Remember the film Being There? As imdb puts it:
Chance, a simple gardener, has never left the estate until his employer dies. His simple TV-informed utterances are mistaken for profundity.
Now read this post and the comments thread. In case it’s pruned, here’s where Richard Murphy’s pseudo-gnomic utterances have got him so far:
“The vote always carries the obligation to pay in my opinion”
Are you saying those who don’t pay because they don’t earn income (or make capital gains etc) shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
Or by ‘always’ do you mean ’sometimes’?
Or do you mean ‘the two concepts – tax and voting – are completely unrelated’? Whether you do either is unrelated to your right (in the case of voting) or obligation (in the case of tax) to do the other?
Please explain.
Richard Murphy :
Without the state there would be no societyThat’s a bold claim.
Are you genuinely seeking to claim that in, for example, anarchist Catalonia, or in hunter/gatherer groups, the absence of a state means that there was no such thing as society?
Richard Murphy :
@Dominic Allkins
How terribly odd that your friend is in the same situation as described on Tim Worstall’s blog. Some coincidence, eh?I didn’t see Tim’s post until after yours although not so add that we agree since we tend to share many similar views.
With regard to taxation without representation which you describe as desirable (cough, splutter) – taken to its logical conclusion this would suggest that the state has the right to take taxes from those who have earned their money while removing the right of representation, i.e. the vote.
That would move us from a democracy where the ultimate power should always rest with the Demos to an authoritarian state where the power rests with the state. Is that what you are aiming for Richard?
I’ll leave the ad hominem to you (… your idea is absurd) and just ask some questions.
(I’ve tagged this “humour” because, if you put to one side the fascistic aspects of his politics, Murphy is genuinely funny)
