I’m really pining for Dakota. I don’t know what it is, I forget about her for however long, I think about other women, I talk to other women and then suddenly I feel as if I don’t have her in my arms immediately then life isn’t worth living. What’s that all about? I’ve been chatting to this woman I met on Tinder for the past week and a week ago I really wanted her. Two or three days ago I was exchanging pure filth with S interlaced with soft tender messages about spending a day snuggled up on the sofa when she comes next month. Then BOOM Dakota.
In other news I’ve got an assessment with a psychologist on Tuesday, my debit card has arrived and I have, by my standards, loads of money saved up. Actually I think I’ve become addicted to saving. I like seeing my bank balance increasing.
Speaking of money, what’s all this bollocks about Cameron and tax? My libertarian views basically are this: Taxation is theft, right? It is. It is money that the state steals off it’s population under threat of force: if you don’t pay the police will vandalise your property, assault you, kidnap you and imprison you. In before “Muh Democracy”. If a group of people vote to mug you, it doesn’t make the mugging moral. Depriving peaceful people of their money with violence or threats of violence is not moral, and it doesn’t matter how good your cause is, you’re still doing something fundamentally immoral.
Now, all this said, I do believe in the necessity of a minimal state which provides security to its citizens and in an ideal world this would be funded voluntarily through lotteries and donations; a state should be a giant crowd funding operation. So if the state wants to build a hospital, it should crowd fund it. You can’t get much more democratic than that, can you? You might say that this is unworkable and that taxation is a necessary evil, fine, but admit that it is an evil, admit that it is theft and that an immoral thing is being done for moral reasons.
So my question is this: Did Cameron or his father obtain the money through violence or the threat of violence? If the answer is no I see no moral argument for the state to come and steal his money via violence or the threat of violence that other people have voluntarily given to him and his father. If he wants to avoid paying tax that’s fine with me and as long as he does it nonviolently I don’t give a shit.