"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because rather
than
> paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the impossible and
violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to deliver services
that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably underpaid.
And you are still a fool.
A binary newsgroup in the alternative governing body?
"Wild9@no-spam"
<Wild9@no-spam
people.vcga.fed.sow> wrote in message
news:Ze2Ja.11660$JH5.1480379@no-spam
> Your an fucking idiot, go to alt.bin.idiots
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because rather
> than
> > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> >
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:OURIa.249892$ro6.6511622@no-spam
> > > I called you a fool because you said " the only thing wrong with tax
is
> > the
> > > massive administration costs". Obviously, that is far from the only
> > problem,
> > > and it is the least-important problem with taxation.
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:FiQIa.248039$3C2.7195968@no-spam
> > > > You agree with all my points then call me a fool for pointing out an
> > > > important flaw? Do you have any idea of the money that goes, for
> > > instance,
> > > > into severance pay in school boards (and most other public
serivces)?
> > > >
> > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:ciwIa.239725$3C2.7020972@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:XNvIa.267777$Vi5.7056364@no-spam
> > > > > > Those who ride bicicles also reap the benefits of better roads.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. Roads that other people pay for.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just as
> > > > > > those who have no children reap the benefits of others being
> > educated,
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly right, children that other people pay to raise.
> > > > >
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > more research is conducted and more people are employed. I
> believe
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > only thing wrong with tax is the massive administration costs
much
> > of
> > > it
> > > > > > feeds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you are a fool.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because rather
> than
> > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
>
> Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the impossible
and
> violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to deliver
services
> that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably underpaid.
>
>
> And you are still a fool.
>
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does 'benefit'
from eating, I think.
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because rather
> > than
> > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> >
> > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the impossible
> and
> > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to deliver
> services
> > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably underpaid.
> >
> >
> > And you are still a fool.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Not from my eating. Only from their own.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
>
> you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does 'benefit'
> from eating, I think.
>
>
>
>
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because
rather
> > > than
> > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> > >
> > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the
impossible
> > and
> > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to deliver
> > services
> > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably underpaid.
> > >
> > >
> > > And you are still a fool.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
--
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> Not from my eating. Only from their own.
What about your eating making you a healthier and more productive worker?
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
> >
> > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does
'benefit'
> > from eating, I think.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because
> rather
> > > > than
> > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> > > >
> > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the
> impossible
> > > and
> > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to deliver
> > > services
> > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably underpaid.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
You are joking, of course.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> Not from my eating. Only from their own.
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
> >
> > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does
'benefit'
> > from eating, I think.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because
> rather
> > > > than
> > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> > > >
> > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the
> impossible
> > > and
> > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to deliver
> > > services
> > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably underpaid.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Tickle; Even so, privatization of roads is not an outlandish idea! Ther have
been private roads before.
Think of it this way. Anything thats funded by private enterprise has to
have customers, who can use it or not, pay for it as a matter of choice! If
they chose not to use it, it disappears, due to a lack of funding,and is
replaced by something the people want.
Government, on the other hand, can TAKE what it wants from it's citizens,
and run it's programs, preserve it's failures, until government itself,
fails. Look at ANY past or present communist/socialist/liberal government,
and you will find many examples confirming this fact.
Privatization is good for the people who earn the wealth, and for any who
use the systems.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:qWnHa.210917$ro6.5725115@no-spam
> I am not even suggesting that roads be "privatized". I am merely posing a
> plausible alternative to taxation, to show Falcon that his "doom and
gloom"
> scenario is unlikely. The suggestion is that when a gasoline station
> receives a business license, that the licensing fee will include the
> costs/responsibility to maintain all the roads within some specified
> geographic boundary. The money that is now collected for "road tax" hidden
> in the cost of gasoline, would be used to maintain the roads.
>
> Obviously, the people who are in the business of selling gasoline would
have
> a very strong interest in creating good quality roads that allow people to
> drive long distances to many places. And thus, we see that it is quite
> possible to have highways and roads of good quality with no tax
whatsoever.
> Whether this method is 'the best', or any better than our current
"gasoline
> tax" method, I do not know - and it does not matter. The purpose of the
> proposal is only to rebut the notion that taxation is necessary in order
to
> have roads.
>
>
> <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:mojHa.138551$BA.43915329@no-spam
> > Anonymous; In the USA, as you know, all railroads are paid for,
including
> > their rights of way, by private industry.
> >
> > Railroads are also much more fuel efficient than
> > other land based modes.
> >
> > In addition, government efforts here to regulate
> > pricing on the railroads from 1878 until 1972? ( dates roughly
recalled),
> > failed utterly, and almost destroyed that industry.
> >
> > A very interesting idea. Private roads are not new, and there were
"toll"
> > roads, still are, in the USA.
> >
> > Truckers now pay "user fees" on our roads, probably on yours also, but i
> > could see a successful privatization functioning, but would incude the
> > trucking industry as well as oil, maybe others, such as industries
shiping
> > by
> > truck.
> >
> > I think the oil companies alone would simply use this as a "cost plus"
> > system to generate revenues.
> >
> > In private business, you really need two or three
> > industries participating in the costs, to watch each other, but then you
> > would achieve much
> > better cost efficiencies than those generated by governments.
> > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:osbGa.180184$3C2.5769821@no-spam
> > > Everyone who buys gasoline currently pays about 5 times more for the
> roads
> > > than governemnt actually spent on them. We are being robbed.
> > >
> > > IMHO, the entire cost of building and maintaining roadways could
easily
> be
> > > left in the hands of oil companies. It is to their advantage to see
that
> > we
> > > all enjoy driving on roads, with the gas we buy from them.
> > >
> > > Try another example.
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:m%aGa.178705$ro6.5183061@no-spam
> > > > Not many people think that way, about not taking more than you put
in.
> > > And
> > > > how would you like to pay, out of pocket, for the roads you travel
on?
> > > >
> > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:LZ9Ga.206927$Vi5.5723520@no-spam
> > > > > And who decides what is needed for survival? You? Me? A
politician?
> > > > >
> > > > > I won't draw anything more from "public works" than I pay for. So,
> the
> > > tax
> > > > > collectors can f*ck off now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:GN8Ga.177829$ro6.5150380@no-spam
> > > > > > I never asked you to freely give it, only to pay something into
> the
> > > > public
> > > > > > works, the benefits and provisions of which you must surely draw
> > upon
> > > > > quite
> > > > > > frequently. However, if you STEAL that which is more than
needed
> > for
> > > > > > survival, your act is an evil thing. You have every right to
keep
> > > what
> > > > > you
> > > > > > earn and what is given to you, but also if you don't pay for
> public
> > > > works
> > > > > > you cant draw from it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:DO_Fa.131076$BA.40468196@no-spam
> > > > > > > Falcon; I've watched this exchange of your nonsense now for
> quite
> > > some
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Its real simple. If we can earn, through the wealth generated
by
> > our
> > > > > > > business sense and our labor, more than "that which is needed
> for
> > > > > > survival,"
> > > > > > > we are not going to share it with you lazy, stupid animals who
> > > can't.
> > > > We
> > > > > > > will keep it for ourselves and our own.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you reds don't like it, that's just too bad. Earn your own.
> > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:BS7Fa.188431$Vi5.5168144@no-spam
> > > > > > > > Please stop dodging. What do you have to say for the want
of
> > > things
> > > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > that which is necessary for survival.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:lQWEa.182859$Vi5.5103453@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > What about it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:LcUEa.181704$Vi5.5054495@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > Alright, what about having more money than is needed to
> buy
> > > > things
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > food
> > > > > > > > > > and drink?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > > > news:91TEa.181249$Vi5.5041173@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > Umm... because they get hungry, and you can buy food
> with
> > > > money?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > news:I5SEa.157138$3C2.5033749@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. And, if you beleive there is a reason for
wants,
> > > what
> > > > do
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > could be? Let's now move to something more human:
> what
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason many people desire money is?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > >
news:l1REa.155034$ro6.4536974@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> news:zGQEa.156373$3C2.5017106@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a paradox. Do you or do you not believe
> that
> > > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wants?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll bite. What is the reason that those
damn
> > tree
> > > > > rats
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > walnuts from my tree? Is it because they are
hungry?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
<nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ITHJa.1981$xv.703@no-spam
> Tickle; Even so, privatization of roads is not an outlandish idea! Ther
have
> been private roads before.
You have confused me with someone who cares about that. Private owned or
"King's Highway" makes no difference to me. As long as our ancient right of
free passage is respected, either is cool.
> Think of it this way. Anything thats funded by private enterprise has to
> have customers, who can use it or not, pay for it as a matter of choice!
If
> they chose not to use it, it disappears, due to a lack of funding,and is
> replaced by something the people want.
>
> Government, on the other hand, can TAKE what it wants from it's citizens,
> and run it's programs, preserve it's failures, until government itself,
> fails. Look at ANY past or present communist/socialist/liberal
government,
> and you will find many examples confirming this fact.
That's true, but you forgot to mention conservative government.
> Privatization is good for the people who earn the wealth, and for any who
> use the systems.
Like I said, I really don't care just so long as the Crown defends our
common law rights.
That helps you, I suppose. But then, yours does the same to me so we are
all balanced out.
"»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in message
news:TusJa.290182$Vi5.7602609@no-spam
>
>
> --
> http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> > Not from my eating. Only from their own.
>
> What about your eating making you a healthier and more productive worker?
>
>
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
> > >
> > > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does
> 'benefit'
> > > from eating, I think.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant because
> > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the
> > impossible
> > > > and
> > > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to
deliver
> > > > services
> > > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably underpaid.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Privatization also brings the already-rich furthur ahead at the expense of
the poor, who have no choice but to use the privately-owned infrastructure
due to a monopoly.
Is there nothing better than this? Perhaps, a government which worked by a
vote-like system in this case: Some tally is made of what is used and what
is not, and then of the non-quantifiable services a tally is made in the
census of how many people feel that the service has benefited them.
Services that are not adaquately used (determined by the people that use it
and the money that goes into it) can either be downsized or eliminated.
<nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ITHJa.1981$xv.703@no-spam
> Tickle; Even so, privatization of roads is not an outlandish idea! Ther
have
> been private roads before.
>
> Think of it this way. Anything thats funded by private enterprise has to
> have customers, who can use it or not, pay for it as a matter of choice!
If
> they chose not to use it, it disappears, due to a lack of funding,and is
> replaced by something the people want.
>
> Government, on the other hand, can TAKE what it wants from it's citizens,
> and run it's programs, preserve it's failures, until government itself,
> fails. Look at ANY past or present communist/socialist/liberal
government,
> and you will find many examples confirming this fact.
>
> Privatization is good for the people who earn the wealth, and for any who
> use the systems.
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:qWnHa.210917$ro6.5725115@no-spam
> > I am not even suggesting that roads be "privatized". I am merely posing
a
> > plausible alternative to taxation, to show Falcon that his "doom and
> gloom"
> > scenario is unlikely. The suggestion is that when a gasoline station
> > receives a business license, that the licensing fee will include the
> > costs/responsibility to maintain all the roads within some specified
> > geographic boundary. The money that is now collected for "road tax"
hidden
> > in the cost of gasoline, would be used to maintain the roads.
> >
> > Obviously, the people who are in the business of selling gasoline would
> have
> > a very strong interest in creating good quality roads that allow people
to
> > drive long distances to many places. And thus, we see that it is quite
> > possible to have highways and roads of good quality with no tax
> whatsoever.
> > Whether this method is 'the best', or any better than our current
> "gasoline
> > tax" method, I do not know - and it does not matter. The purpose of the
> > proposal is only to rebut the notion that taxation is necessary in order
> to
> > have roads.
> >
> >
> > <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:mojHa.138551$BA.43915329@no-spam
> > > Anonymous; In the USA, as you know, all railroads are paid for,
> including
> > > their rights of way, by private industry.
> > >
> > > Railroads are also much more fuel efficient than
> > > other land based modes.
> > >
> > > In addition, government efforts here to regulate
> > > pricing on the railroads from 1878 until 1972? ( dates roughly
> recalled),
> > > failed utterly, and almost destroyed that industry.
> > >
> > > A very interesting idea. Private roads are not new, and there were
> "toll"
> > > roads, still are, in the USA.
> > >
> > > Truckers now pay "user fees" on our roads, probably on yours also, but
i
> > > could see a successful privatization functioning, but would incude the
> > > trucking industry as well as oil, maybe others, such as industries
> shiping
> > > by
> > > truck.
> > >
> > > I think the oil companies alone would simply use this as a "cost plus"
> > > system to generate revenues.
> > >
> > > In private business, you really need two or three
> > > industries participating in the costs, to watch each other, but then
you
> > > would achieve much
> > > better cost efficiencies than those generated by governments.
> > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:osbGa.180184$3C2.5769821@no-spam
> > > > Everyone who buys gasoline currently pays about 5 times more for the
> > roads
> > > > than governemnt actually spent on them. We are being robbed.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, the entire cost of building and maintaining roadways could
> easily
> > be
> > > > left in the hands of oil companies. It is to their advantage to see
> that
> > > we
> > > > all enjoy driving on roads, with the gas we buy from them.
> > > >
> > > > Try another example.
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:m%aGa.178705$ro6.5183061@no-spam
> > > > > Not many people think that way, about not taking more than you put
> in.
> > > > And
> > > > > how would you like to pay, out of pocket, for the roads you travel
> on?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:LZ9Ga.206927$Vi5.5723520@no-spam
> > > > > > And who decides what is needed for survival? You? Me? A
> politician?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I won't draw anything more from "public works" than I pay for.
So,
> > the
> > > > tax
> > > > > > collectors can f*ck off now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:GN8Ga.177829$ro6.5150380@no-spam
> > > > > > > I never asked you to freely give it, only to pay something
into
> > the
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > works, the benefits and provisions of which you must surely
draw
> > > upon
> > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > frequently. However, if you STEAL that which is more than
> needed
> > > for
> > > > > > > survival, your act is an evil thing. You have every right to
> keep
> > > > what
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > earn and what is given to you, but also if you don't pay for
> > public
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > you cant draw from it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:DO_Fa.131076$BA.40468196@no-spam
> > > > > > > > Falcon; I've watched this exchange of your nonsense now for
> > quite
> > > > some
> > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Its real simple. If we can earn, through the wealth
generated
> by
> > > our
> > > > > > > > business sense and our labor, more than "that which is
needed
> > for
> > > > > > > survival,"
> > > > > > > > we are not going to share it with you lazy, stupid animals
who
> > > > can't.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > > > will keep it for ourselves and our own.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you reds don't like it, that's just too bad. Earn your
own.
> > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:BS7Fa.188431$Vi5.5168144@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > Please stop dodging. What do you have to say for the want
> of
> > > > things
> > > > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > > that which is necessary for survival.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > > news:lQWEa.182859$Vi5.5103453@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > What about it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:LcUEa.181704$Vi5.5054495@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > Alright, what about having more money than is needed
to
> > buy
> > > > > things
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > food
> > > > > > > > > > > and drink?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > > > > > > news:91TEa.181249$Vi5.5041173@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > Umm... because they get hungry, and you can buy food
> > with
> > > > > money?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > > > > >
news:I5SEa.157138$3C2.5033749@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. And, if you beleive there is a reason for
> wants,
> > > > what
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > could be? Let's now move to something more human:
> > what
> > > do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason many people desire money is?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote
in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> news:l1REa.155034$ro6.4536974@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > news:zGQEa.156373$3C2.5017106@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a paradox. Do you or do you not believe
> > that
> > > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wants?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll bite. What is the reason that those
> damn
> > > tree
> > > > > > rats
> > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > walnuts from my tree? Is it because they are
> hungry?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
That would undermine the total principle of privatisation. If the owner
can't charge, why bother buying the road in the first place?
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:J%LJa.294946$Vi5.7771934@no-spam
>
> <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ITHJa.1981$xv.703@no-spam
> > Tickle; Even so, privatization of roads is not an outlandish idea! Ther
> have
> > been private roads before.
>
> You have confused me with someone who cares about that. Private owned or
> "King's Highway" makes no difference to me. As long as our ancient right
of
> free passage is respected, either is cool.
>
>
> > Think of it this way. Anything thats funded by private enterprise has to
> > have customers, who can use it or not, pay for it as a matter of choice!
> If
> > they chose not to use it, it disappears, due to a lack of funding,and
is
> > replaced by something the people want.
> >
> > Government, on the other hand, can TAKE what it wants from it's
citizens,
> > and run it's programs, preserve it's failures, until government itself,
> > fails. Look at ANY past or present communist/socialist/liberal
> government,
> > and you will find many examples confirming this fact.
>
> That's true, but you forgot to mention conservative government.
>
> > Privatization is good for the people who earn the wealth, and for any
who
> > use the systems.
>
> Like I said, I really don't care just so long as the Crown defends our
> common law rights.
>
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:wDQJa.296048$Vi5.7874451@no-spam
> That helps you, I suppose. But then, yours does the same to me so we are
> all balanced out.
Get off the camel shit you goofy fuck
>
> "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:TusJa.290182$Vi5.7602609@no-spam
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> > > Not from my eating. Only from their own.
> >
> > What about your eating making you a healthier and more productive
worker?
> >
> >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
> > > >
> > > > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does
> > 'benefit'
> > > > from eating, I think.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant
because
> > > rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the
> > > impossible
> > > > > and
> > > > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to
> deliver
> > > > > services
> > > > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably
underpaid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
I am not making excuses, only saying that it is a useful way to organize
people and their money, if it is not wasted in administrative fees and
mismanagement.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:2%_Ja.271944$3C2.7895488@no-spam
> Well then, what is your new excuse for supporting taxation?
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:wDQJa.296048$Vi5.7874451@no-spam
> > That helps you, I suppose. But then, yours does the same to me so we
are
> > all balanced out.
> >
> > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:TusJa.290182$Vi5.7602609@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> > > > Not from my eating. Only from their own.
> > >
> > > What about your eating making you a healthier and more productive
> worker?
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > > > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
> > > > >
> > > > > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does
> > > 'benefit'
> > > > > from eating, I think.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant
> because
> > > > rather
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant wages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do the
> > > > impossible
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to
> > deliver
> > > > > > services
> > > > > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably
> underpaid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Nobody is disputing that taxation is expedient, and much easier (more
efficient?) than collecting money through moral/lawful means. So what?
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ycmLa.339556$Vi5.8616249@no-spam
> I am not making excuses, only saying that it is a useful way to organize
> people and their money, if it is not wasted in administrative fees and
> mismanagement.
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:2%_Ja.271944$3C2.7895488@no-spam
> > Well then, what is your new excuse for supporting taxation?
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:wDQJa.296048$Vi5.7874451@no-spam
> > > That helps you, I suppose. But then, yours does the same to me so we
> are
> > > all balanced out.
> > >
> > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:TusJa.290182$Vi5.7602609@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> > > > > Not from my eating. Only from their own.
> > > >
> > > > What about your eating making you a healthier and more productive
> > worker?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > > > > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does
> > > > 'benefit'
> > > > > > from eating, I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant
> > because
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant
wages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do
the
> > > > > impossible
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to
> > > deliver
> > > > > > > services
> > > > > > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably
> > underpaid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Falcon, God help me the day they put you in charge of managing me (as in
people) or my money.
Suggest you keep your day job.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ycmLa.339556$Vi5.8616249@no-spam
> I am not making excuses, only saying that it is a useful way to organize
> people and their money, if it is not wasted in administrative fees and
> mismanagement.
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:2%_Ja.271944$3C2.7895488@no-spam
> > Well then, what is your new excuse for supporting taxation?
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:wDQJa.296048$Vi5.7874451@no-spam
> > > That helps you, I suppose. But then, yours does the same to me so we
> are
> > > all balanced out.
> > >
> > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:TusJa.290182$Vi5.7602609@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> > > > > Not from my eating. Only from their own.
> > > >
> > > > What about your eating making you a healthier and more productive
> > worker?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > > > > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone does
> > > > 'benefit'
> > > > > > from eating, I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant
> > because
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant
wages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do
the
> > > > > impossible
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order to
> > > deliver
> > > > > > > services
> > > > > > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably
> > underpaid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
So you would waste money no a less efficient system? I do not see what you
have against taxation - or do you object that you should have to pay for the
services you recieve?
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:DAmLa.339657$Vi5.8619409@no-spam
> Nobody is disputing that taxation is expedient, and much easier (more
> efficient?) than collecting money through moral/lawful means. So what?
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ycmLa.339556$Vi5.8616249@no-spam
> > I am not making excuses, only saying that it is a useful way to organize
> > people and their money, if it is not wasted in administrative fees and
> > mismanagement.
> >
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:2%_Ja.271944$3C2.7895488@no-spam
> > > Well then, what is your new excuse for supporting taxation?
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:wDQJa.296048$Vi5.7874451@no-spam
> > > > That helps you, I suppose. But then, yours does the same to me so
we
> > are
> > > > all balanced out.
> > > >
> > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:TusJa.290182$Vi5.7602609@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> > > > > > Not from my eating. Only from their own.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about your eating making you a healthier and more productive
> > > worker?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > > > > > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is
that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone
does
> > > > > 'benefit'
> > > > > > > from eating, I think.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is significant
> > > because
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant
> wages.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to do
> the
> > > > > > impossible
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order
to
> > > > deliver
> > > > > > > > services
> > > > > > > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably
> > > underpaid.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:gi0Ma.325726$3C2.8837968@no-spam
> So you would waste money no a less efficient system?
The efficiency of the system is the responsibility of those who run the
system, not those who are users of it. I do not run it, so it is not my
responsibility.
It is what it is, efficient - or not - as the people who run it can make it.
It is not my place to tell them how to run their organization. Obviously,
you have ambitions of running the system to suit your sensibilities. Good
luck.
> I do not see what you
> have against taxation - or do you object that you should have to pay for
the
> services you recieve?
You really are incredibly stupid. I have explained this to you many times.
Taxation is a forced payment system, and it is a serious violation of some
fundamental principles of justice. It is the way of tyrants and lazy men and
those who imagine themselves smarter than those they govern. It is your way
of forcing people to pay for services that you value, but they may not.
Taxation is an insult to the very people you pretend to serve.
Falcon; What "less efficient" system could exist, except one run by the
government?
Ypour a complete fool, son.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:gi0Ma.325726$3C2.8837968@no-spam
> So you would waste money no a less efficient system? I do not see what
you
> have against taxation - or do you object that you should have to pay for
the
> services you recieve?
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:DAmLa.339657$Vi5.8619409@no-spam
> > Nobody is disputing that taxation is expedient, and much easier (more
> > efficient?) than collecting money through moral/lawful means. So what?
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:ycmLa.339556$Vi5.8616249@no-spam
> > > I am not making excuses, only saying that it is a useful way to
organize
> > > people and their money, if it is not wasted in administrative fees and
> > > mismanagement.
> > >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:2%_Ja.271944$3C2.7895488@no-spam
> > > > Well then, what is your new excuse for supporting taxation?
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:wDQJa.296048$Vi5.7874451@no-spam
> > > > > That helps you, I suppose. But then, yours does the same to me so
> we
> > > are
> > > > > all balanced out.
> > > > >
> > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:TusJa.290182$Vi5.7602609@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:FsqJa.289584$Vi5.7566317@no-spam
> > > > > > > Not from my eating. Only from their own.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about your eating making you a healthier and more
productive
> > > > worker?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:NY8Ja.257168$ro6.6636117@no-spam
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:bw6Ja.284295$Vi5.7396883@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > Everyon'e benefit, everyone's expense. Its as simple is
> that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > you are including food in your "simple" analysis? Everyone
> does
> > > > > > 'benefit'
> > > > > > > > from eating, I think.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:Yy5Ja.255723$3C2.7345065@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:lB0Ja.251916$3C2.7290517@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps not EVERYTHING, but I believe it is
significant
> > > > because
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > paying for a service, we are paying their extravagant
> > wages.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Considering the fact that you are expectiing people to
do
> > the
> > > > > > > impossible
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > violate very ethical consideration in the books in order
> to
> > > > > deliver
> > > > > > > > > services
> > > > > > > > > > that you want at 'everyones' expense, they are probably
> > > > underpaid.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And you are still a fool.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:FE8Ma.329886$3C2.8936907@no-spam
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:tS2Ma.354439$Vi5.8952706@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:gi0Ma.325726$3C2.8837968@no-spam
> > > So you would waste money no a less efficient system?
> >
> > The efficiency of the system is the responsibility of those who run the
> > system, not those who are users of it. I do not run it, so it is not my
> > responsibility.
>
> Requesting that it be administered a certain way is the same, in this
case,
> as assuming leadership.
You can request whatever you like, just as they are free to ignore your
request. What are you going to do about it, take your business elsewhere?
hahahahahaha!
> > It is what it is, efficient - or not - as the people who run it can make
> it.
> > It is not my place to tell them how to run their organization.
Obviously,
> > you have ambitions of running the system to suit your sensibilities.
Good
> > luck.
>
> You yourself have said it should be run in a different way, by removing
> taxes. Are you now saying that you currently run it and do not give a
damn
> about how efficient it is, or are you just memory-impaired?
I have said that I do not care how they run it, just so long as it is moral
and lawful. If it is immoral or unlawful then I will do as my conscience
dictates, and refuse to fund it. That same reasoning applies to every
organization that I might deal with. The "efficiency" is the responsibility
of those who manage an organization, and I do not currently do that.
What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? The parts about
"moral" and "lawful" and "conscience"?
> > > I do not see what you
> > > have against taxation - or do you object that you should have to pay
for
> > the
> > > services you recieve?
> >
> > You really are incredibly stupid. I have explained this to you many
times.
> > Taxation is a forced payment system, and it is a serious violation of
some
> > fundamental principles of justice. It is the way of tyrants and lazy men
> and
> > those who imagine themselves smarter than those they govern. It is your
> way
> > of forcing people to pay for services that you value, but they may not.
>
> I heard you. However, the problem is not that people have to pay, only
that
> services one does not value come as a part of the package.
You really are incredibly stupid. It has SFA to do with any "package". My
cablevision "package" comes with a number of TV channels that I do not watch
and do not want. This is not a problem, at least it is not anything immoral
or unlawful. Try to use your brain, Falcon, a revolutionary should be able
to think a little bit - or at least know when to defer to those who can.
> And wether or
> not you value the services, if you use them you should pay.
Bullshit. Your 'reasoning' would require that all people on welfare and/or
disability pension be "required to pay". Obviously, they are not required to
pay, and that is the whole point - to provide for people who cannot pay.
> Therefore, the
> roads may not be valuable to you, but if you make use of them you must pay
> for them. Same for sewage (stormwater included, unless you want your home
> flooded), bylaw enforcement and other things of that manner.
Look here, sunshine, lots of people do not pay for municipal services -
they live outside the municipality. Lots of people do not pay gasoline
taxes, they ride a bike. Are you seriously suggesting that such people
should be taxed if they ride on a road or visit a city and use the
facilities in the city or on the highway? Are you fucking crazy?
> Things like
> the gun registry, however, are of no use to anybody and should not be paid
> for out of anyone's pocket. So you have a point that not all government
> services are valuable but we still have to pay for them. However, what
> would we do otherwise? If all public services are "pay as you will",
basic
> logic demonstrates that there would be many who would not pay.
Maybe you should start thinking about how to organize your
post-revolutionary society in such a way that you can get all the lovely
services paid for in a way that is not immoral or unlawful. That might
require some serious thought, which is something you do not appear to be
very good at. I strongly recommend that you postpone your revolution until
after you figure out the answer to such questions - or at least band
together with people who do have some ideas on how to do that.
> This means
> two things. For one, say that I pay the full value of the services. Some
> of that money will go to paying the cost of those who used the service but
> did not pay. Another, there would not be enough money to provide the full
> service, without taking loans.
Alas, you can't always get what you want. Here is a suggestion: After your
revolution, if every other method has failed, a necessary service can have
it's funding topped up by a universal tax. Now, think about the word
"necessary" and what it means.
>
> >
> > Taxation is an insult to the very people you pretend to serve.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:r7vMa.338624$ro6.8194260@no-spam
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:8jiMa.333111$3C2.9010666@no-spam
> > > > The efficiency of the system is the responsibility of those who run
> the
> > > > system, not those who are users of it. I do not run it, so it is not
> my
> > > > responsibility.
> > >
> > > Requesting that it be administered a certain way is the same, in this
> > case,
> > > as assuming leadership.
> >
> > You can request whatever you like, just as they are free to ignore your
> > request. What are you going to do about it, take your business
elsewhere?
> > hahahahahaha!
>
> You would have it done a different way. That way is less efficient.
perhaps it is less efficient. I don't know, and neither do you. I do not
care. If you are serious about efficiency, look to fascism. Look to
Singapore.
> For
> the purposes of discussion, the idea is your responsibility and you can
> hardly lay the blame on the government that you suggested it as a viable
and
> improved system.
I am not using any "efficiency" argument. You are. Perhaps you should also
mention "make the trains run on time".
> > I have said that I do not care how they run it, just so long as it is
> moral
> > and lawful.
>
> I personally would rather that it was efficient...
Yes, I know.
> If it is immoral or unlawful then I will do as my conscience
> > dictates, and refuse to fund it. That same reasoning applies to every
> > organization that I might deal with. The "efficiency" is the
> responsibility
> > of those who manage an organization, and I do not currently do that.
>
> Whether you do or not, the idea was yours. You would have it run less
> efficiently than it is even now?
Is this like a fixation with you? Do you truly value "efficiency" ahead of
human liberty and fundamental principles of justice? Are you Canadian? Never
mind that last question, of course you are Canadian. It explains everything
about your attitude.
>
> >
> > What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? The parts
about
> > "moral" and "lawful" and "conscience"?
> >
> >
> > > > > I do not see what you
> > > > > have against taxation - or do you object that you should have to
pay
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > services you recieve?
> > > >
> > > > You really are incredibly stupid. I have explained this to you many
> > times.
> > > > Taxation is a forced payment system, and it is a serious violation
of
> > some
> > > > fundamental principles of justice. It is the way of tyrants and lazy
> men
> > > and
> > > > those who imagine themselves smarter than those they govern. It is
> your
> > > way
> > > > of forcing people to pay for services that you value, but they may
> not.
> > >
> > > I heard you. However, the problem is not that people have to pay,
only
> > that
> > > services one does not value come as a part of the package.
> >
> > You really are incredibly stupid. It has SFA to do with any "package".
My
> > cablevision "package" comes with a number of TV channels that I do not
> watch
> > and do not want.
>
> Therefore you are paying for a service that you do not use. That is poor
> administration.
Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, I really do not know. "Package deals" are
not uncommon in many industries, there must be some sort of business case
for them. What I do know is that as long as people have a choice to
purchase, or not, then the providers have a strong incentive to provide a
good quality package deal and some options. If you force payment in the
interest of "efficiency" you will soon find corruption setting in and all
your 'eeficiencies' will be lost. Open a newspaper and tell me that this is
not the case with Canadian government.
> This is not a problem, at least it is not anything immoral
> > or unlawful. Try to use your brain, Falcon, a revolutionary should be
able
> > to think a little bit - or at least know when to defer to those who can.
>
> if you were forced to pay for it, you would complain, I suppose, even
though
> you pay for it now.
And rightly so.
> > > And wether or
> > > not you value the services, if you use them you should pay.
> >
> > Bullshit. Your 'reasoning' would require that all people on welfare
and/or
> > disability pension be "required to pay".
>
> I have stated in multiple posts that those people should be exempt.
Why? Why should some be forced to pay, but not others? Isn't that an
inequality? Isn't it "inefficient" to have two (or more) classes under the
law?
> I
> suppose, to prevent a deflated economy, this would be a good use for the
> mint. Hoiwever, if you can pay, the mint should not pay for you.
> Supporting case: Pre-Nazi Germany.
You may wish to investigate the real causes of inflation in pre-war Germany.
I assure you that it was not the printing of excess welfare cheques.
> > Look here, sunshine, lots of people do not pay for municipal services -
> > they live outside the municipality. Lots of people do not pay gasoline
> > taxes, they ride a bike. Are you seriously suggesting that such people
> > should be taxed if they ride on a road or visit a city and use the
> > facilities in the city or on the highway? Are you fucking crazy?
>
> A toll road, perhaps? If they use the services, they should pay for them.
> Not as much as others would, of course, but some.
A toll... for riding a bicycle.... or walking... What's next Falcon, a toll
for breathing? Are you sure that you aren't a National Socialist?
> > > Things like
> > > the gun registry, however, are of no use to anybody and should not be
> paid
> > > for out of anyone's pocket. So you have a point that not all
government
> > > services are valuable but we still have to pay for them. However,
what
> > > would we do otherwise? If all public services are "pay as you will",
> > basic
> > > logic demonstrates that there would be many who would not pay.
> >
> > Maybe you should start thinking about how to organize your
> > post-revolutionary society in such a way that you can get all the lovely
> > services paid for in a way that is not immoral or unlawful. That might
> > require some serious thought, which is something you do not appear to be
> > very good at. I strongly recommend that you postpone your revolution
until
> > after you figure out the answer to such questions - or at least band
> > together with people who do have some ideas on how to do that.
>
> I am a generalist.
No, you are an idiot. See the difference?
> There are other people to collaborate with that I have available to me.
Why have they not been educating you on the questions I raise?
> > Alas, you can't always get what you want. Here is a suggestion: After
your
> > revolution, if every other method has failed, a necessary service can
have
> > it's funding topped up by a universal tax. Now, think about the word
> > "necessary" and what it means.
>
> Surely you do not believe that any sensible post-revolutionary society
would
> include such wasteful projects as the gun registry?
Is it a necessary service? Perhaps it would be more efficient to simply
confiscate all firearms....
> > > > Taxation is an insult to the very people you pretend to serve.
Falcon, as I read your entire response here,
we should all become children of the government.
The government should take the products of our labor, and we should then
seek out and use the "benefits" the government provides.
You are a very foolish young man.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:r7vMa.338624$ro6.8194260@no-spam
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:8jiMa.333111$3C2.9010666@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:FE8Ma.329886$3C2.8936907@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:tS2Ma.354439$Vi5.8952706@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:gi0Ma.325726$3C2.8837968@no-spam
> > > > > So you would waste money no a less efficient system?
> > > >
> > > > The efficiency of the system is the responsibility of those who run
> the
> > > > system, not those who are users of it. I do not run it, so it is not
> my
> > > > responsibility.
> > >
> > > Requesting that it be administered a certain way is the same, in this
> > case,
> > > as assuming leadership.
> >
> > You can request whatever you like, just as they are free to ignore your
> > request. What are you going to do about it, take your business
elsewhere?
> > hahahahahaha!
>
> You would have it done a different way. That way is less efficient. For
> the purposes of discussion, the idea is your responsibility and you can
> hardly lay the blame on the government that you suggested it as a viable
and
> improved system.
>
> >
> > > > It is what it is, efficient - or not - as the people who run it can
> make
> > > it.
> > > > It is not my place to tell them how to run their organization.
> > Obviously,
> > > > you have ambitions of running the system to suit your sensibilities.
> > Good
> > > > luck.
> > >
> > > You yourself have said it should be run in a different way, by
removing
> > > taxes. Are you now saying that you currently run it and do not give a
> > damn
> > > about how efficient it is, or are you just memory-impaired?
> >
> > I have said that I do not care how they run it, just so long as it is
> moral
> > and lawful.
>
> I personally would rather that it was efficient than that it split hairs
> over how to make people pay for the services they recieve.
>
> If it is immoral or unlawful then I will do as my conscience
> > dictates, and refuse to fund it. That same reasoning applies to every
> > organization that I might deal with. The "efficiency" is the
> responsibility
> > of those who manage an organization, and I do not currently do that.
>
> Whether you do or not, the idea was yours. You would have it run less
> efficiently than it is even now?
>
> >
> > What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? The parts
about
> > "moral" and "lawful" and "conscience"?
> >
> >
> > > > > I do not see what you
> > > > > have against taxation - or do you object that you should have to
pay
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > services you recieve?
> > > >
> > > > You really are incredibly stupid. I have explained this to you many
> > times.
> > > > Taxation is a forced payment system, and it is a serious violation
of
> > some
> > > > fundamental principles of justice. It is the way of tyrants and lazy
> men
> > > and
> > > > those who imagine themselves smarter than those they govern. It is
> your
> > > way
> > > > of forcing people to pay for services that you value, but they may
> not.
> > >
> > > I heard you. However, the problem is not that people have to pay,
only
> > that
> > > services one does not value come as a part of the package.
> >
> > You really are incredibly stupid. It has SFA to do with any "package".
My
> > cablevision "package" comes with a number of TV channels that I do not
> watch
> > and do not want.
>
> Therefore you are paying for a service that you do not use. That is poor
> administration.
>
> This is not a problem, at least it is not anything immoral
> > or unlawful. Try to use your brain, Falcon, a revolutionary should be
able
> > to think a little bit - or at least know when to defer to those who can.
>
> if you were forced to pay for it, you would complain, I suppose, even
though
> you pay for it now.
>
> >
> > > And wether or
> > > not you value the services, if you use them you should pay.
> >
> > Bullshit. Your 'reasoning' would require that all people on welfare
and/or
> > disability pension be "required to pay".
>
> I have stated in multiple posts that those people should be exempt. I
> suppose, to prevent a deflated economy, this would be a good use for the
> mint. Hoiwever, if you can pay, the mint should not pay for you.
> Supporting case: Pre-Nazi Germany.
>
> Obviously, they are not required to
> > pay, and that is the whole point - to provide for people who cannot pay.
> >
> > > Therefore, the
> > > roads may not be valuable to you, but if you make use of them you must
> pay
> > > for them. Same for sewage (stormwater included, unless you want your
> home
> > > flooded), bylaw enforcement and other things of that manner.
> >
> > Look here, sunshine, lots of people do not pay for municipal services -
> > they live outside the municipality. Lots of people do not pay gasoline
> > taxes, they ride a bike. Are you seriously suggesting that such people
> > should be taxed if they ride on a road or visit a city and use the
> > facilities in the city or on the highway? Are you fucking crazy?
>
> A toll road, perhaps? If they use the services, they should pay for them.
> Not as much as others would, of course, but some.
>
> >
> > > Things like
> > > the gun registry, however, are of no use to anybody and should not be
> paid
> > > for out of anyone's pocket. So you have a point that not all
government
> > > services are valuable but we still have to pay for them. However,
what
> > > would we do otherwise? If all public services are "pay as you will",
> > basic
> > > logic demonstrates that there would be many who would not pay.
> >
> > Maybe you should start thinking about how to organize your
> > post-revolutionary society in such a way that you can get all the lovely
> > services paid for in a way that is not immoral or unlawful. That might
> > require some serious thought, which is something you do not appear to be
> > very good at. I strongly recommend that you postpone your revolution
until
> > after you figure out the answer to such questions - or at least band
> > together with people who do have some ideas on how to do that.
>
> I am a generalist. There are other people to collaborate with that I have
> available to me.
>
> >
> > > This means
> > > two things. For one, say that I pay the full value of the services.
> Some
> > > of that money will go to paying the cost of those who used the service
> but
> > > did not pay. Another, there would not be enough money to provide the
> full
> > > service, without taking loans.
> >
> > Alas, you can't always get what you want. Here is a suggestion: After
your
> > revolution, if every other method has failed, a necessary service can
have
> > it's funding topped up by a universal tax. Now, think about the word
> > "necessary" and what it means.
>
> Surely you do not believe that any sensible post-revolutionary society
would
> include such wasteful projects as the gun registry?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Taxation is an insult to the very people you pretend to serve.
> >
> >
>
>
It is not to have two classes, but to make an exception. Exceptions are a
very efficient way of handling things if they are used in moderation. Note
efficient, not just fast.
No, the printing of excessive amounts of money to the end of an abolition of
tax. As soon as that currency was devalued, the economy was well again,
until they started killing Jews.
The government does not provide oxygen.
It (The gun registry) is not a necceeary service because it is ineffective
and the police seemed to do just fine without it.
I do not value calling everything about the principles of justice because
there are some cases in which whether the law is there or not, you would
still have to pay. The law protects the country from public disaster, which
is a service to everybody (whether you like it or not). The real issue is
outrageous salaries, frauds and administrative costs.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:TyrNa.357111$3C2.9772267@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:r7vMa.338624$ro6.8194260@no-spam
> >
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:8jiMa.333111$3C2.9010666@no-spam
>
> > > > > The efficiency of the system is the responsibility of those who
run
> > the
> > > > > system, not those who are users of it. I do not run it, so it is
not
> > my
> > > > > responsibility.
> > > >
> > > > Requesting that it be administered a certain way is the same, in
this
> > > case,
> > > > as assuming leadership.
> > >
> > > You can request whatever you like, just as they are free to ignore
your
> > > request. What are you going to do about it, take your business
> elsewhere?
> > > hahahahahaha!
> >
> > You would have it done a different way. That way is less efficient.
>
> perhaps it is less efficient. I don't know, and neither do you. I do not
> care. If you are serious about efficiency, look to fascism. Look to
> Singapore.
>
> > For
> > the purposes of discussion, the idea is your responsibility and you can
> > hardly lay the blame on the government that you suggested it as a viable
> and
> > improved system.
>
> I am not using any "efficiency" argument. You are. Perhaps you should also
> mention "make the trains run on time".
>
>
> > > I have said that I do not care how they run it, just so long as it is
> > moral
> > > and lawful.
> >
> > I personally would rather that it was efficient...
>
> Yes, I know.
>
>
> > If it is immoral or unlawful then I will do as my conscience
> > > dictates, and refuse to fund it. That same reasoning applies to every
> > > organization that I might deal with. The "efficiency" is the
> > responsibility
> > > of those who manage an organization, and I do not currently do that.
> >
> > Whether you do or not, the idea was yours. You would have it run less
> > efficiently than it is even now?
>
> Is this like a fixation with you? Do you truly value "efficiency" ahead of
> human liberty and fundamental principles of justice? Are you Canadian?
Never
> mind that last question, of course you are Canadian. It explains
everything
> about your attitude.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? The parts
> about
> > > "moral" and "lawful" and "conscience"?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > I do not see what you
> > > > > > have against taxation - or do you object that you should have to
> pay
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > services you recieve?
> > > > >
> > > > > You really are incredibly stupid. I have explained this to you
many
> > > times.
> > > > > Taxation is a forced payment system, and it is a serious violation
> of
> > > some
> > > > > fundamental principles of justice. It is the way of tyrants and
lazy
> > men
> > > > and
> > > > > those who imagine themselves smarter than those they govern. It is
> > your
> > > > way
> > > > > of forcing people to pay for services that you value, but they may
> > not.
> > > >
> > > > I heard you. However, the problem is not that people have to pay,
> only
> > > that
> > > > services one does not value come as a part of the package.
> > >
> > > You really are incredibly stupid. It has SFA to do with any "package".
> My
> > > cablevision "package" comes with a number of TV channels that I do not
> > watch
> > > and do not want.
> >
> > Therefore you are paying for a service that you do not use. That is
poor
> > administration.
>
> Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, I really do not know. "Package deals" are
> not uncommon in many industries, there must be some sort of business case
> for them. What I do know is that as long as people have a choice to
> purchase, or not, then the providers have a strong incentive to provide a
> good quality package deal and some options. If you force payment in the
> interest of "efficiency" you will soon find corruption setting in and all
> your 'eeficiencies' will be lost. Open a newspaper and tell me that this
is
> not the case with Canadian government.
>
> > This is not a problem, at least it is not anything immoral
> > > or unlawful. Try to use your brain, Falcon, a revolutionary should be
> able
> > > to think a little bit - or at least know when to defer to those who
can.
> >
> > if you were forced to pay for it, you would complain, I suppose, even
> though
> > you pay for it now.
>
> And rightly so.
>
>
> > > > And wether or
> > > > not you value the services, if you use them you should pay.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Your 'reasoning' would require that all people on welfare
> and/or
> > > disability pension be "required to pay".
> >
> > I have stated in multiple posts that those people should be exempt.
>
> Why? Why should some be forced to pay, but not others? Isn't that an
> inequality? Isn't it "inefficient" to have two (or more) classes under the
> law?
>
> > I
> > suppose, to prevent a deflated economy, this would be a good use for the
> > mint. Hoiwever, if you can pay, the mint should not pay for you.
> > Supporting case: Pre-Nazi Germany.
>
> You may wish to investigate the real causes of inflation in pre-war
Germany.
> I assure you that it was not the printing of excess welfare cheques.
>
>
> > > Look here, sunshine, lots of people do not pay for municipal
services -
> > > they live outside the municipality. Lots of people do not pay gasoline
> > > taxes, they ride a bike. Are you seriously suggesting that such people
> > > should be taxed if they ride on a road or visit a city and use the
> > > facilities in the city or on the highway? Are you fucking crazy?
> >
> > A toll road, perhaps? If they use the services, they should pay for
them.
> > Not as much as others would, of course, but some.
>
> A toll... for riding a bicycle.... or walking... What's next Falcon, a
toll
> for breathing? Are you sure that you aren't a National Socialist?
>
> > > > Things like
> > > > the gun registry, however, are of no use to anybody and should not
be
> > paid
> > > > for out of anyone's pocket. So you have a point that not all
> government
> > > > services are valuable but we still have to pay for them. However,
> what
> > > > would we do otherwise? If all public services are "pay as you
will",
> > > basic
> > > > logic demonstrates that there would be many who would not pay.
> > >
> > > Maybe you should start thinking about how to organize your
> > > post-revolutionary society in such a way that you can get all the
lovely
> > > services paid for in a way that is not immoral or unlawful. That might
> > > require some serious thought, which is something you do not appear to
be
> > > very good at. I strongly recommend that you postpone your revolution
> until
> > > after you figure out the answer to such questions - or at least band
> > > together with people who do have some ideas on how to do that.
> >
> > I am a generalist.
>
> No, you are an idiot. See the difference?
>
> > There are other people to collaborate with that I have available to me.
>
> Why have they not been educating you on the questions I raise?
>
> > > Alas, you can't always get what you want. Here is a suggestion: After
> your
> > > revolution, if every other method has failed, a necessary service can
> have
> > > it's funding topped up by a universal tax. Now, think about the word
> > > "necessary" and what it means.
> >
> > Surely you do not believe that any sensible post-revolutionary society
> would
> > include such wasteful projects as the gun registry?
>
> Is it a necessary service? Perhaps it would be more efficient to simply
> confiscate all firearms....
>
> > > > > Taxation is an insult to the very people you pretend to serve.
>
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Da6Pa.399723$ro6.9729272@no-spam
> No,the government should provide a certain amount of services to everybody
> and charge for them. If you don't like the package, you can always move.
I live in a free country, as a free man. If I don't like the package then I
can tell them (and you) to "kindly fuck off" and then not pay for your
stupid package. If you are silly enough to deliver it anyhow, then that's
your problem. Do you follow all that, or do I need to draw you a picture?
>
> <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:tlgOa.14791$xv.198@no-spam
> > Falcon, as I read your entire response here,
> > we should all become children of the government.
> >
> > The government should take the products of our labor, and we should then
> > seek out and use the "benefits" the government provides.
> >
> > You are a very foolish young man.
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:r7vMa.338624$ro6.8194260@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:8jiMa.333111$3C2.9010666@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:FE8Ma.329886$3C2.8936907@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:tS2Ma.354439$Vi5.8952706@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:gi0Ma.325726$3C2.8837968@no-spam
> > > > > > > So you would waste money no a less efficient system?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The efficiency of the system is the responsibility of those who
> run
> > > the
> > > > > > system, not those who are users of it. I do not run it, so it is
> not
> > > my
> > > > > > responsibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requesting that it be administered a certain way is the same, in
> this
> > > > case,
> > > > > as assuming leadership.
> > > >
> > > > You can request whatever you like, just as they are free to ignore
> your
> > > > request. What are you going to do about it, take your business
> > elsewhere?
> > > > hahahahahaha!
> > >
> > > You would have it done a different way. That way is less efficient.
> For
> > > the purposes of discussion, the idea is your responsibility and you
can
> > > hardly lay the blame on the government that you suggested it as a
viable
> > and
> > > improved system.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > It is what it is, efficient - or not - as the people who run it
> can
> > > make
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > It is not my place to tell them how to run their organization.
> > > > Obviously,
> > > > > > you have ambitions of running the system to suit your
> sensibilities.
> > > > Good
> > > > > > luck.
> > > > >
> > > > > You yourself have said it should be run in a different way, by
> > removing
> > > > > taxes. Are you now saying that you currently run it and do not
give
> a
> > > > damn
> > > > > about how efficient it is, or are you just memory-impaired?
> > > >
> > > > I have said that I do not care how they run it, just so long as it
is
> > > moral
> > > > and lawful.
> > >
> > > I personally would rather that it was efficient than that it split
hairs
> > > over how to make people pay for the services they recieve.
> > >
> > > If it is immoral or unlawful then I will do as my conscience
> > > > dictates, and refuse to fund it. That same reasoning applies to
every
> > > > organization that I might deal with. The "efficiency" is the
> > > responsibility
> > > > of those who manage an organization, and I do not currently do that.
> > >
> > > Whether you do or not, the idea was yours. You would have it run less
> > > efficiently than it is even now?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? The parts
> > about
> > > > "moral" and "lawful" and "conscience"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > I do not see what you
> > > > > > > have against taxation - or do you object that you should have
to
> > pay
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > services you recieve?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really are incredibly stupid. I have explained this to you
> many
> > > > times.
> > > > > > Taxation is a forced payment system, and it is a serious
violation
> > of
> > > > some
> > > > > > fundamental principles of justice. It is the way of tyrants and
> lazy
> > > men
> > > > > and
> > > > > > those who imagine themselves smarter than those they govern. It
is
> > > your
> > > > > way
> > > > > > of forcing people to pay for services that you value, but they
may
> > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I heard you. However, the problem is not that people have to pay,
> > only
> > > > that
> > > > > services one does not value come as a part of the package.
> > > >
> > > > You really are incredibly stupid. It has SFA to do with any
"package".
> > My
> > > > cablevision "package" comes with a number of TV channels that I do
not
> > > watch
> > > > and do not want.
> > >
> > > Therefore you are paying for a service that you do not use. That is
> poor
> > > administration.
> > >
> > > This is not a problem, at least it is not anything immoral
> > > > or unlawful. Try to use your brain, Falcon, a revolutionary should
be
> > able
> > > > to think a little bit - or at least know when to defer to those who
> can.
> > >
> > > if you were forced to pay for it, you would complain, I suppose, even
> > though
> > > you pay for it now.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > And wether or
> > > > > not you value the services, if you use them you should pay.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. Your 'reasoning' would require that all people on welfare
> > and/or
> > > > disability pension be "required to pay".
> > >
> > > I have stated in multiple posts that those people should be exempt. I
> > > suppose, to prevent a deflated economy, this would be a good use for
the
> > > mint. Hoiwever, if you can pay, the mint should not pay for you.
> > > Supporting case: Pre-Nazi Germany.
> > >
> > > Obviously, they are not required to
> > > > pay, and that is the whole point - to provide for people who cannot
> pay.
> > > >
> > > > > Therefore, the
> > > > > roads may not be valuable to you, but if you make use of them you
> must
> > > pay
> > > > > for them. Same for sewage (stormwater included, unless you want
> your
> > > home
> > > > > flooded), bylaw enforcement and other things of that manner.
> > > >
> > > > Look here, sunshine, lots of people do not pay for municipal
> services -
> > > > they live outside the municipality. Lots of people do not pay
gasoline
> > > > taxes, they ride a bike. Are you seriously suggesting that such
people
> > > > should be taxed if they ride on a road or visit a city and use the
> > > > facilities in the city or on the highway? Are you fucking crazy?
> > >
> > > A toll road, perhaps? If they use the services, they should pay for
> them.
> > > Not as much as others would, of course, but some.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Things like
> > > > > the gun registry, however, are of no use to anybody and should not
> be
> > > paid
> > > > > for out of anyone's pocket. So you have a point that not all
> > government
> > > > > services are valuable but we still have to pay for them. However,
> > what
> > > > > would we do otherwise? If all public services are "pay as you
> will",
> > > > basic
> > > > > logic demonstrates that there would be many who would not pay.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you should start thinking about how to organize your
> > > > post-revolutionary society in such a way that you can get all the
> lovely
> > > > services paid for in a way that is not immoral or unlawful. That
might
> > > > require some serious thought, which is something you do not appear
to
> be
> > > > very good at. I strongly recommend that you postpone your revolution
> > until
> > > > after you figure out the answer to such questions - or at least band
> > > > together with people who do have some ideas on how to do that.
> > >
> > > I am a generalist. There are other people to collaborate with that I
> have
> > > available to me.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > This means
> > > > > two things. For one, say that I pay the full value of the
services.
> > > Some
> > > > > of that money will go to paying the cost of those who used the
> service
> > > but
> > > > > did not pay. Another, there would not be enough money to provide
> the
> > > full
> > > > > service, without taking loans.
> > > >
> > > > Alas, you can't always get what you want. Here is a suggestion:
After
> > your
> > > > revolution, if every other method has failed, a necessary service
can
> > have
> > > > it's funding topped up by a universal tax. Now, think about the word
> > > > "necessary" and what it means.
> > >
> > > Surely you do not believe that any sensible post-revolutionary society
> > would
> > > include such wasteful projects as the gun registry?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Taxation is an insult to the very people you pretend to serve.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
No, Falcon, I live in a democray which allows desent. I DO NOT have to
accept every hairbrained idea you liberals finance with my money.
Thats why we have elections. I DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE OR ESCAPE! I can resist
and disagree. I live in the USA.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Da6Pa.399723$ro6.9729272@no-spam
> No,the government should provide a certain amount of services to everybody
> and charge for them. If you don't like the package, you can always move.
>
> <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:tlgOa.14791$xv.198@no-spam
> > Falcon, as I read your entire response here,
> > we should all become children of the government.
> >
> > The government should take the products of our labor, and we should then
> > seek out and use the "benefits" the government provides.
> >
> > You are a very foolish young man.
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:r7vMa.338624$ro6.8194260@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:8jiMa.333111$3C2.9010666@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:FE8Ma.329886$3C2.8936907@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:tS2Ma.354439$Vi5.8952706@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:gi0Ma.325726$3C2.8837968@no-spam
> > > > > > > So you would waste money no a less efficient system?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The efficiency of the system is the responsibility of those who
> run
> > > the
> > > > > > system, not those who are users of it. I do not run it, so it is
> not
> > > my
> > > > > > responsibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requesting that it be administered a certain way is the same, in
> this
> > > > case,
> > > > > as assuming leadership.
> > > >
> > > > You can request whatever you like, just as they are free to ignore
> your
> > > > request. What are you going to do about it, take your business
> > elsewhere?
> > > > hahahahahaha!
> > >
> > > You would have it done a different way. That way is less efficient.
> For
> > > the purposes of discussion, the idea is your responsibility and you
can
> > > hardly lay the blame on the government that you suggested it as a
viable
> > and
> > > improved system.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > It is what it is, efficient - or not - as the people who run it
> can
> > > make
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > It is not my place to tell them how to run their organization.
> > > > Obviously,
> > > > > > you have ambitions of running the system to suit your
> sensibilities.
> > > > Good
> > > > > > luck.
> > > > >
> > > > > You yourself have said it should be run in a different way, by
> > removing
> > > > > taxes. Are you now saying that you currently run it and do not
give
> a
> > > > damn
> > > > > about how efficient it is, or are you just memory-impaired?
> > > >
> > > > I have said that I do not care how they run it, just so long as it
is
> > > moral
> > > > and lawful.
> > >
> > > I personally would rather that it was efficient than that it split
hairs
> > > over how to make people pay for the services they recieve.
> > >
> > > If it is immoral or unlawful then I will do as my conscience
> > > > dictates, and refuse to fund it. That same reasoning applies to
every
> > > > organization that I might deal with. The "efficiency" is the
> > > responsibility
> > > > of those who manage an organization, and I do not currently do that.
> > >
> > > Whether you do or not, the idea was yours. You would have it run less
> > > efficiently than it is even now?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? The parts
> > about
> > > > "moral" and "lawful" and "conscience"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > I do not see what you
> > > > > > > have against taxation - or do you object that you should have
to
> > pay
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > services you recieve?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really are incredibly stupid. I have explained this to you
> many
> > > > times.
> > > > > > Taxation is a forced payment system, and it is a serious
violation
> > of
> > > > some
> > > > > > fundamental principles of justice. It is the way of tyrants and
> lazy
> > > men
> > > > > and
> > > > > > those who imagine themselves smarter than those they govern. It
is
> > > your
> > > > > way
> > > > > > of forcing people to pay for services that you value, but they
may
> > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I heard you. However, the problem is not that people have to pay,
> > only
> > > > that
> > > > > services one does not value come as a part of the package.
> > > >
> > > > You really are incredibly stupid. It has SFA to do with any
"package".
> > My
> > > > cablevision "package" comes with a number of TV channels that I do
not
> > > watch
> > > > and do not want.
> > >
> > > Therefore you are paying for a service that you do not use. That is
> poor
> > > administration.
> > >
> > > This is not a problem, at least it is not anything immoral
> > > > or unlawful. Try to use your brain, Falcon, a revolutionary should
be
> > able
> > > > to think a little bit - or at least know when to defer to those who
> can.
> > >
> > > if you were forced to pay for it, you would complain, I suppose, even
> > though
> > > you pay for it now.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > And wether or
> > > > > not you value the services, if you use them you should pay.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. Your 'reasoning' would require that all people on welfare
> > and/or
> > > > disability pension be "required to pay".
> > >
> > > I have stated in multiple posts that those people should be exempt. I
> > > suppose, to prevent a deflated economy, this would be a good use for
the
> > > mint. Hoiwever, if you can pay, the mint should not pay for you.
> > > Supporting case: Pre-Nazi Germany.
> > >
> > > Obviously, they are not required to
> > > > pay, and that is the whole point - to provide for people who cannot
> pay.
> > > >
> > > > > Therefore, the
> > > > > roads may not be valuable to you, but if you make use of them you
> must
> > > pay
> > > > > for them. Same for sewage (stormwater included, unless you want
> your
> > > home
> > > > > flooded), bylaw enforcement and other things of that manner.
> > > >
> > > > Look here, sunshine, lots of people do not pay for municipal
> services -
> > > > they live outside the municipality. Lots of people do not pay
gasoline
> > > > taxes, they ride a bike. Are you seriously suggesting that such
people
> > > > should be taxed if they ride on a road or visit a city and use the
> > > > facilities in the city or on the highway? Are you fucking crazy?
> > >
> > > A toll road, perhaps? If they use the services, they should pay for
> them.
> > > Not as much as others would, of course, but some.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Things like
> > > > > the gun registry, however, are of no use to anybody and should not
> be
> > > paid
> > > > > for out of anyone's pocket. So you have a point that not all
> > government
> > > > > services are valuable but we still have to pay for them. However,
> > what
> > > > > would we do otherwise? If all public services are "pay as you
> will",
> > > > basic
> > > > > lo