Trolls have been out in force on the blog over the last week or so. Only a few of them, but they have been persistent,so let me offer a quiet explanation to those who have seen a number of their comments deleted.
If you came to my front door and when I opened it you yelled abuse at me do you honestly think I'd invite you in for a chat?
And do you honestly think that if you behaved like that I could trust you to not abuse my other guests?
I hope you have the sense to realise that I would turn you away the first time and if you called again that I would definitely not answer, however many times you appeared (and some if you do it several times a day). That's what I also do on the blog.
That's not called censorship. That's called common sense.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Well said Richard and keep up the good work
People have a view. When you open your personal comments in public, then you can expect people to share their view. They are entitled to their view, as much as you. You cant for one moment say they are wrong, maybe you are the one who is wrong.
Its a bit like a MP who says they don’t like feedback. We are now entitled to email MPs and point out they are wrong.
If you air your views in public, people will tell you their opinion. That’s not a troll that is just a persons point of view.
I don’t understand what this front door is about, you are on the tv. You are in contact with the MPs. Now you say you are not a public figure. Or is it only at times you don’t like their point of view??
And this is my blog
So like an editor anywhere I can decide what goes
I am not stopping you coming to the door, but it is not open to abuse
It is always open to disagreement
You may be surprised to know that disagreement and abuse are far removed from each other
@ Patrick
Further to Richard’s response, where he refers to the abusiveness of trolls, another key characteristic of trolls is purpose.
If you’ve ever done door-step canvassing in an Election campaign, then you’ll have met trolls there (and alas have had colleagies who have themselves trolled canvassers).
The canvasser’s aim is to knock on as many doors as s/he csan, and engage as quickly, and politely, and above all respectfully, woth as any electors, and potential supporyters as possible.
Getting caught in detailed discussion with the voter is fatal (though the actual candidate can do this – but even he or she needs to move on, leaving detailed discussion to public meetings or street events or “Question Time” events.
The troll aims to capture the canvasser, and hold him or her there, occupying their time, effort and concentration, even aiming to rattle the canvasser, and make him or her less keen on pursuing their objectives.
What they say hardly matters – Beachcomber’s wonderful “Rutland Cab-drivers’ Directory” will be just fine – what DOES matter is to delay, deter, obfuscate, confuse, dispirit.
Is it any wonder richard deletes them, after testing out their bona fides?
Genuine (well-mannered) disagreement – fine. Conjuror’s or pick-pocket’s distracting speil – no way!
Thanks!
Andrew, if a candidate knocks on my door, in what possible sense could I be a troll?
I’m genuinely confused by your suggestion (if I have understood it correctly, and apologise and would appreciate clarification if I have not).
Adrian, you have obviously never done door-step canvassing. I have and Andrew is spot on.
I have to say that if a Tory came to my door (real door not e-door!), I would do everything in my power to detain him and waste his time. I think that would be perfectly legitimate. Does that make me a troll? Remember, he came to my door! But this has nothing to do with people talking shite on Richard’s own website. He didn’t invite them. He didn’t go to their door.
From Oxford dictionary:
TROLL
VERB
“make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them:
‘if people are obviously trolling then I’ll delete your posts and do my best to ban you’
‘you folks taking this opportunity to troll me, you really need to reassess your values in your life’ ”
NOUN
“a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting:
‘one solution is to make a troll’s postings invisible to the rest of community once they’ve been recognized’”
DEBATE:
NOUN
“a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote:
‘last night’s debate on the Education Bill’ ”
VERB
“argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner:
‘MPs debated the issue in the Commons’ ”
‘there has been much debate about prices’”
I suspect that the trolls may be rather more organised than they might appear.
I suspect, quite often, that I daal with a multi-headed hydra
Wikipedia has an interesting page on Troll in the Norse myths. Possibly our ancestors also had trouble with them in the deep past. But also beware of the changelings and the huldrefolk. It’s a safe bet that some of your ones are connected, if not organised. The paradox is that your ideas, right or wrong, actually gain in circulation. To be entirely ignored would be much worse.
Most of the trolls get on sometimes
Then some try to abuse
And others post 10 + times a day
I use judgement
Except that your definition of “Abuse” is not swearing or personal attach but has widened over the years to mean the following :-
a) anyone with a neoliberal viewpoint
b) anyone who disagrees with you
c) anyone who points out your inconsistent approach
d) anyone who posts a point that you would find difficult to argue with
As a result the blog is now full of sycophantic cheerleaders whose comments extend to commenting how they agree with you now, everyone will agree with you in the future or how everyone else is wrong……..
Great if you want that warm glow in the morning but it is not debate and it will not change peoples minds……
How many times have you appeared on this blog despite doing all those things?
Have you realised how absurd your argument is in that case?
Sometimes my comments appear……….and sometimes they do not.
The “abuse” excuse carries so little weight because you use it as safety blanket whenever you are losing an argument or the balance of comments is against you.
But hey……continue preaching to the converted!………they love it!
If you weren’t so worried I am winning my case you wouldn’t be here
Can you please give examples of how you are winning your case???
Tax justice was not an issue in 2002
Last year it was the focus of G8 and G20 summits
Didn’t you notice?
Tax avoidance has always been an issue. People have been avoiding tax since the start of taxation.
I know
Does that justify it?
