Posted by: graemebird | July 29, 2009

Spending Cuts And Wiping Out Government Departments VERSUS Keeping Faith With The Old Guys.

“Mark Bahnisch thinks that Tony Abbott’s proposal to raise the pension age to 70 is ‘authoritarian’. Somehow getting money from the government when you want it has something to do with ‘individual choice’. Perhaps the Libs should hire Mark to advise them on how to return to their classical liberal roots. LOL

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/07/28/the-mad-monk/#comment-816297

Funnily, Mark didn’t speak up about the authoritarian nature of raising the pension age when Labor did it.”

This is the way to go of course. I always say that starting TODAY we ought raise the pension age one day every two days.

If there is to be some sort of reconciliation compensation deal it ought to be at this end of the spectrum. Not some deal which abuses the idea of individual autonomy in property rights.

But here you see there is still no excuse to leave our oldest or sickest people in SQUALOR while EVEN ONE unnecessary government bureaucracy exists.

We can make it up to the taxeaters we sack. We can sack them all and just leave them with a tax-exemption voucher and a half-empty bottle of bourbon. And if this one day is seen to be unjust we yet have time to make it up to them.

But our old guys that we have left in squalor!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They could die at any moment!!!!!

Some of them our diggers. Our soliders. Or their faithful wives!!!!!

There is no time to make our peace with these people. To clear the slate. To make good with them. They could die at any moment and we have lost the opportunity to make good any wrongs and let them have the good times in their dotage untroubled by material want.

We need to sack tens of thousands of taxeaters right away and rescind their redundancies in favour of tax exemptions. And this we need to do and if we get it wrong in justice we can make it up to them.

But we are running out of time to make it up to our old guys and our diggers. And we must not let their last days on this earth be spent in squalor or financial fear.

Chodorov
28 Jul 09 at 6:12 pm

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Great slant this time Reynolds. Great reduction to absurdity.

    Alan Keyes had it right with the issue of campaign contributions. Just contribute what you like. Aftertax contributions FROM REAL HUMAN BEINGS.

    Instead they took up this idiocy from McCain which was a blatant violation of freedom of speech. That nonetheless went under the name of “CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM”

    But whereas McCains campaign finance reform is a blatant violation of free speech, the idea that the money must come from declared income from American citizens, and not companies, and from American citizens and from no other source……….

    Well such a notion is up for debate. But it is not ipso-facto a violation of freedom of speech.

    And libertarians must delve into this grey area of corporations and rights. Freedom of association and the possible decay and dementia of the true PURPOSE of that association.

    These things are up for grabs in righteous philosophy.

    And I’m very much interested in what good people, sound people, have to say on these matters.

    Chodorov
    28 Jul 09 at 6:29 pm
    Business votes in the Melbourne City Council elections.

    Sinclair Davidson
    28 Jul 09 at 6:31 pm
    lol and made to retire when they hit 65

    steven_shaw
    28 Jul 09 at 6:31 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “One of my prefered tax reforms is the one Estonia undertook around 2001. Basically corporations in Estonia pay no tax except for a tax on dividends and gifts. In essence company profits can be fully retained without any tax so long as they are internally reinvested. If corporations are people this would amount to extreme privaledge. However corporations are not people. They are merely legal structures that aggregate property and liabilities which can be bought and sol”

    Excellent tax policy which nonetheless becomes a form of future tyranny unless the same tax policy is forwarded to the sole trader.

    The sole trader keeps two sets of bank accounts. One personal. One the companies. So long as he keeps reinvesting in the company he has no tax liability.

    Only when he pulls money from a company account to a personal account is those funds liable for tax. Hopefully with a generous tax free threshold. In keeping with how many dependents he carries in his wake.

    Chodorov
    28 Jul 09 at 6:34 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Business votes in the Melbourne City Council elections.”

    You see Sinclair? Reynolds this time has hit the nail on the head. Its a reduction to absurdity. We cannot take these non-humans as seriously as all that.

    Chodorov
    28 Jul 09 at 6:36 pm
    Sinclair, I thought your original post was tongue-in-cheek.

    What do you reckon to Stef Molyneux’s view of corporations?

    more at
    [audio src="http://freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/corporations.mp3" /]

    steven_shaw
    28 Jul 09 at 6:50 pm
    Property is a privilige.

    vichy
    28 Jul 09 at 6:55 pm
    Corporations are not like people. You can’t lift a personal veil and sue someone “really” responsible for your actions.

    Corporations shouldn’t be vilified, but this does not help.

    Mark Hill
    28 Jul 09 at 6:59 pm
    Steven Shaw thats a magnificent video on corporations. Its all fucking true.

    We need to delve into what natural law would say about this.

    Earlier for reasons I won’t get into now I theorised that perhaps the natural law would mean that limited liability ought to mean only 100% equity finance.

    It might mean more than that. It might mean that in a legal wrangle between a corporation and the state or another corporation then the corporation would be given individual rights.

    But perhaps when the corporation is up against a genuine human being the rules might be different.

    And then perhaps corporations have to be mortal. Mayhaps they ought to only last thirty years or twenty years after the death or the founder.

    Otherwise immortal corporations might have the edge over mortal humans from which they only gain their legitimacy from and from no other source.

    I’m only thinking out loud here.

    But clearly we cannot take this business for granted. We need to look back through history and sort out the rightful extent of this artificial legal entity which must not be let stray from its only justification which is freedom-of-association…….. it cannot drift too far from what is agreed upon in that initial association.

    Chodorov
    28 Jul 09 at 7:07 pm
    “I’m only thinking out loud here.”

    I recommend that you stop.

    “But clearly we cannot take this business for granted. We need to look back through history and sort out the rightful extent of this artificial legal entity which must not be let stray from its only justification which is freedom-of-association…….. it cannot drift too far from what is agreed upon in that initial association.”

    You need to look a history and notice that incorporation is not about freedom of association but creating economic actors that can do things large collections of individuals would struggle to manage.

    pedro
    28 Jul 09 at 7:50 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    No pedro you are wrong. Its about an extension of the principle of freedom of association.

    And if it is NOT that then it cannot be legally justified.

    Don’t take that tone of certainty with me pedro because the fact is that you are not that bright.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: