out that an inevitable part of this IRD ‘electronic’ screening process will be IRD officials looking at all these individuals closely, so opening the prospects of many lovely fishing trips for them. It is one of IRD’s stated compliance focuses this year to find all New Zealand tax residents with income being earned in foreign bank accounts: so they’ve just landed a big one. Under FATCA banks now have to report to IRD all US citizens: I bet all names  will then go into an audit function to check out their world-wide affairs from the point of view of the New Zealand tax take. Of course, for IRD, the Lefty and Tory Cult of Redistribution, and in the public interest this will be considered a benefit, and the massive inconvenience and invasion of the private lives of these victims, immaterial: they may well be rich pricks, after all, not human, just that lovely productive group who are captured as the Left’s bank and whose lives don’t otherwise matter. Indeed tax officials and governments the world over will be loving FATCA: it's a sign of how far and fast the West has fallen from a sane classical liberalism and into Big Brother's suffocating bear-hug.


And that's the key to this post, and to FATCA: tax officials that run countries, in the blind pursuit of their job descriptions without regard to the philosophy required for a free society, have for a very long time been wanting FATCA: the global tax surveillance state so massive, so powerful, so complex, that no individual, group or corporation can possibly stand against it without being destroyed, and that the Left liberal majority in the West are fundamentally crippled from protest, because their every belief has sanctioned and called for it. The IGA between the US and New Zealand was never going to be any different to what was first drafted by the new intelligence operations that run the world; the taxing authorities, which now own the financial transactions that narrate the most intimate details of your life, and own your income and your property, in-country and wherever you are on the globe. FATCA is beneficial alright, the officials' got that right, but only to them, not to those of us who thought our birth right in the West were free lives.


Anyway, detoured: so I’m now on only page 117 of the Officials' Report. On and on it goes. To sum up the above, it’s a sickening document directly from the pages of Orwell’s novel 1984. Every damned word of it; and I don’t have the stomach or inclination to carry on. I’ve made my point. Hopefully even one person reading this has finally woken up to the major themes of this blog. If you skim your eye across all submitters concerns in the officials’ report, then pretty much nil, none, zilch, zero submitters concerns have been accepted, almost every concern declined: the whole process was pointless appeasement. Every submitter who thought they were exercising their rights in a democracy, was being cynically used and abused by a bureaucratic tyranny that is bound on the ethic individuals only exist to be sacrificed to the herd; to the hopeless underclass created by generations of dependency to the welfare state where self-reliance is misinterpreted as selfishness and scorned. Some critical mass of our population, and 100% of the staffers in the bureaucracies plus in the Fortress of Legislation, including our cowardly politicians, are useful idiots. As far as the US goes, repeating my previous post, Obama may as well print out the constitution in a roll and sell – what was I thinking, he's no capitalist, give it away – as toilet paper.


Though finally, here’s the amazing thing. This mammoth wrong the US is perpetrating through FATCA, the treason our politicians are doing us through the IGA, the US’s tax surveillance state colonisation of every friendly country on the threat of dire economic penalties to them, this bullying of their friends and allies, and yet how many rights and political philosophy based articles against it printed in our MSM, that same who were all over GCSB, NSA and PRISM?


Fucking NONE. Not even the NBR. Hundreds of thousands of words on Kim Dotcom owning a copy of Mein Kampf, yet our public officials just published a copy as the manual they’ll be following from 2017, and not a squeak. It’s like Pearl Harbour printed in a half inch byline after the lonelyhearts  ads.


Hopeless.


Again, again, again, we are so stuffed: slave societies forced to live in the prisons of each other’s minds, because those minds have been fed on emoting trivia through the state school system and effectively destroyed. There will be no Western Spring, there will be no needed second Revolution in America, until after the new Gulags are filled: and those Gulags have their foundations well built into very firm ground, FATCA going down as a cornerstone, and listen, you can almost hear the drones.


Addendum:

Given this post is being read so 'fast', compared to the previous, two important paragraphs from that post:

And as shown by the non-response by Sacha Dylan, and the pathetic bleating of the Left on Twitter over the ACC privacy issue, it remains important to constantly expose that central, lethal contradiction of the Left, whereby they want their privacy cake, while eating it too. They want their privacy from the state, while promoting a big brother state from which, to meet its ends, an individual must have no privacy: grow up, this is simply not possible. When your central beliefs contain a contradiction this big, you must re-examine your premises.


And:


Because extend this principle out. A New Zealand government didn’t want the political fallout which would come from breaching our privacy legislation, so they used IRD, being immorally above that privacy legislation, as a backdoor for US to spy on its own citizens. If they did this once, why won’t a future government find it convenient to use the Teflon IRD on other issues that might be a bit embarrassing politically? Answer: there’s nothing stopping any government doing this. It’s the premise of this blog that IRD and its huge powers, is where the rubber meets the road to our total serfdom. All the Left protesting against GCSB, NSA and PRISM, what’s the difference, again, please?


Update 1:

The Canadian Isaac Brock Society is a site set up to provide information on FATCA, and a focus point for whatever forlorn activism is available against it. That site has featured this post, and it's worthwhile taking a look at the growing discussion thread for more information.


Update 2:

New Zealand Left Libertarian Carrie Stoddart-Smith on her interesting blog, Ellipsister, has met my challenge to the Left and overall agrees with this post that FATCA is an appalling privacy invasion and is thus unequivocal in her opposition to it. I suspect it is the Libertarian in Carrie, rather than the Lefty - which I don't see how to reconcile :) - that sums up FATCA as follows:

For all the reasons above, I oppose FATCA and I encourage those who oppose the GCSB legislation to consider the implications of global information sharing based on an individuals citizenship and access to their financial accounts. You may buy into the ‘it targets the 1% who cares’ narrative, but FATCA is not about class. It is about privacy. It signifies the unacceptable encroachment of the State into the lives of every citizen. That is the dystopia we are heading for with FATCA.

Carrie also makes some interesting earlier comments, not covered in my post, at how FATCA stands as a worrisome precedent in international law. Please have a read of her piece.

.
.


Tuesday, April 15, 2014

ACC; IRD; Privacy, And The Unravelling Of Corruption In NZ From FATCA. Big Post.


This is one of my most important posts.


New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is in trouble again over its flouting of privacy: 


A judge has overturned ACC's policy of cutting off accident claimants' compensation if they refuse to approve widespread gathering of information about themselves.


How blinkered we are as a country. I start with this question:












Only one person answered to the change in principle, but the answer is actually worse. Bronwyn Pullar is well known to ACC and the ACC debate – and I’m on your side Bronwyn, you just didn’t understand where I was coming from:












So if I’m asking for an entitlement paid from taxpayer (and compulsory government ACC premiums are a tax, determined by my taxable income as provided compulsorily to IRD – to make that clear) I can withhold my information: however, as a taxpayer, I have no right to withhold information about me from IRD. That department is specifically not covered by New Zealand’s privacy legislation or the token Privacy Commissioner who gets paid a very expensive lunch everyday.


Although that argument goes beyond my original brief, which is simply what point our privacy legislation giving the right to consent to what information one department (ACC) can gather, when to another department, IRD, the whole notion of consent has been legislatively denied me. I’ve written often on the police state powers of IRD.


Can the Left explain the difference in principle to me?












Nope. Predictably, no answer. Let me do it. There’s only the single logical conclusion. The difference in principle must be that IRD’s overriding of our privacy legislation is justified by the Cult of Redistribution’s worship at the bloodied altar of the New Zealand tax take. Bloodied, because force and violence against an individual’s right to be left alone is always the ultimate threat of the tax surveillance state.


And on that point we get to a further problem I’ve been writing on this month: FATCA – the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act - which threatens to unwind IRD’s and our government’s role as corrupt. As stated on my previous post:


These are the facts spelled out. The supply by New Zealand financial institutions – … including every bank - of the requested information to IRS [on all account holder US citizens in New Zealand] would rightly contravene the most sacrosanct provisions of our privacy legislation. Thus, under a cynical work-around IGA between US and New Zealand governments, which allows them to avoid the political fallout of breaching that privacy legislation and creating second class citizens in New Zealand, these same financial institutions now simply provide that information to the IRD which can legally, albeit immorally, send it to IRS given our privacy provisions do not cover IRD


Our politicians have signed the New Zealand taxpayer up to FATCA which has no benefit, indeed, is a cost, to taxpayers and to every New Zealand bank and financial institution account holder, given the US government is reimbursing no costs to administer ‘their’ law. FATCA was cynically put on us via the privacy law circumventing IGA only to provide the US information on its citizens, and to fund the US tax take, not New Zealand’s. There is absolutely no benefit for New Zealand.


If I assume from this debate regarding ACC and privacy, that it is only the New Zealand tax take which justifies the change of principle regarding my privacy vis a vis IRD – it doesn’t philosophically, read this blog, but bear with me – then the IGA signed by this National Government was, even on the New Zealand tax take’s own terms, corrupt, certainly morally, and given I will show  in a later post that FATCA is unconstitutional in the US, probably legally. Indeed, FATCA and the US bullying over our new, and dreadful, Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act, is the final straw for me: the US government may as well simply print its constitution in a roll and sell it to the people for toilet paper


Because extend this principle out. A New Zealand government didn’t want the political fallout which would come from breaching our privacy legislation, so they used IRD, being immorally above that privacy legislation, as a backdoor for US to spy on its own citizens. If they did this once, why won’t a future government find it convenient to use the Teflon IRD on other issues that might be a bit embarrassing politically? Answer: there’s nothing stopping any government doing this. It’s the premise of this blog that IRD and its huge powers, is where the rubber meets the road to our total serfdom. All the Left protesting against GCSB, NSA and PRISM, what’s the difference, again, please?


As a side note, the Canadians are looking at their legal options over IRS’s assumed ability to impose penalties on non-US banks which don’t comply with FATCA: good on those Canadian politicians. Compare that to our gutless politicians who just signed the dotted line: ask yourself, what right does the US IRS have to penalise our banks, our bank account holders, over a matter that has nothing to do with us, and when we are forced to administer their information bureaus and their tax take at our cost for no benefit? It’s ludicrous.


But enough. It’s breakfast time here, Mrs H is getting moody. The free West is gone, utterly, from the gutlessness of our political masters and the monstrous Left ethic that an individual’s life only exists to be sacrificed to a hopeless mob created over generations of welfare created dependency. The pursuit of happiness has become a very sad one, indeed, if it were possible, is bawling its eyes out more than Oscar Pistorius.


And as shown by the non-response by Sacha Dylan, and the pathetic bleating of the Left on Twitter over the ACC privacy issue, it remains important to constantly expose that central, lethal contradiction of the Left, whereby they want their privacy cake, while eating it too. They want their privacy from the state, while promoting a big brother state from which, to meet its ends, an individual must have no privacy: grow up, this is simply not possible. When your central beliefs contain a contradiction this big, you must re-examine your premises.


Finally, remember again what the Free West was supposed to be about: it's what Sir Charles Upham was fighting for. As for our privacy, you need no invite for the funeral:





Monday, April 14, 2014

Taxing Away Prosperity: UK, New Zealand versus Hong Kong.


In one of my stupid moments – sadly, I have them – some time ago I ended up defending the English economy on Twitter.
 
I know – what was I thinking?  
 
