The Klintock thread

Former Member

seeker wrote:

I only speak for myself so I won`t attempt to justify Klintock`s morals. However, I wouldn`t see it as hypocritical if a slave on a plantation took food and shelter off the "slave owner" who kindly provided it. I would however condemn the concept of slavery.

What if a slave had slaves? Would he be justified in his criticism of slavery?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

What if a slave had slaves? Would he be justified in his criticism of slavery?

How so ?

Former Member

\

Former Member

seeker wrote:

How so ?

Imagine, if you will, a system of slavery where slave A (let's call him Klintock) is being exploited by the slave owner (let's call him Taxman). Klintock doesn't like being exploited by Taxman because he thinks he shouldn't have to work for Taxman. He wants to provide for himself. In order to do this, he exploits slave B (let's call him NHS Funds). Klintock buys himself the life he wants by escaping from Taxman's plantation but to do this he needs NHS Funds, who belongs to Taxman, and who is a slave.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Imagine, if you will, a system of slavery where slave A (let's call him Klintock) is being exploited by the slave owner (let's call him Taxman). Klintock doesn't like being exploited by Taxman because he thinks he shouldn't have to work for Taxman. He wants to provide for himself. In order to do this, he exploits slave B (let's call him NHS Funds). Klintock buys himself the life he wants by escaping from Taxman's plantation but to do this he needs NHS Funds, who belongs to Taxman, and who is a slave.

Actually, during slavery in Africa, there were some slaves who did this. They rounded up others for capture in return for cushier lifestyles. Just chipping in with some useless and unsolicited facts.

Former Member

scarlettleeds wrote:

Err, no you wouldn't. Why would you get shot if you used your own medium of exchange? You might struggle to find people willing to exchange with you as we live in a money economy...but if you are a hairdresser, and I am a baker, and I offer you two loaves of bread in exchange for a haircut...who exactly do you imagine barging in wielding a machine gun there?

The scenario which you have set out is known by some as "tax evasion",deemed a crime and ultimately punishable by death.

scarlettleeds wrote:

Banging on and on about how taxation is theft, and then making your living working for the NHS, is about the equivalent to me saying that it is wrong to mug people, and then, having watched someone mug an old lady and steal the money in her purse, taken that money off him in exchange for something I have that he wants. It's all very well having such high morals and principles, and going on and on and on about them...but you also have to live by them too,otherwise it starts to look a bit empty.

He can't have had that much of a problem with a system that benefitted him (and lots of other people as well) very nicely.

As I said earlier, I ain`t Klintock`s spokesman.

But imagine this. You study medicine 24/7.Any so called "expert" would confirm that you are a medical genius.For the principles to which you refer, you decide the NHS is not for you. You advertise your services on a voluntary basis and are very successful.How long would that continue before "the mob" appeared and the threats began demanding that you have the "correct" pieces of paper.

You have to survive according to the nature of the enviroment you find yourself in.

scarlettleeds wrote:

I wouldn't sign up for the army because I think it's wrong to shoot people, and yet he works for the "state" which he tells us kills people every day.

I admire you for that,but what if some men/women passed a "law" saying "the world is a big place and there are more people to shoot and kill than you can imagine so it`s conscription time" ?

Or those same men/women decide to take you hostage for 2 years(and call it,in that soft focus way they do) "National Service" ?

Former Member

To be fair to Klintock there's no way he coulkd actually put his ideas into practice, because the state/country is so encompassing it would be impossible for him to escape it. Even if somehow you could make yourself self sufficient and live in a cave somewhere, you are still governed by the laws of the land and whilst I'm not an absolute expert in council tax I think even your cave would still be covered. Even if you have so little money that you don't pay you'd still have to interact with the council to proove it

Its alright if your view is alchol is bad - so you don't drink or you think killing is wrong - so you don't join the army, but if you're belief is countries don't exist and all tax is wrong its virtually impossible to put into practice your beliefs.

Former Member

\

Former Member

seeker wrote:

The scenario which you have set out is known by some as "tax evasion",deemed a crime and ultimately punishable by death.

See that's why no-one takes you or Klintock seriously - there's hyperbole and there's talking complete bollocks. At least in the UK its not ultimately punishable by death.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

To be fair to Klintock there's no way he coulkd actually put his ideas into practice, because the state/country is so encompassing it would be impossible for him to escape it. Even if somehow you could make yourself self sufficient and live in a cave somewhere, you are still governed by the laws of the land and whilst I'm not an absolute expert in council tax I think even your cave would still be covered. Even if you have so little money that you don't pay you'd still have to interact with the council to proove it

Its alright if your view is alchol is bad - so you don't drink or you think killing is wrong - so you don't join the army, but if you're belief is countries don't exist and all tax is wrong its virtually impossible to put into practice your beliefs.

All true, but his goal was not to change the world, actually, but to avoid paying his share of the tax burden. It was entirely selfish.

It's all very well being willing to offer your services entirely outwith the social system in which we find ourselves, but if no one else agrees then it seems a bit futile. And the fact that it came into every thread made it annoying.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Imagine, if you will, a system of slavery where slave A (let's call him Klintock) is being exploited by the slave owner (let's call him Taxman). Klintock doesn't like being exploited by Taxman because he thinks he shouldn't have to work for Taxman.

Does he have a choice(other than violence) ?

Kentish wrote:

He wants to provide for himself. In order to do this, he exploits slave B (let's call him NHS Funds).

How would he do this IF slave B belonged to the slave owner

Kentish wrote:

Klintock buys himself the life he wants by escaping from Taxman's plantation but to do this he needs NHS Funds, who belongs to Taxman, and who is a slave.

This makes no sense to me. Convoluted and unconvincing plot lay out to your novelette.Hollywood beckons :chin:

Former Member

seeker, you're just missing the point. You've analysed the story, but fail to recognise the hypocrisy of taking state funds whilst denying the existence of that state, and its right to raise funds.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

All true, but his goal was not to change the world, actually, but to avoid paying his share of the tax burden.

Please please please explain what you mean by this ???????

Former Member

seeker wrote:

Please please please explain what you mean by this ???????

Maybe if you explain exactly where you stand then it would help us understand your point of view.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

seeker, you're just missing the point. You've analysed the story, but fail to recognise the hypocrisy of taking state funds whilst denying the existence of that state, and its right to raise funds.

And that ??????

Former Member

As above.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

All true, but his goal was not to change the world, actually, but to avoid paying his share of the tax burden. It was entirely selfish.

It's all very well being willing to offer your services entirely outwith the social system in which we find ourselves, but if no one else agrees then it seems a bit futile. And the fact that it came into every thread made it annoying.

Was it? if his view was just to avoid paying his tax burden it would be daft to advertise it. If however your view is to about changing the world , going on a politics forum and arguing you case seems reasonable, even as you say ultimately futile.

Now don't get me wrong Klintocks world view was nuttier than a squirrels larder and it was troll like that virtually every thread he participated in was changed to Klintock's arguing against the world and to be fair more than once by biting I helped him derail threads).

Its sad he's gone because at times he was refreshing, but at other times for the sake of argument you just need to take the view that states and governments exist and Klintock was unable to do that. he was warned several times not to derail threads and by the sounds of it contacted by PM by Jim V so he can't say it came as a suprise.

Former Member

\

Former Member

\

Former Member

NQA wrote:

See that's why no-one takes you or Klintock seriously - there's hyperbole and there's talking complete bollocks. At least in the UK its not ultimately punishable by death.

Quite the contrarian.

To use an extreme example say you get a speeding fine, if you refuse to pay you go to court. If you refuse court the bailiffs come in, if you resist them they'll be supported by the police, if you shoot at the police, they'll call in armed police. If you and your neighbours group together and decide to open fire on the police with RPGs and heavy machine-guns eventually the armed forces will be go in.

Who said that ?

Change the "get a speeding fine" to "get a tax assessment" and away you go.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Was it? if his view was just to avoid paying his tax burden it would be daft to advertise it. If however your view is to about changing the world , going on a politics forum and arguing you case seems reasonable, even as you say ultimately futile.

His argument was that with his view of the world, he wouldn't have to pay taxes in order to support people who couldn't support themselves. Klintock didn't want to live within a country that existed only as a work of fiction because he felt exploited by the governing system of that "country". But he always seemed to have a rather selfish agenda to me. Maybe I'm simplifying his politics, but that was the general theme.

Former Member

\

Former Member

All that means is that murdering people would get you shot, you seriously saying it's justified in your eyes to kill people to avoid paying tax?

Former Member

NQA

Help Scarlett and Jim out

Former Member

Come on man, put your money where your mouth is and answer someone's question

Former Member

Give me a starter for 10

Former Member

Jim V wrote:

All that means is that murdering people would get you shot, you seriously saying it's justified in your eyes to kill people to avoid paying tax?

Well actually, he only said "shot at the police" not "shot the police."

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Well actually, he only said "shot at the police" not "shot the police."

WHO said ?

Former Member

seeker wrote:

Quite the contrarian.




Who said that ?

Change the "get a speeding fine" to "get a tax assessment" and away you go.

I thought you would use that, but you fail to see the point. You are not been shot at because you failed to pay a fine, but because you're firing RPGs at the police.

Former Member

seeker wrote:

WHO said ?

I dunno, I just read it up there somewhere.