@ Richard,
Perhaps you are right – or have some justification – in saying that those of us who support Richard Murphy’s line are a group of – and I quote –
“sycophantic cheerleaders whose comments extend to commenting how they agree with you now, everyone will agree with you in the future or how everyone else is wrong”
Except that neo-liberalism has been proven to be an ABSOLUTE DISASTER, everywhere it has been tried, for EVERYONE except the !%, who have “done very nicely out of it, thank you very much!”.
They LOVE to say how Communism failed, but at least they had schools, an excellent higher education system, jobs, a health service in the Soviet Union, even if they did pay a high price in terms of real liberty and freedom of expression.
By contrast, every society that had the mad IMF and World Bank “fixes” in the form of Structural Adjustment Programmes (if ever there was an example of weaselish Orwellian newspeak, SAP is one of them) – the “solution” imposed on Greece by the wonkish neo-liberal ECB and others – saw ANY and ALL gains it had achieved under its previous Socialist-inclined policies completely wiped out by the so-called “rational market efficiency” model, even extending to the privatisation of waster! They’s privatize the air we breathe, if they could.
Those who defend the neo-liberal nostrum often trot out Chile – allegedly “ruined” by Allende, and “saved” by Pinochet, who was “courageous enough” to follow the great Wizard of OZ, Milton Friedman.
Well, I suggest you read this article, by Gregory Palast, from the Guardian of 1998 – which puts that particular piece of nonsense firmly to bed – and then you’ll understand why many people want to have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that smells even REMOTELY of neo-liberalism>
http://www.gregpalast.com/miracle-cure-but-the-medicine-was-bright-red/
Don’t suppose this will make it but…..
Communism failed miserably, which is why those forced to live under it eventually overthrew it. Ask any East German, Chezch, Pole, etc. You could ask the millions killed by Stalin, Pol Pot etc what they think.
We know that
Andrew knows that
Why haven’t you the ability to understand nuance, critical analysis, or the reality of ambiguity in outcome?
Richard (poster),
You’re obviously a neo-liberal, I’m not and loathe everything about it, for the last 35 odd years the mainstream media has bombarded us with your flawed ideology. I’m not that well educated in matters connected with finance and taxation. I read Richard’s blog to learn and help me understand what’s going on, free from right wing bias, frankly I’ve no interest in your opinion whatsoever. Besides my personal view, you’re forgetting a very salient point it’s Richard’s blog not a forum for discussion, if that’s what you seek why not go elsewhere ?
Of late the organised troll attacks here have been patently obvious, in some ways they’ve been amusing, it shows Richard is hitting a nerve. Instead of complaining you should appreciate Richard’s fairness in publishing your posts in the first place. The British right has become arrogant and extreme, I’ve long since given up discussion with them and nowadays favour more direct opposition. It follows that if I controlled this blog your contributions, along with the rubbish emanating from the trolls, would never see the light of day at all.
If people dont like the Blog or strongly opposed to the views of Richard then here is idea, start your own blog.
Andrew, neoliberals obviously do have their ‘own’ blogs. Tim Worstall, The Times, etc being examples.
The difference is – and the point that is being raised by various people in this thread – that these neoliberal sites actively encourage debate. Examples include:
– Tim Worstall: A self-confessed libertarian whose blog has ongoing debate Ian B, Louis Enrique, Chris Dillow amongst others
– The Times, who have contributors including Rachel Sylvester, Philip Collins and even Mick Hume (editor of Marxist publication ‘Spiked!’)
– Even the FT include Martin Wolf.
Most left-leaning sites do not do this. They actively discourage and block debate and actively seek to create an ego-enhancing echo chamber.
The only counter example which comes to mind is Chris Dillow. And notice how genuinely leading left-thinkers like him never engage here. I think I know why.
yes..yes…The Times is not a blog, but there is no edit function here.
If you want advertising traffic you take hits
I don’t
I never block debate
I block abuse
You’ve got on
And as for your final comment – most would say ‘who’s he?’ and maybe with good reason, in my opinion
I just wanted to comment on the suggestion that the Times has contributors from “the left”. Two of the examples given – Phil Collins and Mick Hume – are far right. Mick Hume is a libertarian and MINO (Marxist In Name Only) while Phil Collins is a LINO (Labour In Name Only) whose views, like many Blairites, are actually mainstream Tory. This makes sense: after all the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an extreme right winger who has made it his life’s business to try to exterminate left-wing thought.
As for the Worstall blog, to be fair to Gary Chris Dillow is a genuine left wing commentator – idiosyncratic, but left. But Luis Enrique, for example, is a neoclassical right-winger. It may well be accurate that Tim Worstall runs an open comment policy. I’ve never bothered to comment because I find Tim’s approach to neoclassical economics too simplistic to take seriously, and I simply don’t have time to spend hours every day pointing out the flaws in his posts. Moreover, many of his posts (thousands of them over the last few years!) are unpleasantly-phrased and crude attacks on Richard Murphy. The reverse is not true: Richard makes the occasional post about Tim Worstall but only a few a year.
As someone on the left, why would I want to read right wing blogs that consist entirely of (a) the same flawed arguments repeated ad infinitum, and (b) desperate attempts at character assissination? Worstall may not operate a censorship policy, but by providing such poor excuse for content, his blog censors itself. I’m surprised Chris Dillow has the patience to read it.
Andrew, well said 🙂
Well said Andrew S too! 🙂
Re Andrew Dickie’s testament to the Soviet Union: I think Soviet communism was a catastrophe for mankind both in design and outcome; where do you stand on that Richard?
There can be no doubt that much about the uSSR was an outright disaster and of course I condemn its abuses. Who wouldn’t? It was a totalitarian regime that showed no respect for its own people. Don’t for a minute think I condone it.
I think what Andrew is saying though is that black and white cannot be applied universally – and to simply say that it was a total disaster is wrong. Actually, for some it worked. That does not forgive it, but the certainty it gave to many was why it survived. What has replaced it has for many been worse. The human rights record is still bad, but not as bad. The lot of many ordinary people on a day to day basis could be worse.
The reality is Russia has still not found freedom or security. And that is an ongoing tragedy. That us a nature and caring reaction, not a dogmatic one.
The classic George Monbiot article on “astroturfing” is highly relevant to this discussion and the amount of nonsense Richard has to put up with:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing
You see I personally do believe that human rights, the ‘black and white’ to which you refer, are universal. All men and women are absolutely entitled to them, wherever they are, whatever their government, whatever the majority says. When a regime is built upon the denial of choice to its people, as this one was, then it is born evil. When you add to that the economic stupidity of the Soviet Union, where millions starved in man-made famine, and you have created a near-hell on Earth. It will follow that this regime shoots its own people to stop them escaping, needs to build a wall to keep them in their prison. I’m very sorry, but I cannot imagine for whom you think it ‘worked’. And if these views make me a troll in your eyes then I’m hppy to be called a troll.
I agree human rights are universal
I have and always will resoundingly condemn the USSR
And yet many who lived there seem to think, with reason, that it was better than what they have now
Do you deny them the right to their opinion?
And aren’t you also willing to condemn what has happened since the rightful fall of Soviet communism?
Thanks to Richard M (directly) and Theremustbeanotherway (indirectly) for springing to my defence in the matter of my comments on the USSR.
However, further to that, could I request that we all read carefully what each of us posts here.
1. Max, I did NOT say I approved of the USSR. What I DID say was “but at least they had schools, an excellent higher education system, jobs, a health service in the Soviet Union.”
On which, two observations
a) By contrast – and please, everyone, read the Gregory Palast article – often NONE of those things are available in a neo-liberal economy. I mentioned the privatisation of water deliberately, having seen a heart-wrenching documentary on some poor mestizo or native Indian family in a Latin American country. This family had NO access to water, which was VERY expensive, after privatisation (the wonders of the free market!), and could only obtain some by breaching some company-owned water pipe, and “stealing” water. (NB, the scandalous head of Nestle’s has delivered himself of the opinion that the right to water is NOT a human right!!!!! And, of course, Nestle snaffles local water in e.g. India, to sell it bottled at vast prices to the Indian middle class, thereby starving farmers of access to water for irrigation – WONDERFUL example of human rights, and an excellent example of the corruption of neo-liberalism!)
b) It is of very great interest that a recent poll of Russian citizens (apologies – I read it on FaceBook, and don’t have the reference) showed that most Russians were happiest under Brezhnev, exactly because they had “schools, an excellent higher education system, jobs, a health service”. We in the West LOVE to get up on our high horses about “freedom” and “human rights”, but I suggest everyone tries to meet up with a former Eastern Bloc resident, to get a different view — I have that good fortune, in having a Czech wife.
If you do, two things emerge:
i) First, that Eastern Bloc former residents are possessed of excellent “bull-shit detectors”, which enable them to cut through official crap. It took my wife just THREE weeks to say, after the Baler landslide of 1997, “nothing’s going to change!” How we quarrelled over that, but how right she was.
ii) Secondly, you would be VERY surprised at how much support there now is for the old Communist set-up, sometimes expressed in electoral turnout and votes. For example, in the recent Elections in the Czech Republic, the Communists came third, with 11.27%, 26 seats, an increase of 7, on a 3.4% swing. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_legislative_election,_2013). And as for the former Yugoslavia, there are undoubtedly those who wish Tito could have appointed a successor to hold it all together: had he done so, thousands of lives could have been saved
2. This leads to my second point, referring to Ironman, and his robust defence of human rights. First of all, you are not a “troll” for sayin what you honestly believe, in my view. And I agree entirely with you, Ironman, that “All men and women are absolutely entitled to them, wherever they are, whatever their government, whatever the majority says.” I even go with you to some extent on your statement “When a regime is built upon the denial of choice to its people, as this one was, then it is born evil.” (incidentally, I heard Gorbachev say, in his public meeting in Westminster Central Hall in 1993, that he had come to regret the failure of the February Revolution of 1917 — the one which COULD have led to a vibrant multi-party, probably Socialist, Russia — my how THAT would have frightened the West: a REAL mirror in which to see the West’s defect, instead of a convenient Bolshevik bogeyman.)
However, to go on and attack the Soviet Union’s brutality and economic stupidity, without recognizing the equal brutality and economic stupidity of capitalist imperialism, whose only difference was to spend three centuries doing what the USSR did in 30 years.
You don’t agree? Ask about the crofter brutally starved and deported in the 18th and 19th century Highland Clearances. Ask about the — Richard, help me here on the figures — million people who died in the Irish Potato Famine. Ask about the Tasmanian aborigines, who were ethnically cleansed by colonial settlers. Ask about the millions of Indians in North and South America who were brutalized, chased off their land, made to work to death in mines, sent on death marches, cooped up on unhealthy reservations. Last of all, ask about the generations of poor, oppressed working people, driven off the land in the 18th century enclosures, pauperized and enslaved in low-paid labour, in virtual bonded debt-serfdom. I think you might find that the blood tally for the industrial revolution matched that of Communism.
3. Which leads me to my third, and final point. Max, you rightly say “Communism failed miserably, which is why those forced to live under it eventually overthrew it.“, which is why I say that we must do the same to the EQUALLY cruel and EQUALLY stupid neo-liberal system, which has impoverished many (Wage repression means that UK and US workers are now learning NO MORE , perhaps LESS, in buying power than in the early 1970’s, while 95% of the increase in wealth since the 2008 crash has gone to the top 1% of the US economy — probably the same here — not “Trickle down” but “Cascade UP”).
Richard’s Blog is part of that fight-back, of resistance, but the first requirement of a fight-back is to recognize the terrain and the territory where you currently are — which is a neo-liberal, incipiently Fascist, potentially neo-feudal state, in which ALL our rights are up for grabs and negotiation. Remember, Theresa May is set to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, repeal the Human Rights Act, 1998, and set up a new Bill of Rights.
Frankly, I simply do NOT trust our current masters with the task of drawing up a new Bill of Rights, since I am perfectly certain WE (the 99%) would pay the Bill, and THEY (the 1%) would get the rights.
Andrew
As ever, appreciated
1 million Irish died
1 million emigrated
The diaspora was created, but at a terrible price
Richard
Max and Ironman
Gentlemen, surely you can appreciate that we all live in a world that is not black and white, left or right, or on or off.
There are strengths and weaknesses in all forms of political and economic systems.
In the UK, we have now lived through thirty five years (almost two years) of the neo-liberal experiment and hence it is entirely appropriate to consider it strengths AND weaknesses. There are plenty of websites proclaiming its strengths, but few, that reach a large audience, where one can comment on its weaknesses.
I accept that we can all be guilty of generating “snappy sound bites”, but having read most if not all of your comments, I would urge both to do more research and start thinking a bit more deeply.
Richard
“Do you deny them the right to their opinion?
And aren’t you also willing to condemn what has happened since the rightful fall of Soviet communism?”
No of course I don’t and yes indeed I am. But then that follows from the absolute expression of principle I gave, by which I try to live and by which I judge all governments. So why the need to ask? And I should repeat that this is the regularly restated principle of a man whom you, Howard Reed, Andrew Dickie, Verth and Mr Theremustbeanotherway condemn as a troll.
Theremustbeanotherway
“Gentlemen, surely you can appreciate that we all live in a world that is not black and white, left or right, or on or off”
No, I don’t appreciate that, not at all! Rights are universal, an individual’s right to choose his or her life’s direction and style is unalienable. An individal can delegate his right make individual decisions – deleagted democracy depends upon it – but they are his rights, his choices. So when I read someone like Andrew Dickie write about “the ONLY choice they need” I feel compelled to write in reply. So again, I’m proud to be a troll.
Howard Reed
Astroturfing; I’m afraid not. These are my words, my thoughts and I haven’t needed to refer to anybody else’s article!
Many of us read your opinion
You support a system of economic organisation that is profoundly abusive of human rights
We form our conclusions based on that fact
But so do you.
Taking an individual’s property infringes their human rights, and so any form of tax is depriving a person of their rights and can be seen as an abuse.
Taxation is however perfectly acceptable of course, because it is necessary to adversely impact on the property rights of individuals in order to uphold their other rights (hence your comment in the GAAR guidance about it not being reasonable to use this as an argument in favour of avoiding tax obligations altogether).
The difference between you and Ironman is the weight you give to different human rights, and the degree of impact on each you find acceptable.
Although his views may be an abuse (in your eyes) of some human rights, your views are an abuse (in other eyes) of other rights, such as the rights to property and freedom.
Each of you needs to find a compromise, but the compromise you personally find acceptable is not qualitatively different from his compromise: it is still an infringement of human rights.
It is very important (in my view) to acknowledge this balance of upholding and infringement, as failure to do so leads to zealotry and totalitarianism in the name of benevolence.
Tax cannot be an abuse of human rights
Property rights are created by law
Tax is also created by the same process of law
Tax is therefore a property right
The right of an individual to hold property is net of the tax due on its acquisition
The right to continue to hold the property is conditional on paying that tax or the right is forfeit
It is therefore the non-payment of tax that is an infringement of property rights
That’s your view.
Another view is that the law which creates property rights and the law which taxes are independent laws: you could have one without the other. Therefore property rights do not depend on tax.
I haven’t considered the arguments for either in enough depth to say which formulation (if either) is correct.
As you’re here and talking about it, though, I’d be interested if you could answer one question about your argument: how do individual taxes and individual property rights relate to one another? Which tax, for example, gives me the right to exclusive use to my car? Which one gives me the right to my house?
I can see an argument that paying the VAT on the car gives me the initial right to own the car, so I couldn’t be said to properly own it if I hadn’t paid that tax; but there was no VAT on my house. VED could give me the continuing right to own my car, but would I still own the car if VED were abolished?
Is it simply that in each case there is a tax of some sort from which my property right derives, even if it is a different tax for different assets, and the rate may be nil in many cases?
You clearly have not read my argument or you could not present the argument you do on VED
It’s also clear that your view of rights is selective
How very neoliberal of you
I have read your argument several times, I’m just looking to explore the ramifications a bit.
When you say “The right to continue to hold the property is conditional on paying that tax or the right is forfeit”, which tax are you talking about in respect of my car?
Or, to put it another way, in what situation would my right to own my car become forfeit due to non-payment of tax? I could see an argument for VED being such a tax, but I’m not sure that it fits the bill fully.
I quite agree that my view of rights is selective. I also think your view of rights is selective: any view of rights has to be selective if it is to be meaningful, unless it is possible for all rights to be upheld at once (which is not the case: your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins). I’m slightly concerned that you seem to think being non-selective about rights is either reasonable or possible.
If you don’t pay VED on acquisition and it was due then your right to the property is forfeit
Is that really so hard to understand?
If it was not due then it is not forfeit
Again, what part of that passed you by?
Also: my presentation of a VED argument was meant as an example, not as a solid proposition in its own right. I was rather hoping you might provide your own argument in support of your own assertion.
Your VED argument was absurd
Just read it in the context of what I wrote and it will be obvious why it is not worth responding to it
OK, so there is a situation where if tax is due, and it is not paid, the property rights are forfeit – though I think you’re saying that the right is non-existent as the prerequisite of paying tax has not been fulfilled, rather than the possible alternative view that the right existed but was then revoked as a sanction for non-payment.
You also though say that if the tax is not due then the property right is not forfeit. This seems odd if property rights depend on tax being paid. Does a tax rate of nil count as “tax paid” and therefore create the property right? What about a deliberate exemption from tax – does that count as nil tax (to be contrasted with VAT, where zero-rating and exemption are very different things)?
But if we ignore VED, because as you rightly say it cannot by itself be sufficient to creat my property rights in my car: which tax does create those rights?
Why not stop trying to be clever?
Why not try the plain words?
If tax is due and it is not paid then the claim to the property is forfeit
What could be clearer?
It follows that if no tax was due the property could not be forfeit
What is there not to understand?
What I don’t understand is how a property right can be dependent on tax being paid, if there is no tax to be paid in the first place.
I can understand that IF tax is due in relation to some form of property, THEN the right to hold that bit of property depends on that tax being paid, and the right to that property can be revoked as a consequence of non-payment.
What I don’t understand is how all property rights depend on tax being paid, and how tax is therefore a property right.
I assume you will accept that I have a right to own property. If you personally seek to deprive me of that property, that is an infringement of my right to own. I therefore conclude that for government to seek to deprive me of property is an infringement of my right to own that property. I further conclude that it is acceptable for my right to own property to be infringed by government, where that is required in order to allow government to uphold other rights (belonging to me and to others).
This to me seems very different from your position, which is (if I understand your brief assertions correctly) that I wouldn’t have any rights at all if I didn’t let government do what it liked wth them first.
So I am saying that I have certain rights and relinquish some to government and am therefore left with limited rights; and you are saying that government gives me a certain amount after it has withheld what it sees fit.
I can’t see that the latter fits with how most people regard property rights, tax, or indeed how the world works generally.
It isn’t dependent upon tax being paid if there is no tax!!!!!
How many times do I have to say it?
But when there is tax due it is.
Right, so where is the dependency?
Say I own two assets, a house and some cash. I have the right to own each of them (assume I have paid all taxes due: SDLT, income tax, NI, etc). Those rights are independent of one another, in my view.
Government then says to me: because you own a house we are taking some cash from you in council tax.
That is an infringement of my right to own the cash, is it not?
Yes, there is a link to my right to own the house. But there are several things being balanced off here: my rights over my house (upheld, or at least not forfeited), my right to hold cash (infringed), my right to local services(upheld via council tax funding), and so on. At least one of those is an infringement of my rights. A justifiable one, but still an infringement.
I cannot see that my right to receive cash wages in March is dependent on my paying council tax in April. I think you would struggle to convince people that my right to own a house is dependent on having paid my council tax, to be honest, if you go on to say I should therefore lose my house over an unpaid bill (I think there is an argument there, but not one that would convince many people).
You prove convincingly why reductionism does not work
Or, possibly, why your argument is incorrect or incomplete?
No.
Your failure to comprehend is not my error of logic.
I have presented two arguments, and set out the logic behind them. The logic behind yours does not seem to work, so far as I can tell, but you haven’t ever suggested a better logic: you simply assert that you are correct.
Once again: I have some cash; the government says they will deprive me of some of that cash. Can you explain to me how that is not an infringment – however justifiable – of my right to that cash?
The only way I can see to say that my right is not infringed is to say that I don’t have the right in the first place. But if I have earnt the money and paid all due tax and NI on the income, how do I not have the right to it?
You might say that my right is only conditional on some future events, but a right which is always conditional is no right at all. Yet I am sure that most people would say I have a solid right to the amount of money listed at the bottom of my payslip.
The government has asked you for cash because it has a property right that makes claim upon it in accordance with the law because of your ownership of an asset other than the cash
The cash – which is of course a property right created by government that only has value in exchange – represents your means of settling the claim
You can of course divest yourself of the asset giving rise to the claim on your cash. If you don’t then you must pay. That is not an infringement of your rights. It is an obligation you must settle no more or less than you mist pay at the till if you want to leave a shop with goods they displayed for sale.
Are you really suggesting the shop infringes your rights by asking for legally due payment?
If not, how can you say otherwise of the government?
Your logic makes no sense at all
Ah, at last a lucid and clear argument that can be considered – excellent, thank you.
What you say makes a lot of sense, yes. It seems valid to say that the government is not depriving me of my cash, but is simply saying that if I want to retain the other property I will have to lose some cash, so the choice is mine.
I think a counter argument would be that it is the government who decides to impose the tax obligation on my other property, and so is still (albeit perhaps indirectly) depriving me of the cash. For example, to the extent that government can determine the level of council tax it is able to decide how much cash to take from me regardless of my views, and this loss caused to me is an infringement of my rights.
An analogy there might be a shop that arbitrarily imposes a price change, or perhaps an aggressive “you picked it up, so you’ve bought it” policy. Insisting on being paid for something regardless whether the customer wants to buy it could be seen as unacceptable.
I’m not sure where on the line between those two I’d stand: probably asomething of a mixture of both. But thank you for explaining your position.
Andrew
I am just not sure why it was so hard to get there
Richard
It was easier to understand your position once you’d set it out.
I’ve been considering your position overnight, and I think I stand by my original comment: your position and Ironman’s both involve complex interactions of different peoples’ rights in which some people lose out in respect of some rights.
You consider that in the case of tax this is perfectly acceptable and therefore tax cannot be seen as a problem: to use the old analogy, it is perfectly acceptable for you not to want your nose punched, so restricting my right to swing my arm cannot be a problem.
I think though that by ignoring the deeper implications of your position (that tax does have an adverse effect as well as a beneficial one) you end up giving tax an unduly privileged status compared to other factors.
I’m not sure what profound abuse of human rights you’re referring to in your initial comment to Ironman, but from what you’ve said so far I cannot think of one for which Ironman could not use the same argument you have used in favour of tax to justify the infringement of certain rights in order to promote others.
I’d be interested to find one which is qualitatively different, if you can point one out.
Shall we just agree that you comment is based on prejudice?
I can’t find logic in it
I can’t agree to that.
I am rather disappointed that you can’t see that you are engaged in special pleading.
If you’d like to brand disagreement with you as “prejudice”, however, that is your privilege.
I consider your disagreement with me as “being mistaken”.
So asking people to pay tax is ‘special pleading’
That’s an interesting argument
No.
Asking people to pay tax is asking people to accept an infringement of some rights in exchange for the upholding of others. That’s part of the social contract (subject to all the debates about what that actually means, of course).
When you say that levying tax cannot be an infringement of property rights – that is special pleading.
Utter nonsense – it’s fact
And you have offered no counter argument
You seem to be confusing opinion and fact. Or possibly confusing an economic theory with fact, which is the same kind of mistake.
I have presented my argument several times (11.30 yestereday, for example) – you just choose to ignore it.
Andrew
Very politely, you’re trolling
I have answered all your reasonable questions
Your time on this issue has ended – without you having made a single substantive point of note
Richard
“An individual’s right to choose his life’s direction and style is unalienable”.
Strictly speaking that would only be true in a world which there was only one person who existed. Because as soon as you have more than one person it becomes necessary to balance one person’s rights against another’s. This is the solipsism which underpins the neoliberal project.
Well said
Really? Well here’s a challenge: I have written a lot on this blog; I’m one of your “trolls”. So you’ll be able show what it is I’ve written that justifies that comment won’t you. Or maybe, just possibly, the Ironman who argues strongly with the genuine libertarians on Worstall’s blog hasn’t said the things you’ve convinced yourself he has said.
It’s not just me you’ve convinced here
You’ve convinced many others too
And commenting on Worstall’s blog becomes no one
If you didn’t use such a stupid moniker it might help
“Except that neo-liberalism has been proven to be an ABSOLUTE DISASTER, everywhere it has been tried, for EVERYONE except the !%, who have “done very nicely out of it, thank you very much!”.”
This is another, equally apposite, problem:the term “neo-liberalism” is bandied about as one of abuse. If one accepts that “neo-liberalism” generally took hold from the late 1970s onwards, the argument that it is has been an “ABSOLUTE DISASTER…for EVERYONE except the 1%”, is clearly wrong. If you look at the graphs showing year plotted on one axis and people living in absolute poverty on the other (they are all over the internet) there is a massive, massive decline in the number of people living in absolute poverty since the late 1970s. Secondly, it is also the case that such a decline in absolute poverty is unprecedented in human history – there has been no earlier period where more people have been lifted out of poverty, more quickly than in the last 35 years.
Finally, Mr Dickie’s comments about the USSR are wide of the mark. I have no recollection of the schools, hospitals or universities in the USSR being particularly special (where were the equivalent USSR Ivy League, Oxbridge institutions: most academics were queuing up to flee the USSR for goodness sake, and got employment in the US or UK). And as for “jobs” in the USSR, I assume Mr Dickie is joking: the average existence of a Russian was one of complete misery for much of the post-war period.
What we have here is one of Mr Murphy’s regular commentators coming perilously close – if not explicitly saying – that communism was worth it. Yet it gets not even a slap on the wrist from the editor, still less a deletion. Whilst people who apparently support the system which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other are “trolls” and nust be banished.
It’s a funny old world, isn’t it?
You have wildly and I presume deliberately distorted what Andrew said – as is glaringly obvious
You have made a claim about Russia which cannot be evidentially supported – some people think communism was better for them and objectively that is clearly, for some, true (and we’re not talking he politburo before anyone makes such a stupid comment)
And you also claim something that is true but equally obviously wrong. Absolute poverty has reduced. But neoliberal has ensured relative poverty has increased massively and if you don’t understand the issues that gives rise to go and do some reading
The people for whom communism would be better, frankly, are so insignficant in number that it isn’t worth talking about. Someone could say the same thing about Nazism and you would rightly be horrified. And my analysis of Mr Dickie’s words was, I think, reasonable – anybody who even gives the merest hint of defending communism has to realise what they are likely to receive in response.
As for your comments on relative poverty, you will note I did not claim that. I was referring to absolute poverty, so I cannot obviously wrong”. But what it reveals again is the mindset of the left: you would rather the poorest were absolutely poorer, so long as the gap between rich and poor were narrower. As was the case pre-1979. This is one of the many reasons why left-wing economics is scorned by many people.
This is so absurd it is ridiculous
I post it purely as evidence that those making absurd comments can get on this blog
On the absolute vs relative poverty point, which do you think those living on less than $1.25 per day are more worried about?
Whilst no-one reading this blog will be in that situation, I think it a fair assumption that if you are surviving on $1.25 per day, you really do not care if those above you are earning 100 or 1000 per day. Whatever helps you to get to $2, $5 or $10 the quickest would be preferred.
For what it’s worth, the World Bank estimates that the % of those living in the developing world living on $1.25 per day has fall from 52% in 1981 to 22% in 2008. That’s 650 million people.
I am delighted by that
But I assure you, they do care
And why not?
@ Mr Lester.
I pondered long about replying (and incidentally, I thank you for your courteous form of address), but have decided to respond.
I did ask that people posting here should read what others say, yet you have managed to imply, from what I have posted, that “What we have here is one of Mr Murphy’s regular commentators coming perilously close — if not explicitly saying — that communism was worth it.”
Nowhere have I said, or even implied, anything of the kind: I have merely pointed out that many people in the former Eastern Bloc (beyond the USSR) found the societies they lived in in the Cold War era preferable to their current situation (It is worth observing that life expectancy in Russia post-1991 fell by 20+ years to around 54 for men, and is only slowly recovering), and have referred to the evidence of recent polling in Russia (for which I have not got a source – apologies), and of recent Communist electoral success in the Czech Repbulic (for which I did give a reference).
Secondly, you assure me that my “comments about the USSR are wide of the mark. I have no recollection of the schools, hospitals and universities in the USSR being particularly special (where were the equivalent USSR Ivy League, Oxbridge institutions: most academics were queuing up to flee the USSR for goodness sake, and got employment in the US or UK). And as for “jobs” in the USSR, I assume Mr Dickie is joking: the average existence of a Russian was one of complete misery for much of the post-war period.”.
As regards the first assertion, of course we do not know the names of these “Ivy League” Russian establishments, as, before the “Velvet Revolutions” of 1989-1991, such exchanges were not encouraged by the Soviets, while after it the West made sure it appropriated whatever it could in Yeltsin’s “knock-down” economy. If you don’t believe me, look closely at the next News programme about the launching of some satellite, even by NASA, and I can almost guarantee you it will be using a Russian rocket (tell-tale sing = 4 boosters at each corner, and a bulbous nose-cone). And as to education, I have before me, chosen a New Internationalist Country Profile for Kyrgystan, which notes that literacy in Kyrgystan is 99%. We, and Michael Gove, should be so lucky here in the UK, and a direct result of Soviet education.
As regards scientists and intellectuals trying to escape to the West – of course they were: I’m sure I would have done the same, given the constraints on free thought and human liberty.
As regards “the average existence of a Russian was one of complete misery for much of the post-war period”, it would seem that Russians themselves do not agree with you, except for the period of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who came VERY much the bottom of the poll.
Finally, you characterise as being “the system which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other”, an assertion with which I must respectfully take issue. The experience of Chileans between 1973 and 1983 has been the common experience of every attempt to implement Friedmanite solutions.
And please don’t cite Margaret Thatcher as proof to the contrary. This is a Prime minister who inherited an inflation rate of around 10.5%, and unemployment of about 1.7 million, and only managed to bring inflation back down to around 10.5% from a high if 22% by the 1983 General Election of 1983, at the cost of MORE than doubling unemployment by a count of around 3.5 million (with real unemployment probably nearer 4.5 million). AND she had the North Seal Oil bonanza. I do NOT call that economic brilliance, but, charitably, economic incompetence – unless it was designed, like Naomi Klein’s “Shock Theory”, as a massive “distraction burglary”, so the electorate wouldn’t see what was happening. Our experience of the actions of the Coalition Government suggests the Naomi Klein “Shock Theory” interpretation, as the Government uses the “debt crisis” (when they’ve borrowed more in 3 years that Labour did in 13!) to sell off what isn’t nailed down – even, it would seem State Pensions !!!!
NO, the moving of people out of impoverishment has been the result of good old intervention, in a world-wide co-operative basis, under UN auspices, of aid, and of increasing real trade along-side it, admittedly on a free market basis, but only if the free market is regulated against market failures. How could the neo-liberal prescription of total de-regulation and mass privatization (of health, education, water supplies etc.) as experienced in Chile, ever have led to anything other than impoverishment? Entrepreneurs don’t work in a vacuum – they work in a social context of public, private and statutory provision, and if you knock out any part of it, you run the risk of under-performance, or aberrant performance. If you want the totally de-regulated, totally privatized society the neo-liberals and neo-cons are after, you’d better move to Somalia, except, of course, that all law and order – indeed,everything – is regulated by the gun.
After your comment to me about people missing their appointments at hospitals and doctors, I can see why so many people are upset with you!!!
I provided a factual response
You didn’t need to comment again
I note you have
I deleted it
In fairness, you outline the rules of the game before anyone posts here and whilst I disagree fundamentally with your analysis, your readers don’t come here to get a dose of ‘Neo-Liberal’ analysis, which they can perfectly easily get elsewhere. The overuse of the word ‘troll’ which appears to be defined as ‘anyone rightwing’ is interesting but you are entitled to freedom of expression as are your criticis, on their own blog….
I’m very disappointed; I had expected more from you. You deny somebody the ability to represent themselves by deleting their response (which can be viewed as dishonest I’m afraid) and you sink to raw name-calling abuse. And all under a post about “trolls”. It may be your blog but, well, Worstall wouldn’t do that, Frances wouldn’t, Chris Dillow certainly wouldn’t, Sunny never did.
Up to them
But Sunny gave up, and Worstall is a lowest common denominator
The standard you espouse is that of Comment is Free – which is a place where no writer ever reads the comments
I won’t go there
Hold on, Ironman
Worstall’s entire blog is 95% insult. The comments that follow are mostly vile.
I wouldn’t be proud.
Thanks for saying that
Worstall is, to be polite, uncouth
His followers are much worse
And he seems to take no offence at that
Maybe that explains this http://labs.ebuzzing.co.uk/top-blogs/economy
Lawrence
Yeah, some of the comments on Worstall’s blog are pretty unpleasant and pretty far-out Ayn Rand stuff. And worse, some of them disagree with me!
Worstall let’s them all through.
And then there’s Arnald… Richard may remember him, he aimed a foul-mouthed rant at me – and Tim Worstall – incorporating quite disgusting references to (Tim’s) bodily functions. Richard expressed “reservations” but allowed it through.
Worstall lets him through every time.
He lets just about everbody through … are you following me here?
Sure I follow
Worstall permits abuse
I don’t
And I’m proud of the fact
Having attempted to read a few posts on Paul Staines’ Guido Fawkes blog (which attracts perhaps the biggest crowd of out-and-out far-right nutters of any of the British politics or economics blog), I would personally much rather read a moderated blog than an unmoderated one where one has to wade through acres of complete crap and abuse to find anything of value. Some bloggers prefer an “anything goes” policy (Fawkes, Worstall) and that is, of course, their choice; other bloggers prefer to moderate comments. I think provided that the person running the blog is explicit about their comments policy (which Richard certainly is), I can’t see what there is to complain about. If Richard or any other blogger was claiming to offer a free-for-all in the comments section but was actually censoring comments, that would be dishonest and reprehensible. But given that Richard is very explicit about what the comments policy is, I think there can be no cause for complaint. Anybody who feels they are not being properly represented in the comments section is very free to go elsewhere and blog about it (for example, Worstall has several posts a day you could complain about Richard on if you so wished…)
Sure Howard. Fair enough. But just know that – however illiberal you think Worstall/Staines are – you are less liberal than that if you cannot demonstrate (not talk about but demonstrate) liberty’s Base Camp; free speech.
Free speech is not the right to say what you want where you want without limit – and no sane person thinks it is
It is the right to comment without fear of oppression
You have that
Nothing that happens here changes that
In which case your comment is meaningless
I don’t think Worstall and Staines are “illiberal”, Gary. At least, not if we define liberal in the sense of ‘classical liberal’. I DO, however think their right-wing politics are unpleasant and misguided – but that’s not the issue here. Richard hasn’t actually violated anyone’s right to free speech as anyone whose comment is not let through is free to post it in millions of other, equally accessible, places on the web. Free speech simply doesn’t mean “the right to post a comment on any blog and have that comment accepted”. It’s the editor’s choice whether comments are accepted or not.
It’s odd, isn’t it, that my rights aren’t considered here?
Like the right to blog without being abused, for a start
Richard – and that’s why you sometimes attract such opprobrium – it’s a self-inflicted wound. You get comments like mine to Howard that are completely about the analysis of logic, no personal attack and complying with the rules and you don’t post.
I know its your house and your rules, but when you don’t follow through on them you leave me with no conclusion other than you delete posts when you just can’t keep up.
If you thought implying I was a Nazi wasn’t abusive you have a very weird idea of abuse
What?!!!
a. I wasn’t even talking to you – I was talking to Howard. Get over yourself.
b. I gave 3 examples of Howard’s logic in different settings to conclude he was in fact using special pleading in his reasoning. No one got called a facist.
Show some of your famous courage and publish the post and we will all see what really happened.
Respectfully – I disagree
You are welcome to disagree – elsewhere
Ed comment:
This comment has been deleted
You argue you don’t troll
But all you offer is abuse, a refusal to engage with actual debate and straw man arguments instead and yet argue I have no right to edit comments
Please do bother again
Richard
I agree absolutely!
You stick by your guns, if you’ll pardon the expresion.
I for one have learned far more from your blog and the commentators it attracts than any other website for which I thank you.
Thanks
¨A group of Canadian researchers has given the imprimatur of social-science recognition to a fact that many of us who spend time in internet comment forums have suspected: there’s a strong correlation between online trolling and sadism¨
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/12/study_shoes_that_online_comment_trolls_are_sadists/
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/02/bertrand-russells-advice-to-internet-commenters.html
Amused