It didn’t start out that way, indeed, the debate was over how Cunliffe was a Keynesian zealot, but then someone tweeted in and changed the course of the thread and suddenly I was into a nonsense relativistic debate comparing UK to Spain, Greece, etc, which then somehow changed to I was advocating the UK economy was something other than crippled. Albeit they do seem to have made some admirable progress via cutting government expenditure, with the UK economy projected to finally September this year surpass the size it was pre the GFC in 2008 for the first time, it is yet a moribund, debt laden economy, struggling under low growth, tax and regulation: perhaps the nature of the impossibility they face can be best shown by a single photo:

 

On the left is the UK’s various taxing legislation, on the right, the little thin blue book, that’s Hong Kong’s. There’s a whole bunch of hooks in applying causation, but I’m unsurprised that according to the International Monetary Fund Hong Kong’s GDP per capita in 2013 was $52,722 international dollars, sixth highest in the world, compared to the UK’s $37,307 way down in twenty first place.
 
New Zealand? We’re back further in thirtieth place on $30,493. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact of on a total population which could be lost in a single suburb of Hong Kong, our Income Tax and GST legislation looks like this:

 


 

I’m also unsurprised that the gross government debt as a percentage of GDP – per IMF - is as follows:
 

Hong Kong:    32.4%

New Zealand: 38.2%

UK:                 90.3%  (Wow.)
 

For the Leftists, statists of all hues - including too many Tories - who believe in the big brother tax surveillance state: as one of the sharpest minds in the twentieth century said, you can ignore reality for so long, but you can’t ignore it’s consequences; one of those being the cult of redistribution - cult, because irrational, yet chanted like a mantra - funded by taxing away my liberty, privacy, and right to be left alone, creates only a cycle of dependency and poverty.
 
Tax destroys the free society philosophically, and ‘after’ that, destroys our prosperity economically.

To the politicians reading this: just f***ing stop it.

 

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Our MP’s Childishness around Suicide, Euthanasia, Cannabis – Self-censoring MP’s Threat to Free Speech & Basic Freedoms.

 

We are so badly served by every current MP in the New Zealand Fortress of Legislation. This post links directly to my last, because when MP’s choose to self-censor themselves, then issues that are important cannot be debated in the only place were law-making can be enacted around the discussion. And that means such issues, in this case, our basic freedoms, are forbidden us.
 

I’ll start this post by going back a few months to when I told MP Peter Dunne, infamous instigator of one of the most heinous Acts I’ve seen – after every tax act – that I would never let up hounding him over the Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA) which has legalised psychosis forming, artificial, toxic crud, and created the barbaric principle that animals can be tested – tortured – for what amounts to only our recreation, when a harmless, medicinal even, alternative exists in cannabis which remains criminalised; (and I note there still looks to be animal testing under the PSA coming out of the special committee overseeing the public protest against that). Not once has Dunne ever responded to me; as happened again this morning:
 


 


 


 

Response? Nothing. And this now all begs a more ominous phenomenon coming out of the Fortress of Legislation, confirming not only Labour MP Maryann Street’s statement to this blogger that MP’s weren’t adult enough to discuss euthanasia in an election year, but they’re too immature to discuss issues that provide our basic freedoms at all. Our MP’s remain experts only on legislation that takes those freedoms away from us – proof? Read this blog.



 





 


 


 

In his reply to me, Minister Todd McClay, current minister overseeing the toxic PSA, studiously avoided mentioning or referring to all of my logical points in favour of cannabis over the PSA, childishly answering my post by trying to ignore every reference to this, and concentrating only of the fluff stuff, and animal testing concerns.
 

For the MP’s, don’t panic: uttering the word ‘suicide’ isn’t magic or mystical, people won’t rush to the act because you’ve spoken it. In a movement starting with the Enlightenment, we use reason now. Same with cannabis and euthanasia. Indeed nothing beats open, un-censored adult discussion of all problems, real and perceived, and those basic freedoms such as the three dealt with in this post, which despite being no purview of the Fortress in a free land, we must prostrate ourselves sycophantically in front of our masters to be allowed.
 

I note a series of MSM and blog posts against monarchy this morning, given Kate and William’s current tour: afraid I just can’t get excited about that when a bunch of power enabled babies are running my life from Wellington.


From our institutions up, there needs to be a Western Spring: let’s start by paring the size of government back to the civilising Westminster Principle.

 

 

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Climate Change Against Free Speech - Moderation at *The Daily Blog*


Why is the Left so arrogantly intolerant of free speech and dissent to the theocracy they assume of themselves? Their willful blindness to any ideas outside their perceived truths means that even on any point they might be right, they are still wrong. At heart it's an emotional immaturity, arising from their truths being the product of emoting, not thinking. For example, every sane human being wants to see an end to poverty, the Left have no monopoly over compassion; but no reasoned solution will include theft, the destruction of rights and freedoms, and creation of dependency on the state that leads into a cycle of poverty which the cult of redistribution gives. Though what concerns me is, once free speech is gone, there is only violence left. More on that soon; first the latest litany of proof.

I am always respectful when commenting on other blogs, yet my comments seldom make it past moderation on most Left-centric sites. I've not tried to comment on The Daily Blog for six or seven months, but over the weekend decided a comment was warranted on a post talking about what a disaster Peter Dunne's Psychoactive Substances Act is, because I agreed with it. That Act is a disaster from the toxic, psychosis forming sludge it legalises, to the barbaric animal testing it authorises. My point to the blog post was, however, that due to the nanny state mentality of all our governing parties, and central to the Left ethic, we are treated as children, hence non-toxic, harmless, medicinal, even, cannabis remains criminalised. That comment never made it past moderation.

My blog is not moderated because I believe absolutely in free speech. The Daily Blog has every right to moderate their blog, but once they start choosing who is allowed to comment, and what they're allowed to say, that begins saying more about them, than their blog's content. Once you start moderating you may as well simply switch off comments, as No Right Turn does, and then you can pretend you are the alpha to omega of truth, while ignoring the illusory truth of the free lunch.

And moderated blogs also undermine themselves, as Mark Steyn makes plain in the climate debate:


The fact that 'climate change' is not secure enough to tolerate dissent, helps explain why it's going nowhere.'

This is not a post on climate change, I'm not sure enough about the science either way, (or overly interested), but the manner in which the 'alarmist' camp are playing roughshod over free speech, is putting me firmly in the camp of the deniers, even if they're wrong, given free speech is far more important than man-made climate change, if that is, indeed, occurring. There certainly seems to be a new era of McCarthyism:

At the heart of the current, poisoned debate about global warming lies a paradox. Thanks to the ‘pause’, the unexpected plateau in world surface temperatures which has now lasted for 17 years, the science is less ‘settled’ than it has been for years.

Yet, despite this uncertainty, those who use it to justify a range of potentially ruinous energy policies have become ever more extreme in their pronouncements. Their latest campaign is an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.

This reached a new and baleful milestone last week, with a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee saying BBC editors must obtain special ‘clearance’ before interviewing climate ‘sceptics’.

Yes, that. The advocates of global warming, as with too much of the blinkered, conservative Left politick, need to grow up. And don't pretend some type of compassionate, moral superiority that gives you a right to run my life: the reality is far removed from that. Plus like Steyn, my mind remains, always, firmly onside of the free society: I'm a free speech absolutist, because the alternative is only violence:

I've always been in favor of freedom of expression, but lately I've become a free-speech absolutist. It takes all sorts to make a world and I've met a lot of them over the years, and I can stand pretty much anything anyone says about anything — until someone says to me, "You can't say that." At which point my inclination is to punch his lights out. I do this not just because I'm a violent psychopath with a hair-trigger temper, but to make the important point that in societies where you're not free to speak your mind — to argue and debate — the only way to express disagreement is through violence.


Monday, April 7, 2014

We Are Living *The Lives of Others* - The Snitch Society Again.


Sadly, to understand where our lives are headed in our tax surveillance states, you only need watch a movie called The Lives of Others, which follows the lives of East Berliners under total surveillance from the Stasi in the final years before the Wall came down. We exist not to pursue our individual happiness, but to be sacrificed to the lives of others, via the tax take and the cult of redistribution - and I use the word cult because it's based entirely on emotion, with no reasoned philosophising upon it regarding the nature of freedom, rights, or the travails of dependency created.

Read my Twitter timeline for any thirty minutes, and you’ll see what I mean. Look at this.





How cold and clinically the statists talk about owning you.

I’ve written before on how the Left – men such as Selwyn - believe freedom loving producers and wealth creators, taxpayers, don’t need to be treated as humans with their own goals and aspirations, toiling away with their minds, bodies and capital for their own betterment; they’re just the nameless who exist to fund the Left’s and Selwyn's egotistical idea of the fair society. I’ve also written on what a sham their fair society is, asking why I am forced to fund a society I have no agreement with.

No more than ten tweets after the above, Liberty Scott, reinforced the point:




It is unsurprising to me my most read post, with 7,000 reads – 1984 Comes to 2012: Children Nowadays Were Horrible - and still the most actively read despite writing it in 2012, commented on just this confluence of historically and philosophically bankrupt ideas which are leading us into replicating the snitch societies of the Soviet Bloc, China and North Korea, et al, where if you dare be different, free in your mind and actions, you are to be reported and dealt to. I’ve even written a post on the nature of the snitch society in New Zealand as created by Inland Revenue Department compared with Hans Fallada’s novel of life in Nazi Germany. Another top ten read post on this blog.

Although at least IRD aren’t paying blood money, yet: as in so many fields nowadays, the US and IRS win the tyranny stakes:

The Internal Revenue Service paid out more than $53 million to whistle-blowers in 2013 who turned in friends, family and co-workers.

What an ugly world we’ve voted in.

I began that earlier post with a quotation from Orwell’s 1984:

"Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children."

Comparing this quotation with how British school children were being encouraged to dob in tax cheats in their neighbourhoods, I summed the truth as follows:

Look at the ‘good citizens’ these children are taught to be in our schools, with all these ‘obligations’ to each other. And so strong is the programming, that I am confident more than ninety percent of those reading this would feel, deep down, that they have to agree with the teachers’ ethic here, with what this tax course in the schools is founded on: that self-sacrifice for the common good, is a noble thing, and the needs of others are what social democracies must hold at their centre.

But it’s a magic trick, an illusion, that’s been done in our minds by Gramsci, a linguistic sleight of hand, all the more evil because it initially appeals to our 'better natures'. All we need do to understand it, see the reality of it, is change the focus, the narrative point of view, and see what it really says, which is that for you to live your life, it is acceptable that the lives of others, total strangers, be sacrificed to you, their pursuit of happiness destroyed for you, and that the state will initiate force to back you up in this, and mince up the livelihoods, and freedom, of those who will not bow down to you. And part of being a good citizen, now, is for you to dob these people in, so they can be dealt to.

This is the ethic of the societies our democracies have voted in on belief in the illusory free lunch. It’s barbaric, the hatred of life itself for:

Free men know that the civilised society is not based on such an extinguishment of life, but founded on a bed-rock of the non-initiation of force, particularly the state against the people, and on each individual being responsible for themselves, and self-reliant. That a civilised society works on the natural love and affection between families and loved ones, on compassion and charity freely given for strangers, and on voluntarism.


I read somewhere over the last week, probably a book site, that modern youth love dystopia fiction because they think they live in a dsytopia: I agree.

Is there hope? No.

The greatest philosopher in the twentieth century summed it up pretty well:



Welcome to the pig pen. Don’t panic, Selwyn is lobbying the government to supply you with swill, you won't need to do any work for it, or be self reliant to any extent at all.

Me? I married my best friend, and we try to stay as far away from the pig pen as possible, enjoying the scenery and a drink or three on the way to the new Gulags: