Libertarianz East Coast Bays candidate Elah Zemorah reckons it'd be great if we could have available the 'Opt Out' choice on our Taxes like we do on our Kiwisaver. Here's what you could tell the Ninth Floor:
Dear Prime Minister,
I hereby inform you that as of today's date I will no longer be paying my Tax.
To this end I will henceforth become completely self-sufficient. I will no longer ask for any of the 'essential' services that are provided by the State. I will pay for my health via a private provider. Should I choose to have children I will be sending them to the school of my choice, paid in full by myself and my husband, one that reflects our values -- and will educate them in a manner that is consistent with nothing short of excellence.
Since I have never been a member of a Union and never wish to be I will have an individual contract with my employer that is consistent with how I have proven my value to him. Should we not come to an agreeable contract with regards to my remunerations I shall move on to an employer where there will be an agreeable contract. I disagree on the morality that the State set a minimum wage for all employers to obey.
I might add at this stage that should he wish to open for business on a Public holiday, if I was willing to work on that particular day that would form part of the voluntary contract we have both freely signed.
I would like to remind you that this is MY money which I go out to earn five days of the week, (I might add that most weeks it is six days). To be consistent with Individual Property Rights (which you may like to familiarise yourself with), you do not have my permission to take any of this via the Inland Revenue Department, or any other method of legalised theft. In short, I will be acting only on what will be my objective best interests, since I own my life and I am the best person to judge rational self-interest.
Yours sincerely
Elahrairah Zamora
PS: That sorts out Central government. I will also be writing a letter to my local government explaining to them why I will no longer be paying my rates.
Feel free to compose and send your own letter confirming your intention to become a Conscientious Objector.
27 comments:
Go Elah!!!
I suppose this gives a nice little test of whether the government is Lockean or Leviathan. I rather suspect the latter, and hope that the inevitable truncheons don't cause permanent damage.
I'm Canadian. My wife is American; we married while I was in grad school in the US. Then married to an American, I was able to become a tax resident of the United States. Having no Canadian income, I could then withdraw from their little tax club. Writing my letter to Revenue Canada informing them that I was withdrawing from their particular protection racket to sign onto the Americans' lower-cost alternative: priceless.
What BW said! I like the company you keep, El!
Yawn.... More raving lunacy.
Reading this Libertarian stuff is like watching a great person or a good friend slitting his wrists. Your views are spot-on for 90% of the time and incredibly cogently expressed too - but why, oh why do you come up with this anarchic nonsense? It just ruins any chance you have of being ever represented in Parliament.
It makes me suspect that Libertarianism is where people go who have (some) very worthwhile ideas, but don't want to ever have the onerous task of putting them into practice.
You're a fool if you think not paying your rates will achieve anything. I don't believe you anyway, people like to make themselves look like heroes on the internet when we all know it's not true.
"but why, oh why do you come up with this anarchic nonsense? It just ruins any chance you have of being ever represented in Parliament."
Bet somebody said that about the Greens' once.
sus, the Greens never had a platform that said right from the beginning "we are utterly opposed to all human development generally and capitalism especially and we intend to work towards the dismantling of civilisation and the drastic reduction of humanity's presence as a species on this our sacred planet Gaia."
If they had said that, they would have been laughed off the political stage immediately and wouldn't have any party members, let alone parliamentary representation.
You people are saying your equivalent of the message above and for this reason you will never gain any traction.
... Ok... "never" is a strong word. I'll modify that to 'unless you modify your stance to something more reasonable, you will miss out on attracting a huge number of voters who would otherwise have been a solid support base and a platform upon which to build'.
So you're suggesting "the way in" is by stealth?!
The Greens' still don't publicly say that, by the way. Note, too, that there is no real growth with the Greens. They constantly stay around that 5% mark, in spite of their publicity/longevity.
Dave, there's little politically with which we disagree. But why not say it like it is? What's wrong with a bit of tongue-in-cheek, if it makes people think?
'unless you modify your stance to something more reasonable .. '
But that would mean compromise. How do you compromise 'freedom'?
Ok... seriously, sus; no, thats not what the greens are saying even now, true.
However, this is the inevitable outcome of most of what they are suggesting, and this mindset was certainly present within the old hippy/Values Party mentality from which the greens have mutated.... so its not too far off the mark.
I guess that the reason the Greens' support base is static around the 4-5% mark is exactly because the electorate has now seen the danger inherent in their policies.
I am not proposing that the Libz do anything 'by stealth' at all. I am not proposing that you should moderate your public stance and then aim for almost total dismantling of the state. I am proposing that you genuinely moderate your rhetoric and face the fact that SOME taxation is valid and that the state has a valid (although much smaller than at present) place in a civil society.
I agree that there is little with which we politically disagree.... and I am sure this is true for tens of thousands of people like me; but unlike socialists who tend to fall for any old crap as long as it has the right coloured ribbon on it, people on our end of the spectrum can recognise an unworkably extremist doctrine when they see it and they tend to shy away.
'Compromise' is not, in fact, a dirty word. The ability to compromise in order to reach a goal is a mark of maturity and realism. Not to contenence compromise is a sign of fanaticism.
"'Compromise' is not, in fact, a dirty word. The ability to compromise in order to reach a goal is a mark of maturity and realism. Not to contenence compromise is a sign of fanaticism."
I am glad to hear a libertarian voice of reason. I myself sometimes wonder whether the quasi-anarchists, which tend infect gerneraly right thinking libertarian organisations and parties, actualy want their policies implemented.
As for the comment about stealth, I believe that a libertarian government would be justified if only one person in the country supported it. A libertarian government formed by a coup would be just as legitimate as a libertarian government democraticaly elected. Of course the type of people who initiate coups are seldom libertarians.
These "all or nothing", uncompromising libertartians, who refuse to take power strategicaly (or by "stealth") remind me of the "brave" samurais who would rather die that offer a temporary surrender.
Hi Dave & Hanso: are you not overreacting just a bit?
What's wrong with standing firm? What's wrong with sticking to your principles? To not do so is to cede the moral high ground and why would you do that?
Having said that, we all know that turning the tide of statism is going to take a long time. Which is why I'll support anybody, from any party, that's opposed to coercion on a particular issue - which might mean that I oppose that same individual on another issue further down the track.
We surely agree that opposing statism right now is very much on an issue by issue basis.
That doesn't mean I have to compromise my position. Conversely, it means I *remain* principled.
Sus
Dave and Hanso et al have directed their attentions to acquiring power either by "stealth" or "strategically". In other words they want to tell fibs (big ones and small ones, all fibs) in order to achieve an objective of having power over other people. What they are promoting is undertaking immoral actions in order to attain an immoral objective.
The Libertarian core principles are not about deceptive practice to dishonestly acquire power over others. They are about retaining self-soverignty and respecting the Individual Rights of other people. There is a big difference between the two objectives. And there is a big difference between the behaviours necessary to strive for them.
If all the fibbing and all the stealthy, strategic lies are successful, then who could ever trust practioners of such deception once they had attained the "power" for which they so obviously lust? After all they were liars to start out with and they lied to attain what they sought...
Best stick to your principles.
LGM
May I invite readers erecting straw men to notice that Libertarianz has been rolling out effective 'transitional' policies for a year now explaining how to get more freedom and less government one principled step at a time.
I explain the reasoning here, and give a fairy thorough 'Seven Point Plan' of principled 'transitional' environmental policies indexed here.
Sorry, that should read "fairly thorough 'Seven Point Plan'," although some readers may consider "fairy thorough" more accurate.
PC
I am not criticising the Libertarianz. They are one of the few libertarian organisations which seem to have avoided becoming corrupted by anarchists and idiots (is RR a member?)
I do not think principles should ever be compromised or betrayed, I never stated I did. I do think however, that the objects of ones principles must occasionaly be sacraficed for temporary (and only temporary) amounts of time, in order to insure a greater chance of them being implemented in the future.
I do not sugest lying, I believe it is an ineffective way of establishing a libertarian state. Take a look at Mr Douglas. As one of the most libertarian politicians the New Zealand parliment has ever known (but by no means a libertarian) he attempted to establish his principles dishonestly. Despite being no more moraly worse off for it, he was responded to badly by the public, and the few policies he did manage to get in are slowly being weeded out by Helen.
A libertarian government without the consent of the majority would still be legitimate. However having the majority consent sure does help.
"Hi Dave & Hanso: are you not overreacting just a bit?"
Probably.
Hanso
lgm, for the record,I directed my attentions to acquiring power either by "stealth" or "strategically".
to
If you read my comments on this thread you will see that I am NOT advocating a false or lying approach by the Libertarianz.... I am saying that they should GENUINELY moderate their stance and thus become more acceptable to those who lean in their direction but find them just too fanatical.
Did I not make this clear?
Shit... sorry.... my copy and paste technique is faulty (as is my use of the 'preview' button!). Here is my comment again, with the first paragraph typed properly:
---------
lgm, for the record,I am not directing my attentions to acquiring power either by "stealth" or "strategically" or telling fibs in order to achieve an objective of having power over other people.
If you read my comments on this thread you will see that I am NOT advocating a false or lying approach by the Libertarianz.... I am saying that they should GENUINELY moderate their stance and thus become more acceptable to those who lean in their direction but find them just too fanatical.
Did I not make this clear?
Dave, 'moderating their stance' is what ACT has been doing recently. And how well are they doing in the polls?
Good point Luke! :-)
Luke
I think that's because ACT is a little too moderated. they always have been.
My 2c worth.
I think a key issue thats sort of being danced around here is whether libertarianism is being promoted in a positive way. Lets face it, amongst ourselves it is very easy to express it in rather negative terms as we sledge the living hell out of the statist parties because we understand the positive alternative. A lot of people, the majority really, out there in Sleepy-Kiwi-Land don't have a clue, so all they here is all these negatives.
PC is right about the transitional policies - they are there to show we have a responsible way to bring about change and are not just a bunch of uncaring, slash-and-burn fanatics.
I found in my campaigning the emphasis on freedom is irresistible to most people - at the very least irresistible to start thinking about. I did it because I figured it worked for Ron Paul! This is not stealth or subterfuge - it is focusing on the real issue.
The main thing is that the main thing stays the main thing.
You're a fool if you think not paying your rates will achieve anything. I don't believe you anyway, people like to make themselves look like heroes on the internet when we all know it's not true.
5/27/2008 09:43:00 AM
A reply to the above post by biggirlsblouse...
I realise that at the present time refusing to pay my rates/taxes will achieve nothing, and that is the unfortunate reality I have to face everyday of my life. I never 'signed up' to have money forceably removed from me. Have you ever observed what services the Council does offer for the rates charged? Doesn't amount to anything of value as far as I can see. Don't think for a second that if you are only renting that you will not be paying at least some rates, any landlord with half a brain would be factoring this into the cost of rent. I have never believed that an individual should be forced to pay for goods or services which he/she does not use. That is immoral. That letter was drafted to acknowledge(again)the level of compulsion we currently face and how much my money is wasted everyday(and every other individual who works, produces and creates) by more regulation and bloated governement bureaucracy. I would like to opt out of paying my tax and be self sufficient. What part of that do you not understand? I will say it again, it is my money. Why have the words private enterprise become such dirty words? Anarchy is another arguement, a system that I do not subscribe to. Feel free to discuss. I am not in hiding either, nor am I trying to be a 'hero' (your words - not mine) on the internet.
El Z. Author of letter.
In theory, everyone loves liberty and freedom and individual property rights, but as soon as you start saying things like 'VOLUNTARY MILITIAS' and argue about whether we need jails or whether criminals can be sufficiently dealt with by being shot by the police, non-libertarians start to get a bit jumpy.
" .. start to get a bit jumpy."
Yes, Anon, and you can add privating roads, etc, to that. But it's important to note that those things are far down the track, requiring a radical change in mindset. Better to concentrate on dismantling the statism that annoys a lot of people right now; eg RMA/Treaty nonsense, business compliance costs, etc. A process of weaning, if you like.
"In theory, everyone loves liberty and freedom and individual property rights .."
Really? I just heard the Marxist Archangel Sue Bradford bellyaching on the radio over the indignity of beneficiaries in some town (Thames? Waihi? whatever) being directed by WINZ to - wait for it - work in some packhouse with little or no instruction, blah blah. I'm overwhelmed with sadness at their predicament.
I think you can safely omit Sue from the liberty-loving camp.
make that "privatising" roads.
Post a Comment