Thursday, 29 March 2012

On Property and Ownership of Assets - Numpty vs Joe Soap

Property only has any value if ownership rights can be enforced.

Ownership rights are enforced by 'society', 'the state', 'the people' or however you want to characterise it. So it is we, the people, who create all property value - so logically and morally everything belongs to all of us (who are willing to fight for it).

Permitting private property (enforcing property rights) only make sense while we the people get fair value from doing so.

This works well where the 'owner' can make better use of the property than we could ourselves - and in return they are expected to share a proportion of the 'extra' we have enabled them to create, extra value that we ourselves could not have created.

Permitting/Allowing an entrepreneur to own assets worth (say) £10,000,000 is fine, because with it they will create more jobs, goods etc than joe soap could with the same assets - in return part of that 'exrta' is shared among the true value creators (property right enforcers).

Conflict arises where Numpty get control of such assets. When Joe Soap knows that he could make as good use (or better) of those assets than Numpty can, Joe wonders why he is honouring/enforcing property rights that are destroying value.

This is most offensive to Joe when Numpty adds no value at all - where the assets Numpty controls, simply by virtue of existing, create more value - value that Numpty gets all the benefit of.

The current problem is that many people think property is 'real and absolute' and that property rights are 'real and absolute' so they are not accountable to anyone for them.

But property exists because we choose to allow it (even created the very concept of) - and we will continue to do so while we beleive it is in our interests to do so. But undeserving rich.. beware...

Saturday, 24 March 2012

Why the freedom in the UK depends on the monarchy and the Church of England.

The Monarchy

The main reasons people use to attack the monarchy are actually the main reasons they are better than elected heads of state.

The main 'complaint' about having a monarch is that they aren't in place based on merit.

A monarch is not elected/selected by an electorate, their skills and suitability are never put to the test - the job is simply their by virtue of birth.

This is also the best argument in favour of having a monarch instead of an elected head of state.

The arrogance of elected leaders is astounding - in the UK for many years our choice of Prime Minister has been between the Labour leader or the Conservative leader. While the winner shows great hubris in explaining the great skill, inteligence etc that they have had to employ in beating their opponent, in truth there is no absolute standard.

Our elected PM, is not elected against some absolute measure, they are simply just slightly better than 'the other one'.

A monarch is fully aware that they have their position simply through an accident of birth - it is certainly up to them how good a monarch they become, but the fact they are monarch is no personal reflection on them.

So while elected leaders pretend they are something special - and end up believing it, and acting on it as if they are all powerful gods - a hereditary or other process of merit-free succession keeps the office holder firmly in their place as the beneficiary of good fortune, a debt that they have then to repay to the people of the state they head.

The UK monarchy have done far more to justify their live styles/wealth than (say) Tony Blair or the Kinnock clan ever have, or ever will do.

The Church of England

Just as an unelected head of state is a good thing to keep the role away from the slugs that would otherwise weasel their way into the role under a guise of supposed 'democracy', so the Church of England has an essential role in England - even for the non-religious. Unfortunately it is a role that is is almost completely failing to perform - however this is not a reason to abandon it, either they must raise their game and fulfil this role, or the people must find a new champion to undertake it.

The role is to remind and ensure that people remember that humanity is right at the top of the tree of life, that we are all created equal, and that we are not ultimately accountable to anyone or anything in this world. 

In their words, what we do is by God's will, and it is by God that we are ultimately judged. Not by earthly powers - but whether you believe in God or not, the message is sound.

It is not for any earthly power that people are to be ordered about, their lives controlled, their spirit suppressed. Whether you believe in God or not, this principle needs to be maintained, and the Church of England was the institution that used to maintain it.

Conslusion

With the monarch protecting the people of the UK from big tyrants, and the Church of England protecting us from smaller ones England was a pretty good and free place. But this is being put under pressure by 'presidential' style governments and other manipulative, interfering organisations (the EU, the UN, big NGO's (non governmental organisations). 

If we don't reassert the influences that these two great institutions once held with out question, then our children will be looking at a bleak future, where individual freedom and liberty are long forgotten, or even dirty words.

Monday, 19 March 2012

The New English Revolution

The crunch is nearly upon us.

It is now generally accepted that as things stand, the standard of living for most people in the UK is falling and will continue to do so.

The 'baby boomers' of the post war years were generally hard working, prudent and self reliant. They massively grew the economy and wealth of the country, and they benefited from the wealth that they created.

However, they didn't leave much room for following generations to do the same, and didn't pass on the opportunities. The same traits that created the wealth also made (and makes) them cling to it. The following generations have no ownership of the wealth the boomers created, and there is not the scope for more growth for them to create their own wealth.

We are at a transition point - where the boomers' wealth is being hoovered up by big business and fabulously wealthy individuals/families - it will never reach the bulk of generation x and their descendants.

In response the government (that is ministers and MPs) are playing a nasty, evil trick - in league with the bankers/money men - a trick to give the impression that every thing is 'business as usual' and this is just a 'blip'.

They are tricking us into spending all the money we have yet to earn (and/or spending it in our name) - spending all that money now, today, in return for a few last years of feeling wealthy. They are getting us into debt on a scale that is almost unimaginable.

But the day of judgement will come, when we have nothing left to hoc or borrow against - our future pay/labour and that of our children born and yet to be born will have been spent. We will then be working for *nothing* to pay it back - and the interest charges on the debt mean it will, in reality, *never* be paid back. Our lives, our very souls and those of our descendants are being promised to the devil in perpetuity.

It is not yet too late to turn back. Not quite. But it soon will be. The choice is ours, it has to be made now, and it is our children and their children to come who will pay the price if we get it wrong.

Food, shelter, freedom, security - these are our essentials and we can have them for pennies - everything else is icing on the cake and is not worth risking our futures for.

Friday, 16 March 2012

Marriage is not for the good time, it is about the bad ones.

There is much talk of 'same-sex marriage' - supported by the all the main three party leaders. I think the phrase is clearly an oxymoron, as marriage is a step on a journey of a man and a woman having children together and bringing them up is a safe secure environment. Marriage is clearly optional - you don't have to be married to have children, or to stay together to bring them up. However it is there for those who want it as a basis for starting a life together in which to start their family.

The big issue that everyone seems to have missed out on is what marriage is actually for - it keeps being presented as a rather trivial celebration of love and an excuse for a party (the wedding). But where marriage really counts is not in the good times (where everything is easy) but in the bad times when things seem bad and dark. Marriage is a constant and permanent reminder that you have chosen to stay together through thick and thin. Children being brought up by their real parents is the gold standard for human interaction. For many, marriage is the life line that keeps families together when everything else says 'give up and let go', making the difference between keeping going and making things work or throwing in the towel.

Serial marriage/divorce (as practices by the rich and famous) does damage the institution - but they have not broken it. But trivialising marriage as a 'party' to celebrate a good time will indeed break it.

Getting married for your future children/family is a serious commitment - getting married to show 'how much you love each other' at the time is just vanity.

Don't let vanity destroy the institution of marriage - 'the family' is weak enough nowadays already.

Friday, 9 March 2012

Taxpayers as government Human Shields against themselves!

I heard a far left socialist complain about their child's taxpayer funded 'Child Trust Fund' (a £500 bond given by the government at birth to all kids) had actually been going down in value over the past few years.

I was quite pleased to see, maybe, a chink forming in their blind faith that 'the state knows best'. Presented with such clear evidence that the state was at best incompetent or worse 'a thief', one can only hope they follow that thread and find the truth.

My contribution to that journey of theirs?

I explained that the government can never be trusted with money, nor to benefit the public. By example I pointed to three examples - the Child Trust Fund, Right to Buy (council house purchase subsidised by the taxpayer), and Pensions.

There are many flaws in the way the state manages each of these things, but the one overriding point of these things is that they are entirely for the governments benefit and the supposed 'beneficiaries' actually get nothing - worse, the government steals from the public under the guise of 'helping out'.

These things - Child Trust Funds, Right to Buy, Pension - are not gift horses, they are ravenous sharks, crocodiles and vultures created to give the government more of our money to play with without mentioning the dreaded 'tax' word.

First, Child Trust Funds - you are obliged to take this £500 and hand it to a life insurance company to manage for 16 years until your child is grown. You have no say/control over it - meanwhile the life company uses this money to make profit for itself, pocketing most, but handing a little back to you which it then takes a fee from... Don't like it? Tough.

But at least your child is getting something back eh? Well have you seen the new university tuition fees that the government have extended now? With one hand you get what is left of a £500 16 year investment (that you had no control over), with the other you are charged £30,000 to take a degree course - bargain or rip off?

Secondly, Right to Buy - a relatively poor council house occupant is given a huge subsidy to encourage them to buy the house they live in. The taxpayer puts up many thousands and the occupier takes out a mortgage on the balance - again the life company/bank/mortgage provider gets more business, more of our money to make profit on and take fees out of.

But at least this non-wealthy individual gets a valuable asset to pass on to their children and help their social mobility along eh? Well do you know what happens to poor peoples houses when they get old? The get sold off and the money used to support you in your old age and in a care home. You put your money in to a house, and now the state takes it all back (your cut and theirs) and gives you 'care' that everyone else gets for free - bargain or rip off?

Nest, Pensions - the state are 'kind' enough to give you tax breaks on pension contributions - hurrah! How do you get them? Well... you don't, our old friends the life insurance companies do - you pay a life company a fixed amount each month, the government gives them the tax you paid on that money. As usual the life company gets to do what it likes with the money - in this case it is their own money... you don't 'invest' your pension contributions you pay towards the promise of a pension - the money is theirs in return for the promise of a pension (size unknown, value unknown etc so no risk to them, just free money for them to play with now), and the government can dip into those funds (with all kinds of tax tricks) when ever it pleases.

But at least you get a pension at the end of it, so have a better life eh? Well who can say? expected returns from pensions have fallen through the floor and means testing on benefits means what you get as pension will most likely be knocked off elsewhere. And through your whole life you were deprived of the use of your own money in return for this - bargain or rip off?

So where does 'human shield' come into this? Simply these three government tax-tricks are perceived by the supposed 'beneficiaries' as a *good thing* and they will fight to 'protect' them! The government have created back door taxes the people love, support and want to participate in! Unfortunately this is done by making fools of us, while we slog our guts out creating the wealth, the life insurance, banking and related industries are coining it in and divvying it up with politicians.

I want to attack this government theft, but have to overcome the public who will do all they can to protect the government that enslaves them... sheesh!

Thursday, 1 March 2012

Why 'redistribution' based on income cannot end poverty.

The left love to talk about wealth redistribution - it seems so simple take money from those who appear to have a surfeit, and give it to those 'in poverty' and everything is rosy - no poor.

If the world ended the day after this mass redistribution then it would appear to have 'worked', but life is not static.

If the poor are 'given' wealth - what will they do with it? Well, presumably they will spend it and end up poor again... When they spend it, where will it go? Well, presumably to the 'wealthy people' where it came from, they got wealthy by selling things to the poor in the first place!

So a one off redistribution is (at best) a temporary 'fix', with the previous state soon returning. Ones next thought might be to make this 'redistribution' a regular event, or even a continuous process.

But if redistribution is repeated regularly or continuously, then we are taking money from the rich, giving it to the poor for the rich to earn back again. If the rich are only ever working to get their own money back, why would they bother at all? Being 'rich' simply entitles you to hand over your wealth to others - what is the point to it? So production stops and everyone is poor.

At least everyone being poor is 'equality' and so is 'fair' in some twisted way I guess.

Its people wot matter - not inanimate legal entities, they are false idols.

Just a short blog against respect for 'organisations' or other non-live entities - whether a company, organisation, country, department, political party, union etc.

Only *people* have feelings, only *people* have motivations, only *people* do things, only *people* can be happy, only *people* can be sad, only *people* can be grateful, only *people* can be sorry, only *people* can be accountable, only *people* can feel, only *people* matter.

People deserve respect; non-human legal entities (or groups or collectives) deserve NO respect - there is nothing to give that 'respect' to, nothing to receive it.

Do you feel loyalty towards a company? If so its shareholders and directors have done a job on you - they have perverted you human nature. A company is just a bit of paper, a registration document, a vehicle to make taxation easier. You may feel loyalty towards people employees by a company, or maybe its shareholders or directors - it matters what happens to them they are people, but a company is false idol not worthy of emotional attachment.

In relation to emotional responses, these 'idols' are tools used to manipulate you. Like a newly hatched chicken being shown an old Wellington boot and imprinting on it as its 'mother' - people are led into making emotional commitments to these false idols. Human emotions/attributes are perverted for the gain of others.

People need to wake up and look around - ever been angry with a company/organisation? What did the company care? it has no brain. Ever felt disloyal about moving your custom from a company/organisation? what did the company care? it has no feelings. Ever had an apology from a company/organisation? What does that even mean? what did the company feel sorry 'with' its cheque book?.

While you are focusing on companies/organisations or whatever, the people in charge of that entity are picking your pockets. People are better than this, they are worth more than this - an individual always trumps an organisation of any kind (not the people who may be part of the organisation, but the organisation itself).

Next time you hear anyone emoting about something inanimate, call them out on it. They are demeaning themselves and all humanity.