UK citizens arrest judge over illegal council tax

Yesterday I saw the news that UK citizens tried to arrest a judge in an act of “legal rebellion”. The reason? The judge refused to acknowledge that he was acting under his oath of office, as he attempted to sentence Roger Hayes on charges of council tax evasion. A judge not acting under their oath of office is a fraudster. But did you also know that council tax is illegal?

The full story behind the protest is here.

Roger Hayes, a former UKIP member who has consistently refused to pay council tax on the grounds that it is illegal, and as a political protest against the British government’s sacrifical and treasonous actions with the EU, gives us the full story here.

It’s so refreshing and encouraging to see free people peacefully demonstrating, with morality on their side, against the arbitrary and excessive power of government (local and national.)  On this occasion unfortunately, the police did not take the side of the “rebels”, but if this knowledge becomes more widespread and the average UK citizen wises up on their legal position, who knows what the future might bring.

Regardless of your opinion on Council Tax (I am opposed to it), every self-respecting citizen should object to it on the principle that any phony power imposing arbitrary demands on you without your consent is wrong. It is a scam being perpetrated on us through legal trickery and our own ignorance – and it must stop. Legally, politically, and morally, we must spread the news of this and make these shifty charlatans realise we are not cash cows.

The 2011 UK Census is totalitarian and impractical

The 2011 UK Census comes down to this: “share your private information with the government, or go to prison.”

No, this is not “anti-establishment” scare-mongering, but a real life concrete example of totalitarianism. If anyone disagrees with this, simply ask them: “what happens if you refuse to complete the Census on the grounds that the only proper role of government (protecting your Rights) does not extend to gathering personal details about your life and property?

Let’s not forget that the Census itself costs £480,000,000 to conduct. That’s almost half a billion pounds. Remember that the next time someone complains about the state of the NHS. The justification for the Census? It helps government planning in the public sector – another huge waste of money that is the government’s own doing; (jobs created out of thin air that would be unnecessary and unsupportable in the private sector. For “private sector” read: the real world where you have to earn your money.)

Hang on, doesn’t this mean that in order to keep the “public” sector running (paid for by the taxpayer) so as to provide mediocre services, personal intrusions, or economic distortions (that hurt the taxpayer), a Census is required (costing the taxpayer half a billion pounds), which you much comply with under penalty of a fine and (if you refuse) inprisonment (paid for by the taxpayer)? Well, yes.

Of course, if you refuse to comply, the odds are that you won’t be prosecuted. However, the census does prove how utterly impractical force is as an inducement: when people are forced to do something they’d rather not do; when their only incentive is not to be met with force, they’ll do the absolute bare minimum, or undermine the enforcer as much as possible. This is counterproductive to getting useful honest information. If people saw how they could benefit by sharing their personal information, they would – as evidenced by the many private endeavours (such as credit cards, petitions, private insurance, magazine subscriptions, social networking sites, charities etc) where they do give up such details. The fact that a hollow threat of a £1000 fine (backed by a gun) is in one hand whilst the government holds the 2011 census in the other, speaks volumes about how much faith the government and the public have in yet another waste of money and flagrant abuse of state power.

Sexism and political correctness

Sexism is essentially the judgement of another person based primarily on their gender. It isn’t exclusively the physical discrimination of a person, for example by treating them as inferior or denying them equal opportunities, because these actions are preceded by the belief of sexual superiority in a person’s mind.

Since a person’s character should be evaluated by their chosen morals and free actions, to judge someone based on unchosen factors is to ignore the only basis on which to properly evaluate another human being. Not only is this irrational, but it treats the other person as sub-human; a being without a mind, without conscience, with volition. And since rationality is the most fundamental moral choice, irrationality is antithetical to all human life. In short, sexism, like racism, is an evil.

Throughout history, and mainly due to religion, women have been seen as second class citizens. It was ultimately reason and (its corollary) political freedom that enabled women the chance to demonstrate their ability on equal footing with men. A similar thing happened with race. Sadly, there are many parts of the world where these revolutions haven’t taken place.

I can’t help but notice a similarity between the revolution of female political freedom and that of the American Revolution; both based on the principle of individual rights which demands equality before the Law. Whilst the US was founded on the right ideals, the driving principles were not clearly identified and thus became distorted, hence the total mess that is the modern concept of Rights. Similarly, whilst the sexist ideas and discrimination of women slowly started to evaporate (and in many respects and places, still need to), they have morphed into something else; a formless mess of false notions and irrational demands. The same could be said of other groups demanding more Rights, such as ethnic minorities or gays.

Let’s be clear: the basic principle underlying the moral evaluation of all human beings is: we are all free-willed individuals with the capacity for reason. We should be praised or condemned for our actions, not those who share our gender, skin colour, or race. The political expression of this moral principle is freedom before the law, i.e.: no forcible discrimination against us and no special favours either. Political freedom means freedom from the use of force from other humans; it means equality of treatment by the government. It not does not apply to the chosen interactions between private citizens, which may or may not be moral or rational.

Political correctness has taken the concept of Rights and equality as moral and political ideas and corrupted them in terms of practical effects. The egalitarians operate on the same premise. In other words, whilst all human beings should be politically equal, the simple fact is that we are not all morally, intellectually, or physically equal. As these factors are not determined by our gender or race, they cannot be equalised by special treatment in favour of said gender or race. Egalitarianism in politics and metaphysics is impossible and self-contradictory, and so is political correctness. It is wholly hypocritical. It is hypocritical because it pretends that all human beings are necessarily equal regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, height, age, weight, skin colour, but in an attempt to make the practical realisations of individual traits equal, it promotes certain groups of people over others, based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, height, age, weight, or skin colour!

From what should be a demand for political equality: the right to life, and therefore the right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, the right to vote – various pressure groups, such as women’s rights, gay rights, ethnic minority rights – are all demanding more and more. But it’s actually special treatment they are asking for; the entitlement to something beyond political equality, for example a job or a pay rise.

I’m not saying that these groups are treated perfectly; far from it. Even today in the western world, sexism, racism, and sexual ignorance are present. They should be opposed ideologically and intellectually. But they shouldn’t be opposed by over-compensating and granting a group of people special consideration. Special consideration is precisely what activists claim to be fighting, when it isn’t in their favour, that is.

I am totally supportive of those who are discriminated against for irrelevant attributes. What I don’t support is the use of the word “Rights” here. There is only one type of right: individual; individual rights apply to all individuals, but only individuals.

It is true that men and women, gays and straights, whites and blacks all have rights, but to say “women’s rights” or “gay rights” is to misuse the word. It seems harmless enough, but it conceals a false premise: that a certain group is entitled to something. But contrary to popular belief, a right is not an entitlement; it is the freedom to act. It’s the freedom to try and get a job, but not freedom to be given a job because the employer already has “too many” of a certain colour. Freedom to vote, but not freedom to be given what you demand, like a minimum wage. Freedom to marry whom you wish, but not freedom to be approved by the ignorant by flaunting your sexuality for prestige, “cool” points, or to make a political statement. Freedom to work hard and merit a pay rise, but not freedom to be promoted or remunerated to meet an “equality” quota. Freedom to use reason to overcome bias, prejudice, and discrimination, but not freedom to have respect or followers through emotional blackmail.

I oppose feminism, because it is not a movement asking for freedom and equality, but special treatment to evade and ignore the reality that men and woman are different. Not different intellectually, morally, or politically – but different emotionally and physically. To take one example: the feminist campaign to have the New York fire department’s criteria for strength changed so that a certain (arbitrary) number of women could pass the requirements test. To use an extreme example, should the requirements be further changed to allow the wheelchair-bound or blind to become fire-fighters? The strength requirements would exclude many men who fell short, but the feminists didn’t want the rules changed to be more objective and tolerable for all, but for women simply because they are women.

The premise of feminism is that women are disadvantaged deliberately based on gender, and thus feminists must fight for entitlements based on gender. But this isn’t equality! And it ignores the truth that the real requirements for a great many things have nothing to do with gender, but objective standards (for example, being a fire-fighter, or simply being good enough to obtain a job). Arguments for equality should be made by pointing out why exclusionary criteria are objectively wrong, not by promoting women simply because they are women. Men and women do have natural differences and although neither sex is “better”, it is a fact that some tasks are more suited to one gender than the other, and that people of one sex tend to prefer certain occupations over the other, hence the apparent disproportion in occupational demographics. But to pretend these differences don’t exist is a denial of sexual identity.

What we should all be demanding is what we have earned, and not be demanding what we haven’t; the word we should be using isn’t equality or Rights, but justice.

World Cup games to remain on free-to-air TV in the UK

If you think this is good news, you need to reconsider your premises and take a reality check.

It’s not good enough to simply say “oh good, this means I get to watch World Cup games for free” ignoring the far more important, and sinister, premise underlying this.

For once I actually agree with UEFA when it says that the government has created “a disproportionate and unjustified distortion of competition on the relevant market.” Incidentally, this statement could and should be applied to government meddling in ALL markets – but most people usually object only when they feel aggrieved, just as most people turn a blind eye to government meddling when it appears to benefit them in the short term. This ruling unnaturally manipulates the market, and prevents property owners getting value for money, and prevents broadcasters competing fairly over coverage rights. You might say it’s unfair on you to have to pay to watch a certain event (as if you have the god-given Right to someone else’s property just because you’d like it, and what events do you have a “right” to watch and which ones don’t you?), but what about what’s fair on UEFA, FIFA, and all the TV companies? Does your “interest” trump their property?

(Also, there are no “free” channels in the UK, given that the British people are subjected to perhaps the most ludicrous and laughable tax ever invented, the TV License; a license that funnels tax money to the State’s official broadcaster, allowing it to compete with proper broadcasters who must actually earn their income.)

A spokesman for the UK department of culture, media and sport said: “We welcome the decision from the EU and continue to support the principle of protecting sports events for free-to-air coverage.” But why are some events exempt from fair (and free) trade and some aren’t? On what grounds does government decide to make certain events “untouchable” simply because they think a large number of people have an interest in watching such events? What if the government decided that these events are so important you must pay for the privilege and judged World Cup matches to be off-limits to the general public (similar to what North Korean has done)? At what percentage interest of the population does this become legally and morally right?

There is no objective answer to these questions, because it really comes down to what a group of bureaucrats generally feel is good or bad for an arbitrary and undefined group of people – and just as that group may grow or shrink, change interests, or have no say at all – their opinion will vacillate and meander too. In other words, they do whatever they think a large enough group will like. If you want an example of mob rule, this is it.

Make no mistake; if you distil the issue to the core you’ll see it is simply this: the government can dictate what property of others it may dish out free of charge to the mob. The government may decide what is of certain significance and therefore worthy of special State privileges. The other side of this fascist coin is that it thereby decrees what form of event or speech is unacceptable – which it already has done in the form of “hate speech” and other politically-correct nonsense.

The government should be a legal arbiter – not a moral one. So long as UEFA and FIFA sell their property to buyers, there is no dispute to resolve. If that means that certain broadcasters are left behind, that’s business. Remember, the only reason the BBC can compete with anyone in the first place is because of tax money and special government privileges. The BBC can’t compete fairly with proper broadcasters because it doesn’t generate enough of its own wealth (this is just one reason why socialism doesn’t work). If the government gave Sky some special law allowing it exclusivity over TV shows, wouldn’t there be an outrage? Why then is it ok to rule some programmes “off limits” to free and fair trade? Why is ok to give ITV a special leg-up too?

This may seem like a minor issue, but if so, it’s only because government dictatorship has become a way of life. We are so used to it being involved in every field from healthcare to science to sport, that we take it for granted and turn a blind eye. But, since government power is the power to use force against citizens, as its power grows, your liberties will necessarily diminish. And its power is growing all the time. Don’t be part of the mob that cheers for more socialist agendas and promises of “equal wealth” or “equal football broadcast rights” – nothing is free. Government interference always costs you. They say “every man has his price”. What is yours? A free lunch? A free state benefit? A free football match?

Speed cameras = epic fail

Apparently, 47% of speed cameras in Britain don’t actually work. Excuse me whilst I…hehehe HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! It’s always great to see the government being unable to finance yet another tax-milking scheme. And no, I don’t care for the arguments that speed kills. Lots of things kill, and wreckless driving is wreckless driving whatever speed you’re going. Speed cameras aren’t there for safety, they’re there to milk the public in yet another way. As just one example of this, a man was actually fined for…alerting other road users of a police speed trap… That’s right – he alerted drivers to a speed trap who subsequently slowed down… but because they slowed down as a result of a warning from another driver, as opposed to seeing signs or the police clocking them… the law wasn’t happy. But it’s all about the safety of course…

You’d think tax ontop of tax would be more than enough to finance everything the government wants to do, like build silly public monuments or road works – but even that isn’t enough. Instead, local councils look for money to burn by pointless “road works” in order to secure future funding. It’s a running joke in Britain that we know it’s coming to the end of the financial year when we see workman digging up a hole in the middle of the road just to fill it in again.

The failure of speed cameras is just another example of how government projects like this are simply impractical. Everything needs financing, and when your only source of income is squeezing your citizens, even The State has to give up certain luxuries. It’s another example of how illegitimate State projects fail - because the wealth to operate projects on this scale doesn’t exist on government level; only private companies with a vested interest in making things happen profitably can maintain this. For example:

Katie Shephard, acting general manager of road safety charity Brake, said speed cameras “help to stem the huge cost to the economy of road death and injury.” But clearly, the “huge cost” to the economy cannot be greater than the cost to actually maintain all these cameras in the first place! Which means, it’s actually cheaper to not have speed cameras…

It’s even gotten to the point where ordinary citizens including children are being asked to volunteer to operate speed cameras.

I don’t mean to sound cynical but I am so that’s how it comes across – and this national speed camera obsession is just another example of the British public being treated as cash cows for tax-funded bureaucratic money-spinning pencil pushers that are starting to be caught out by the impracticality and bloody-mindedness of their own schemes. Anyone with half a brain could figure out that speed cameras for the sake of it only needlessly delay drivers, cause frustration, cost a fortune to set up and maintain, and are easily-avoidable traps anyway; drivers simply slow down and speed up after the trap, probably going even faster than normal to make up the time wasted.

Now, of all the genuine criminal issues in society, is this really what an overstretched police force should be doing with its time?

Humanists don’t have a clue

I used to identify myself as a secular Humanist. I even joined the BHA, and subscribed to their mailing list – something I still haven’t unsub’d from – so recently I received their latest bulletin entitled: “Population is a moral issue – but not like this.”

I‘m always amused by what mental contortions and subjective ideas Humanists can come out with, so I read the brief message.

Apparently, Francis Philips from the Catholic Herald has pointed out how demographics are changing, as a result of low birth rates in the 90s. She cites the then Russian President Medvedev and other experts who argued that families should be having three or more children to compensate for this disaster.

Philips goes onto ask: “’why doesn’t the Government offer incentives to married women to stay at home and have larger families?” Enter the Humanist with the chance to apply their rational atheistic worldview to this “moral” issue. I agree it’s a moral issue – but then what isn’t?

“The assumption appears to be that a significant spend on incentivising fertility – for couples who perhaps aren’t ready to have children – is preferable to simple immigration” says the BHA newsletter. The issue of parents being bribed by the state to make life-changing decisions that they wouldn’t normally make, is totally overlooked. But then, all governments consistently offer incentives to distort natural law – so we shouldn’t be surprised.

“Whatever your view, world population is certainly something that humanists should regard as a moral and social issue.” At first I was thinking ‘ok, that’s fair’, and then I thought – why? What exactly IS the issue? It’s like saying war is a moral/social concern. This is generally true, but it doesn’t mean that it’s YOUR concern. A war between two tribal religious gangs in Africa is a concern to them, but not to me. The “issue” is not actually elucidated thus far – save for the mention of changing demographics above. (Which is, of course, the issue.)

“But it’s far from clear, when there are very serious concerns about depleted resources and environmental catastrophe, that actively promoting childbirth is either necessary or wise” continues the BHA. Well, it wouldn’t be modern Leftie liberalism without including some overhyped environmentalism – a “science” that is riddled with corruption and attention-seeking celebrities and politicians.

Note how the Humanist questions whether actively promoting childbirth is necessary or wise. In other words: it would be ok, if it was necessary. Necessary…for whom? Is there any other person on the planet apart from mum and dad who can decide if having a child is necessary or not? For what other purpose, apart from for their own selfish joy and love – is there for two people to bring a child into this world? Note also how the alternatives are “necessary or wise”. What about right?

The BHA continues: “In the case of a boom like that suggested by Phillips the real intention, worse than self-interest, appears to be the interest of an in-group.” (Yes, the only thing worse than self-interest is favouring a particular group…hang on a second…) The BHA vilifies the Catholic Phillips (rightly so, because you can never vilify Christians enough) for wanting to select for a culture of “Christian Europe”. And, true to the spirit of true democracy, she wants to use government force to get her way for her gang. The BHA fairly denounces this: “rather than dialogue, education or tolerance, she sees engineering the ethnic ratio as the way to go about it.”

The BHA finishes with: “Surely we’re passed the point at which wouldbe parents can be treated solely as such, asked to breed in the name of shoring up nationally, religiously or ethnically defined in-groups.”

Well, no. We’re not past that point – because the justification for using people as cattle for some other, intrinsic, “greater” good is the root of the most prevalent political system in the world today (socialism, in all its forms). And the means of achieving this collectivist end, the same as attempted by the Third Reich and Soviet Russia, is to use government force to engineer changes in peoples’ lives and markets that have nothing to do with simply protecting their Rights – the only thing any government should be doing.

Humanists will slam the nonsense coming out of the Church, rightly so – but they don’t have a clue themselves why it’s wrong. And they disagree on this particular point, not on the far more foundational principle of individual rights, but because, on this occasion, the power of government would work against them. But show the government enough votes and it would happen.

Not once do Humanists even question the idea that government offering incentives for people to breed is a gross trespassing of its rightful powers. This issue is totally lost on Humanists, and that is the real problem. The tenets and subjective moral basis of Humanists is hardly different from religion – hence I see them as inherently no better or worse than Christians. Given enough power, I’m afraid both groups will violate my Rights, and for a long time it’s actually been the liberal lefties who are the greater sinners. One group wants me to sacrifice for God, the other wants me to sacrifice for society.

The sad thing is that Humanists and other Neo-Atheists say it all in the guise of rationality. But rationality is a virtue that has its place in a person’s philosophy. It is needed because of the nature of man and the nature of reality, i.e. his metaphysics. It has its applications in identifying the good and bad for man, i.e. his morality – and the application of that to how he should live with other men, i.e.: his politics. Humanists fail because their metaphysics, morality, and politics are an irrational jumble of conflicting ideas. So they can talk about rationality all they want; they are missing the cart and the house.

BBC suspension of license fee raises same old questions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11325325

“There will be no increase to the TV licence fee in 2011 after the BBC Trust offered to freeze it at £145.50 for the next two years.”

I feel honoured that the official broadcasting department of the State has graced its humble subjects with this welcome reprieve from possibly the most laughable tax invented.

The BBC Trust cited “the exceptional pressures that the current economic climate is placing on licence fee payers” as the cue for the move.

If the Trust was really concerned about the pockets of license fee payers – why not allow them to opt out of paying for the BBC altogether? That way you would see a true reflection of who wants to watch the BBC and who doesn’t? Oh that’s right – the license fee isn’t a subscription to the BBC – it’s a requirement for owning a television set. Even though the money from license fees doesn’t go the government directly but rather it’s officially endorsed broadcasting setup, the BBC (under the Chairmanship of a government-appointed person.)

If the license fee is for owning a TV and not for any particular subscription, why does the cash go to the BBC? For that matter, why doesn’t the government just drop the charade and call it what it is: tax? It would be more honest to call it a tax for a public service – is that not what the BBC was founded as after all?  Sir Christopher Bland didn’t think so, when addressing the select committee for Culture, Media and Sport: “We [the BBC] are not simply a public service broadcaster but a business.”

What other business has its own private law enforcement officers that are guaranteed warrants to search your property on the assumption you are guilty until proven innocent?

Why does the BBC continue with this patronising claim that it is providing some special and unique quality that can’t be found elsewhere? The only thing the BBC has a unique talent for is making enemies, from footballer managers to the Israeli government. It’s track record of “journalism” speaks for itself.

What is the single biggest argument for keeping the BBC tax? Because if it was optional like the subscription fee for Sky, people wouldn’t pay, and the BBC, albeit partially funded already by adverts on its many commercial stations, would cease to exist. Doesn’t that concede the argument that nobody really wants the BBC and unless they were forced to support it, they wouldn’t?

Why does the BBC believe that choosing not to pay your license fee is “clearly an unacceptable situation as licence-fee evasion reduces the revenue available for programme making considerably, as well as well as being unfair to those who regularly renew their licences” – Graeme Craig, Head of TVL Operations, source.

My question would be: why doesn’t this hypothetical voiceless group of people who want the BBC act “fairly” to the rest and pay for it themselves? If any other company in the world couldn’t get money for programmes they would STOP MAKING PROGRAMMES. Yet the BBC keeps churning out its bilge whether anyone wants it or not.

Going back to the pay increase suspension, despite the deficit in income, Michael Lyons said the Trust was satisfied “the BBC can manage the impact while continuing to deliver the range of programmes and services that the public loves”.”

So…we have a state-operated broadcaster telling us how much we love it, on the implied nicety that it does what it does only because it loves us, but if we refuse the love we are harassed and treated like criminals unless we can prove otherwise at regular intervals. Orwell, anyone?

Funnily enough, the public doesn’t seem to have any problems expressing its love for ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5, for which they pay NOTHING – and those stations have no trouble staying open for business.

Supply and demand talks. You can’t cheat it. If you ignore the economic foundations that make markets possible, you will suffer. And speaking of suffering:

“The BBC is also facing strike action from staff over proposed changes to its pension scheme.”

Well when your primary income isn’t arrived at through success, either artistic or commercial, but through expropriated money, it’s hard to flourish – since your holes of failure are plugged by tax money, and your rewards cannot be capitalised upon like a free market allows for.

How much longer can this staggeringly-obvious facade continue for? With media becoming more and more digital and the internet becoming a serious rival to TV, how long before we have the option of paying a non-fascist broadcaster for channels over our computers, which don’t  require a license? What will be the justification for the license fee then? Or will PCs soon require a license too?

Will the British public finally start saying NO like the people of New Zealand did?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers