Total Evil
Michael Schneider
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
>
> > Public goods? or do you not understand the concept?
>
> I deny the concept. All goods and services are produced
> by human individuals wither working alone or in voluntary
> association. That makes them private goods. No different
> than the food you buy.
>
> The concept of "public goods" is a stolen concept used to justify
> tax theft.
>
> Bob Kolker
Yeah, but Bob, ya gotta realize that you're talking to people in these
groups who have phony-baloney government jobs to protect, and quite
frankly they *do* wish you would just shut your fucking peasant mouth and
stop bitching when their paymaster lifts your wallet every time it feels
the need.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Keith Willshaw
"Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:mike1-30090...@c7-160.xtlab.com...
> In article <3BB70114...@mediaone.net>, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> >
> > > Public goods? or do you not understand the concept?
> >
> > I deny the concept. All goods and services are produced
> > by human individuals wither working alone or in voluntary
> > association. That makes them private goods. No different
> > than the food you buy.
> >
> > The concept of "public goods" is a stolen concept used to justify
> > tax theft.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
>
> Yeah, but Bob, ya gotta realize that you're talking to people in these
> groups who have phony-baloney government jobs to protect, and quite
> frankly they *do* wish you would just shut your fucking peasant mouth and
> stop bitching when their paymaster lifts your wallet every time it feels
> the need.
>
Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
How about the Special forces teams in Afghanistan ?
Or the crews of the Carriers on the way there ?
Bottom line is that without some "phoney-baloney" government
jobs there's nothing for the rest of us except slavery.
For the record I DONT work for the Government
Keith
Robert J. Kolker
Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a privatized
system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have government
funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
Now in the case of armed groups such as police or army we
have a problem. If these groups were purely free market then
we might have the problem of competing armies or competing
police forces. Freikorps anyone?
Here is the one and only one area where an argument can be
made for government control and public funding. Does it have
to be by taxes. No? It can be by subscription. A public subscription
is made and if enough funds are raised the service is provided. If
not, not. One does not need 100 percent subscription and if 80
percent subscribe to 100 percent of the cost you have a 20 percent
free rider overhead. This can be compensated for by private means.
For example if no one will buy or sell from you, or hire your services
unless you can show a paid up subscription document, there is a
good social, no forceful method of minimizing the free riders.
Again, for historical reasons we have government armies and pollice
forces. If our history had been different they would be private. Is it
possible. Yes. In the western U.S. before we had hard intrusive
government, the "muscle" of the law was provided by the posse
commitatus, which was voluntarily formed. Free folks willing to
band together to capture and punish Bad Guys for the benefit of
all. Did everyone participate? No. Did enough participate. Yes, most
of the time. There is no logical reason why an army cannot be
raised in the form of a posse commitatus. We do it the government
way because (1) it is easier to get the government to steal the
money from recalcitrant folk and (2) we want the psuedo assurance
of everyone paying his "fair share". Well there have always been
slackers and draft dodgers and lackwits and jerkoffs who are of
no use whatsover. The government can not manufacture willingness
to participate in the common weal, it can only organize it.
>
>
> How about the Special forces teams in Afghanistan ?
Had our history been different, they would be privately funded
over a broad base. Possibly by subscription.
>
>
> Or the crews of the Carriers on the way there ?
Had our history been different they could have been built by
a combination of corporate funding and subscription funding with
the corporate funding costs distributed in the price of goods and
services. By historical accident, rather than by logical necessity
we fund our services the government way, complete with $ 1000.00
toilet seats and $500.00 hammers.
>
>
> Bottom line is that without some "phoney-baloney" government
> jobs there's nothing for the rest of us except slavery.
The function of these jobs may be necessary to society, but the
matter of coercive government funding is not. It could have been
otherwise. It just so happens it wasn't. For the record, I support
the government armed forces, warts and all, because in the operative
time frame there is no other alternative. One uses what is at hand.
>
>
> For the record I DONT work for the Government
That is nice. You are not an outright thief. Only an appologist
for other thieves. Way to go, man!
Bob Kolker
obWI. Suppose our colonial forbears had decided to go the
Private Route. What kind of nation would we be.
Peter Bruells
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
>> trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
> Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a
> privatized system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have
> government funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
There WERE private-funded firefighters ince. In New York City, for
example. They'd rather let a building burn down than to cooperate with
their competitors.
The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
crime.
Robert J. Kolker
Peter Bruells wrote:
> There WERE private-funded firefighters ince. In New York City, for
> example. They'd rather let a building burn down than to cooperate with
> their competitors.
>
> The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
> ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
> crime.
And just what do you think Your Government is. It is the biggest
organized crime ring in the world. Its revenues (all taken by
force, btw) exceeds that of private organized crime by at least
two orders of magnitude. The fact that we elect our Cappo de
Tutti Cappi is of little relevence.
Bob Kolker
Scott D. Erb
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
> Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a privatized
> system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have government
> funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
>
> Now in the case of armed groups such as police or army we
> have a problem. If these groups were purely free market then
> we might have the problem of competing armies or competing
> police forces. Freikorps anyone?
>
> Here is the one and only one area where an argument can be
> made for government control and public funding.
Not really. It is the only area one can make an argument for
government funding if one accepts your premises and beliefs about
what the nature of government should be, and how well a
privatized system would work in practice rather than in theory.
There are a myriad of economic and political arguments that run
counter to your faith in the private sector, and philosophical
and moral arguments that run counter to your political
preferences.
I, and most others, do not accept your basic premises and
ideological beliefs. However, I also know that we are dealing
with things that defy objective proof and can't simply flow from
simple starting points. Therefore, I believe that a Democratic
Republic, while not perfect, is a legitimate way to mediate these
disputes, so long as there is a guarantee that individuals of
various beliefs can state their opinions and try to persuade
others, and that the use of power by those in government is as
transparent as possible (currently not the case) and accountable
to the people. In such a system we can debate, experiment, and
engage in the necessary compromises a society requires. A lot of
people think they have found "the answer," and with such people
dogmatism seems the proper step. But at that point they part
ways with reality. In a world where there is uncertainty about
some of these basic issues, I see no better path towards the
truth and towards a better future than a democratic republic,
even as such systems are hard to create and can fall apart.
No one, not you, not I, or anyone should have the right or power
to simply declare that all must adhere to the same ideological
beliefs and basic premises we hold. That means the way you
define freedom and "theft" is not something you can demand others
copy. But if your arguments persuade people and they agree with
your perspective, we could have a democratic movement towards the
kind of system you prefer. If not, we won't.
Keith Willshaw
"Peter Bruells" <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote in message
news:9p7bq2$1...@news.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE...
I dont recall too much organised crime being found
in the Fire Brigade, in fact I dont recall any.
German experience may differ
Keith
Scott D. Erb
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> And just what do you think Your Government is. It is the biggest
> organized crime ring in the world. Its revenues (all taken by
> force, btw) exceeds that of private organized crime by at least
> two orders of magnitude. The fact that we elect our Cappo de
> Tutti Cappi is of little relevence.
>
> Bob Kolker
I agree that governments started as glorified protection rackets,
but I think that's an inevitable outcome of anarchy or lack of
authority or rule. It took hundreds of years of the "common folk"
fighting against the Royal Families and their nobility (sort of
like 'families' in organized crime!) to develop protection of
individual rights, a system where the elites are held accountable
to rule of law, and ways in which the public can use elections
and a free press to try to hold the use of power accountable.
That's been a difficult struggle.
To simply go backwards would set things up like they were before,
and the process would probably start over. The Taliban arose in
the absence of any authority. One could argue that the important
thing is "rule of law" but that begs the question of "what" law
and "whose" law. Any individual or proponent of an 'ism' can
claim that they properly see what the right law is and it should
be enforced by any means necessary, even if there is no
democratic or societal agreement. The Taliban again fits into
that category. While you and others of varying ideological
positions may genuinely be certain you are right and convinced
that your position carries only benefits and no dangers, if it
would ever be imposed rather than chosen democratically it would
not only likely fall apart, but become morphed into something
even you would oppose (arguably that happened to another
idealogical dogmatic, Karl Marx, who thought that if only
capitalism was eliminated then the state would whither away and
everyone would live in freedom. So grand was that ultimate goal
that people felt it good to revolt and give power to a
non-democratic government that would bring about this utopia --
and look what happened! Some of the worst forms of corrupt rule
in the history of the world!).
So rule of law is what we make it, and when we make it
democratically it deserves a modicum of respect, even as we work
to change it, or refuse to abide by laws that would force us to
break our own moral code (civil disobedience). That's really the
only feasible path at this point -- unless you can offer a
superior alternative and explain how it will work, and how it
could be implemented.
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> your perspective, we could have a democratic movement towards the
> kind of system you prefer. If not, we won't.
We won't indeed! In short, if the Mob decides to pick my
pocket or eat my flesh it is perfectly alright. Not!!!!
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Peter Bruells wrote:
>
> The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
> ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
> crime.
The Dutch formed their coast guard as a voluntary service. No
thugs or organized crime their. And they did not bargain a price
with shipwrecked folk. They just went out and saved them.
You steadfastly deny the possibility that people working
voluntarily could organize things for the mutual benefit of
all based on rational self interest.
Tell me, scout. Do you think the Government should be in
charge of growing and distributing our food? I hope not,
for if it did, we should all soon want for bread.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> only feasible path at this point -- unless you can offer a
> superior alternative and explain how it will work, and how it
> could be implemented.
Here is my proposal. Keep your hands off my property and
person. Anything I need will will buy or barter for using my
own efforts as the source of my revenue. You leave me alone
and I will leave you alone. Now what is wrong with that
proposal?
Bob Kolker
Scott D. Erb
Look at a dollar bill. It is a "federal reserve note" for "use"
against debt. It is not something you have created or have sole
claim to, it is something you use to participate in a system that
functions as it does because of a strong infrastructure, rule of
law, and protection for citizens and businesses. If you refuse
to pay your share because you suffer a false belief that somehow
all those things would be there "anyway" and you'd have just as
much money as other wise, then you are, in essence, stealing from
society. At least, that is an alternate perspective just as
logical in form as yours.
Someday there will be no centralized government. Some day most
everything will be voluntary, be it a type of anarchy based on
capitalism or some kind of libertarian socialism. I'm convinced
of that, though nothing, even survival of the species, is
inevitable. But the way history unfolds is slow, and that's
reality.
As Don Henley put it: "An angry man can only get so far until he
reconciles the way he thinks things ought to be, with the way
they are."
I'm not sure if you're as angry as your rhetoric sounds. Perhaps
you rationally understand the situation and know that this is
slow, but just see a strong force style as the best way to try to
help convince more people and speed the process along. If so,
then my response to you is misplaced, you're simply doing what
you think best to try to persaude. But if you'd really subvert
democracy because you are convinced of the superiority of your
goals, or if you find yourself mad about this world everyday, I'd
recommend you gain perspective. It's a crappy world and it'll be
that way as long as we live. But we can enjoy life, work bit by
bit to try to improve things, and recognize that the rules of the
game only change slowly and not as any of us want.
Scott D. Erb
It won't work. And it's incomplete. How would that look if
implemented as an alternative to current systems? Would the
disadvantages -- organized crime rising, powerful groups fighting
and creating defacto governments not answerable to the people or
rule of law -- end up taking over. You just state a basic "leave
me alone" desire, you don't offer a real alternative that can be
taken seriously.
For my part, sure, I'll leave you alone. I'd even vote to allow
those who want to leave the US system not pay taxes except for
use fees (though if you did business and earned money in the US
those fees would probably be so high as to make paying the
standard tax rate preferable -- if you and friends bought a chunk
of land like the Davidians or Freemen of Montana and wanted to
live on your own and not use the territory of the US or any of
the benefits provided such as highways, interstates, etc., then
fine. But if you want to "privatize" all government functions,
you have to get the current owners (collectively owned by all
citizens) to agree. The process for that is to go through
Congress.
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> Look at a dollar bill. It is a "federal reserve note" for "use"
> against debt
You are right. It is funny money, phoney baloney monopoly
script which the government has declared legal tender. I am
forced to use it, if merchants insist on it. I am forced to take
it of a buyer of my services offers it.
Real money is metal.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> fine. But if you want to "privatize" all government functions,
> you have to get the current owners (collectively owned by all
> citizens) to agree. The process for that is to go through
> Congress.
The only thing I wish to privatize is my money, my body and
my time. I resent having a portion of my income stolen from
me or if you prefer extored from me for services I neither
want nor need.
Bob Kolker
Peter Bruells
> "Peter Bruells" <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote in message
> news:9p7bq2$1...@news.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE...
> I dont recall too much organised crime being found in the Fire
> Brigade, in fact I dont recall any.
> German experience may differ
I was refering to Old New York City, when private firecompanies whre
in the hands of street gangs. Mordern fire brigades offer no motive
for criminal activities, because they are not profit-orientated.
Peter Bruells
> Peter Bruells wrote:
>> The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
>> ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
>> crime.
> The Dutch formed their coast guard as a voluntary service. No thugs
> or organized crime their. And they did not bargain a price with
> shipwrecked folk. They just went out and saved them.
> You steadfastly deny the possibility that people working voluntarily
> could organize things for the mutual benefit of all based on
> rational self interest.
No, I deny that without governmental control people will act just for
the mutal benefit of each other. If they would, communism would work
instead of being a pipe dream.
> Tell me, scout. Do you think the Government should be in
> charge of growing and distributing our food? I hope not,
> for if it did, we should all soon want for bread.
Geed Bob, how long does it take to build one of these straw men?
Keith Willshaw
The Public fire service was institiuted in the UK because of
the failure of the Private services ofered by the insurance
companies
Not only would they not put out fires in uninsured properties
they would actively sabotage the firefighting activities
of rival companies.
Keith
Matt Giwer
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> writes:
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
>>> trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>> Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a
>> privatized system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have
>> government funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
>There WERE private-funded firefighters ince. In New York City, for
>example. They'd rather let a building burn down than to cooperate
>with their competitors.
And there still are volunteer fire fighters and if you are in
an area serviced by them and you call them they send you a bill. In
such areas property owners are advised to have a rider covering that
cost on their insurance. There is no particular reason why fire
departments cannot be paid for by insurance.
>The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
>ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
>crime.
With volunteers it is the insurance companies which keep them
honest.
--
If you quit smoking now you can live long enough
to get Altzheimer's.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 24
Matt Giwer
>"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>> > your perspective, we could have a democratic movement towards the
>> > kind of system you prefer. If not, we won't.
>> We won't indeed! In short, if the Mob decides to pick my
>> pocket or eat my flesh it is perfectly alright. Not!!!!
>Look at a dollar bill. It is a "federal reserve note" for "use"
>against debt.
An interesting quirk there is the word debt. It does not have
to be accepted for anything but debt. It does not have to be accepted
by sellers for purchases for example.
>It is not something you have created or have sole claim to, it is
>something you use to participate in a system that functions as it
>does because of a strong infrastructure, rule of law, and protection
>for citizens and businesses. If you refuse to pay your share
>because you suffer a false belief that somehow all those things
>would be there "anyway" and you'd have just as much money as other
>wise, then you are, in essence, stealing from society. At least,
>that is an alternate perspective just as logical in form as yours.
Fair share in anticipation of a need or in remedy of debt?
Noting governments and tithing religions are the only
organizations which define fair as a percentage of income rather than
as a percentage of benefit.
But then our income is not our property, we do not own it. If
we did it could only by taken by eminent domain with equitable
compensation as determined by court and custom. In this case, the fair
market value of $1000 in taxes is $1000 in return.
--
I am never effected by the environment.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 125
Matt Giwer
>"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>> And just what do you think Your Government is. It is the biggest
>> organized crime ring in the world. Its revenues (all taken by
>> force, btw) exceeds that of private organized crime by at least
>> two orders of magnitude. The fact that we elect our Cappo de
>> Tutti Cappi is of little relevence.
>I agree that governments started as glorified protection rackets,
>but I think that's an inevitable outcome of anarchy or lack of
>authority or rule. It took hundreds of years of the "common folk"
>fighting against the Royal Families and their nobility (sort of like
>'families' in organized crime!) to develop protection of individual
>rights, a system where the elites are held accountable to rule of
>law, and ways in which the public can use elections and a free press
>to try to hold the use of power accountable. That's been a
>difficult struggle.
I don't think you are going back far enough. Governments are
an outgrowth of tribal elders later growing into clans with clan fueds
until one is dominant. They levied tribute based upon services
rendered. Not providing protection from marauders would get the clan
leader replaced.
--
Some peoples' memories only work backwards.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 63
Fabian
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BB73146...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
> Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a
privatized
> system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have government
> funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
>
> Now in the case of armed groups such as police or army we
> have a problem. If these groups were purely free market then
> we might have the problem of competing armies or competing
> police forces. Freikorps anyone?
>
> Here is the one and only one area where an argument can be
> made for government control and public funding. Does it have
> to be by taxes. No? It can be by subscription. A public subscription
> is made and if enough funds are raised the service is provided. If
> not, not. One does not need 100 percent subscription and if 80
> percent subscribe to 100 percent of the cost you have a 20 percent
> free rider overhead.
And if enough money is not raised, the group that gathered the money
will return it? Given that they've paid their subs to the 'police', the
'police' might be reluctant to make them return the money, as the police
would then lose a significant part of their funding.
In this kind of system, the police will be directly answerable to
whoever pays the subs. The opportunities to abuse this system should be
plain. Which laws do the police enforce anyway? Simple! Whichever laws
the 'funded politicians' have passed, or whiechever laws the police have
been paid to enforce. Running a big business was never so easy! This
kind of society is an open invitation to institutional bribery.
If it is a 'government' subscription instead of a private body, you have
teh problem that there is no government infrastructure to do any of
this. Someoen is gonan complain that his dues aren't being paid to
enforce clean air; they're being paid to fund the guy who counts how
many have paid their dues.
> ...This can be compensated for by private means.
> For example if no one will buy or sell from you, or hire your
services
> unless you can show a paid up subscription document, there is a
> good social, no forceful method of minimizing the free riders.
Who enforces this? The police? Oh look, the local big business hasn't
paid for that particular law to be enforced...
Oh, you were relying on people to do the decent thing, rather than wait
for the law to make them? How many big businesses can you name that will
consciously choose the more expensive option, given that no police force
exists to make them not use teh cheap option?
> Again, for historical reasons we have government armies and police
> forces. If our history had been different they would be private.
For a time, the fire departments were private. Once they were
nationalised, their efficiency went up rather well. I imagine similar
philosphies went behind law enforcement and military. Imagine two
competing police forces operating in the same area... enforcing
different laws (because their subscribers have different interests).
Bob, you are not an advocate of anarchism, you are an advocate of
laissez faire capitalism.
--
--
Fabian
Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on cologne and they
go out and smell each other.
Robert J. Kolker
Fabian wrote:
>
> Bob, you are not an advocate of anarchism, you are an advocate of
> laissez faire capitalism.
The differences between laissez faire capitalism and anarcho capitalism
are not worth fighting a civil war. In either system you would hardly
know there is a government.
Bob Kolker
Matt Giwer
>"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>Real money is metal.
Metal is a commodity.
If paper money were properly disciplined there would not be
constant inflation. One year's inflation would be noted and followed
by less printing such that the average tends to zero. Were that done
paper money would be of no value to governments.
In a multi-trillion dollar economy each percentage point of
inflation is real money.
Paper money is also a commodity. The cost of that commodity is
the interest to borrow it. That is how the Fed and banks distribute
it. The printing press permits creation of that commodity in excess of
demand resulting in profits from both inflation and borrowing costs.
It is good to be the printer.
--
Do you expect the poor to hire you?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 580
Robert J. Kolker
Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> Paper money is also a commodity. The cost of that commodity is
> the interest to borrow it. That is how the Fed and banks distribute
> it. The printing press permits creation of that commodity in excess of
> demand resulting in profits from both inflation and borrowing costs.
Actually its not so much printing press money as phoney baloney
Federal Reserve Accounts set up on promises by the Federal
Government to steal from the citizens to pay Fed I.O.U's. Checks
can be written against these bogus accounts to pay for real stuff.
Percentagewise very few purchases are cash. Most are checks or
credit card transactions which translate to drafts.
Bob Kolker
Tom Robertson
<snip>
>No one, not you, not I, or anyone should have the right or power
>to simply declare that all must adhere to the same ideological
>beliefs and basic premises we hold. That means the way you
>define freedom and "theft" is not something you can demand others
>copy.
In particular, it's his premise that obligations are only incurred via
requested benefit, and not unrequested benefit, also, that I can't get
past.
Scott D. Erb
Your opinion is noted, but again, don't expect others to simply
bow to your wishes. Also, here's some of what you snipped out:
Look at a dollar bill. It is a "federal reserve note" for "use"
Scott D. Erb
You're not responding to the argument except with unsubstantiated
assertions of belief.
So my advice to you: get used to it because it ain't gonna
change.
Ciao ragazzo.
William Black
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BB73146...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
> Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a privatized
> system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have government
> funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
That's because private one's were tried.
In London, in the nineteenth century, some old buildings still have 'fire
marks' on them.
It was stopped because fire fighting teams wouldn't, or were ordered not
to, fight a fire unless the buildings owners signed up with their 'fire
company'.
People died, there was a scandal, the London Fire Brigade was started.
So that's one silly idea trashed for a start, I'm afraid fighters are, of
necessity, a socialist solution to a problem where capitalism failed.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Keith Willshaw
"Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.010930...@6535171hfc161.tampabay.rr.com.
..
>
> And there still are volunteer fire fighters and if you are in
> an area serviced by them and you call them they send you a bill. In
> such areas property owners are advised to have a rider covering that
> cost on their insurance. There is no particular reason why fire
> departments cannot be paid for by insurance.
>
I dont know about the US situation but here in the UK
we also have volunteer or retained units. In fact the
brigade in the village I live in is just such a unit.
The Fire Service provides the Engines and Equipment
and there's usualy one full time senior fireman.
For fires and emergencies they charge no fee and for
non emergency call outs, such as pumping out a
flooded basement, they charge the same fee as the regular
brigade.
Keith
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> Look at a dollar bill. It is a "federal reserve note" for "use"
> against debt. It is not something you have created or have sole
> claim to, it is something you use to participate in a system that
> functions as it does because of a strong infrastructure, rule of
> law,
Just because some thugs have declared their scrip to be money
does not mean I have to assent to this. Naturally I use this phoney
baloney scrip, as do you, because I have no choice, but I will not
grant a sanction to the thuggary, the tyranny and the force that makes
me do it. To put it simply, I am outgunned.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> So my advice to you: get used to it because it ain't gonna
> change.
Confucius and Scott say when rape inevitable, lay back
and enjoy it.
Bob Kolker
Scott D. Erb
Good points.
In fact, it probably would be best to move away from dichotomies
of socialism and capitalism, it seems to suggest two opposite
extremes when the reality is that market capitalism has won over
almost all socialists. I can't think of very many people who
want to eliminate markets, have a vast bureaucracy centrally plan
an economy, or nationalize everything.
Instead, we simply have to recognize that no "ism" or "dogma"
gives a solution of absolute purity. Markets aren't perfect,
it's akin to religious faith to try to claim they are. They
aren't purely voluntary either, since power is embedded in all
human relationships (sort of like the Godfather making 'an offer
you can't refuse.') But markets work better than other
mechanisms at communicating demand through price, promoting
flexibility and creating incentives. Almost everyone agrees that
where markets work well, they should work well, and where they
don't, they should be regulated. And there are some things that
at this point in time do need to be centrally coordinated, like
big city fire departments, militaries, etc.
There is a heapload of debate that can exist as to what the right
level of market regulation is, or what things should be centrally
controlled. But the bottom line is that the dogmatic extremes
can really be rejected because they are simply *wrong.* Perhaps
something could evolve to voluntary socialism or anarchic
capitalism built on a culture that shares certain values. That's
speculative utopianism, and I think speculative utopianism can be
good. But to think it can work now is just naive.
Robert J. Kolker
William Black wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3BB73146...@mediaone.net...
> >
> >
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
>
> That's because private one's were tried.
>
> In London, in the nineteenth century, some old buildings still have 'fire
> marks' on them.
Scottsdale Arizona likes its private fire department just fine.
A private fire department can be well run or badly run, as can
any other business. A public fire department is forced on its
citizens regardless of how it is run. The citizens pay for it, regardless
of its performance.
Bob Kolker
Scott D. Erb
If you think paying taxes and having the benefits of living in
the industrialized West is the same as getting raped, well, you
obviously are falling into a victim mentality that is unhealthy.
You aren't a victim, and certainly it's shameful to compare
yourself to a rape victim.
Robert J. Kolker
Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> I dont know about the US situation but here in the UK
> we also have volunteer or retained units.
We have VFD's in the U.S. also.
Some of them do work for pay, when they are not
puting out the fires. This helps offset the costs of
firefighting and reduces the load on the tax payers.
My point is there is no inherent reason why FD's need
be government run. For historical and accidental reasons
many of them are government run.
When you get to armed entities the question becomes
a bit touchy since having umpteen armed groups running
loose is not necessarily good for the public weal.
Bob Kolker
Scott D. Erb
Not really, you're just outvoted.
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> If you think paying taxes and having the benefits of living in
> the industrialized West is the same as getting raped
I resent having services foisted on me that I don't want and
I resent even more paying for "services" that do not benefit
me in the slightest. In particular, income redistributions which
are theft simpliciter.
It is bad enough having a government provide the army, courts
and police services, but when they rob well off Peter to pay
poor Paul and half the money sticks to their fingers, that is
when I cry foul.
For the moment, I am willing to pay for the army, as it is the
only one we have and the only one we are likely to h ave in
the foreseeable future. I hold my nose when I see the $1000.00
toilets seats and the $500.00 hammers and the Osprey abomimations
crashing on takeoff. The alternative of having none is far worse.
I don't need no steeeenking goverment to tell me what I am allowed
to eat, drink or inhale and neither does anyone else.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Not really, you're just outvoted.
By the mob and hoi polloi. Ain't
Democracy wonderful. The Sheep
get to tell the wolves what tender parts
the Wolves may dine upon.
Bob Kolker
Michael Schneider
Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> > Yeah, but Bob, ya gotta realize that you're talking to people in these
> > groups who have phony-baloney government jobs to protect, and quite
> > frankly they *do* wish you would just shut your fucking peasant mouth and
> > stop bitching when their paymaster lifts your wallet every time it feels
> > the need.
>
> Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> trying [to] save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
It's a shame the monopoly structure of government involvement in those
professions left them no other employment options in their preferred line
of work....but that wouldn't be an excuse to get on usenet and argue for
the soaking of their fellow man, now would it?
> How about the Special forces teams in Afghanistan ?
Only the government ones.
(See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/8277 )
> Or the crews of the Carriers on the way there ?
>
> Bottom line is that without some "phoney-baloney" government
> jobs there's nothing for the rest of us except slavery.
False-dichotomy: "We must be robbed to keep from being enslaved!"
> For the record I DONT work for the Government
Then keep your money....if you can.
> Keith
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Michael Schneider
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
> Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a privatized
> system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have government
> funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
>
> Now in the case of armed groups such as police or army we
> have a problem. If these groups were purely free market then
> we might have the problem of competing armies or competing
> police forces. Freikorps anyone?
>
> Here is the one and only one area where an argument can be
> made for government control and public funding.
It'd be a pragmatic argument, and therefore one not based in principle.
Michael Schneider
<p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
> There WERE private-funded firefighters ince. In New York City, for
> example. They'd rather let a building burn down than to cooperate with
> their competitors.
>
> The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
> ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
> crime.
Government is the biggest racket in the country.
Michael Schneider
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> > only feasible path at this point -- unless you can offer a
> > superior alternative and explain how it will work, and how it
> > could be implemented.
>
> Here is my proposal. Keep your hands off my property and
> person. Anything I need will will buy or barter for using my
> own efforts as the source of my revenue. You leave me alone
> and I will leave you alone. Now what is wrong with that
> proposal?
He's a *leech*, Bob.
He can survive no other way.
> Bob Kolker
Michael Schneider
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism, ("pure") laissez-faire, and Epicurism are identical.
Keith Willshaw
> In article <1001860247.23393....@news.demon.co.uk>, "Keith
> Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> > > Yeah, but Bob, ya gotta realize that you're talking to people in these
> > > groups who have phony-baloney government jobs to protect, and quite
> > > frankly they *do* wish you would just shut your fucking peasant mouth
and
> > > stop bitching when their paymaster lifts your wallet every time it
feels
> > > the need.
> >
> > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > trying [to] save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
>
> It's a shame the monopoly structure of government involvement in those
> professions left them no other employment options in their preferred line
> of work....but that wouldn't be an excuse to get on usenet and argue for
> the soaking of their fellow man, now would it?
>
Your unwillingness to provide a straight answer is noted
>
> > How about the Special forces teams in Afghanistan ?
>
>
> Only the government ones.
>
Ah so you are in favor of the Taliban approach
to raising the armed forces
> (See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/8277 )
>
>
> > Or the crews of the Carriers on the way there ?
> >
> > Bottom line is that without some "phoney-baloney" government
> > jobs there's nothing for the rest of us except slavery.
>
>
> False-dichotomy: "We must be robbed to keep from being enslaved!"
>
No an observation based on historical precedent. Pay outsiders
to provide security and pretty soon they take everything.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
>
> > There WERE private-funded firefighters ince. In New York City, for
> > example. They'd rather let a building burn down than to cooperate with
> > their competitors.
> >
> > The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
> > ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
> > crime.
>
>
> Government is the biggest racket in the country.
And the Only one accountable to the people every 4 years
When did Mullah Omar have to seek the approval
of the Afghan people for his methods.
After all he must be your ideal. He doesnt levy
taxes and none of the Taliban are state employees
Of course 10% of the population have died in the last
10 years and the rest are starving but at least there are
no Government employees right ?
Scott D. Erb
But the alternative is that you would have to force everyone
except your particular take on things. Why should they go along
with that if they don't buy your perspective?
Scott D. Erb
Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> news:mike1-30090...@c5-14.xtlab.com...
> > In article <9p7bq2$1...@news.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, Peter Bruells
> > <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
> >
> > > There WERE private-funded firefighters ince. In New York City, for
> > > example. They'd rather let a building burn down than to cooperate with
> > > their competitors.
> > >
> > > The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
> > > ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
> > > crime.
> >
> >
> > Government is the biggest racket in the country.
>
> And the Only one accountable to the people every 4 years
It's even better than that - besides the fact there are local and
state governments also accountable, government is accountable to
rule of law and to the people exercising free speech and free
press. I personally think they are not accountable enough, too
much is hidden, and bureaucracies are over-centralized. But take
that away and whatever emerges from anarchy would certainly be
the kind of organized rackets not accountable to anything but
power.
> When did Mullah Omar have to seek the approval
> of the Afghan people for his methods.
>
> After all he must be your ideal. He doesnt levy
> taxes and none of the Taliban are state employees
And they emerged from anarchic situations with no rule of law.
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> But the alternative is that you would have to force everyone
> except your particular take on things. Why should they go along
> with that if they don't buy your perspective?
I would not force anything on anyone. I simply wish to be
left alone and I wish the gumint would not pick my pocket
and tell me what I cannot eat, drink or inhale. Now how
is that forcing anything on anyone?
You seem to regard an unwillingness to submit to tyranny
as some kind of offense or affront. Why?
You seem to regard resisting theft as forcing something
on the thief. Doesn't that strike you as strange/
Bob Kolker
Scott D. Erb
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> >
> > But the alternative is that you would have to force everyone
> > except your particular take on things. Why should they go along
> > with that if they don't buy your perspective?
>
> I would not force anything on anyone. I simply wish to be
> left alone and I wish the gumint would not pick my pocket
> and tell me what I cannot eat, drink or inhale. Now how
> is that forcing anything on anyone?
Sorry, but you're wrong. As soon as you INTERACT with people,
the rules that govern the way that interaction proceeds cannot be
set by you. As long as you don't interact with anyone, no one
will force you to do anything. As soon as you do, you enter into
a world where you cannot set the rules for how the nature of
those interactions should be judged. That's reality in a shared
world.
> You seem to regard an unwillingness to submit to tyranny
> as some kind of offense or affront. Why?
No, I simply reject your perspective about what western democracy
is. But hey, you can believe how ever you want, it doesn't hurt
me a bit.
> You seem to regard resisting theft as forcing something
> on the thief. Doesn't that strike you as strange/
I simply reject your perspective and act on my own perspective.
If you want to act on what you believe, you shouldn't get put off
when others act on their beliefs, even if they are different than
yours.
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> I simply reject your perspective and act on my own perspective.
> If you want to act on what you believe, you shouldn't get put off
> when others act on their beliefs, even if they are different than
> yours.
You regard being robbed, coerced and tyrannized as a mere
difference of opinion? If a mugger banged you over the head
and took your wallet you would say "oh well, that is the way he
is. I am the way I am and he is the way he is".
You are a very strange person.
Bob Kolker
Scott D. Erb
No, I'm talking about differences of opinion in a system of laws
and democratic institutions.
Face it, you can bitch, whine and moan and play the victim all
you want, but the bottom line is that you want everyone to play
by your rules and follow your idea of what things are, and that
just ain't gonna happen.
Because guess what: you are not infallible. You may be wrong on
these things, and until you recognize that, you'll likely feel
frustrated and angry when actually you live a pretty privileged
life.
Tom Robertson
>In article <3BB73F9C...@mediaone.net>, "Robert J. Kolker"
><bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>>
>> > only feasible path at this point -- unless you can offer a
>> > superior alternative and explain how it will work, and how it
>> > could be implemented.
>>
>> Here is my proposal. Keep your hands off my property and
>> person. Anything I need will will buy or barter for using my
>> own efforts as the source of my revenue. You leave me alone
>> and I will leave you alone. Now what is wrong with that
>> proposal?
>
>
>He's a *leech*, Bob.
>
>He can survive no other way.
That's funny. I didn't see where he said that he benefitted from what
his country does collectively without paying his share of it.
>> Bob Kolker
Tom Robertson
If using it isn't sanctioning it, how would you sanction it?
Robert J. Kolker
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> No, I'm talking about differences of opinion in a system of laws
> and democratic institutions.
Fuck democracy. It is mob rule.
>
>
> Face it, you can bitch, whine and moan and play the victim all
> you want, but the bottom line is that you want everyone to play
> by your rules and follow your idea of what things are, and that
> just ain't gonna happen.
No, I just wish to be left alone and my property too. I could
not care less what happens to others. I have no part of them
and they have no part of me. What am I to strangers or
strangers to me. Nothing and nothing.
You just cannot comprehend that, can you?
Bob Kolker
Tom Robertson
>In article <3BB73146...@mediaone.net>, "Robert J. Kolker"
><bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>> > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
>> > trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>>
>> Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a privatized
>> system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have government
>> funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
>>
>> Now in the case of armed groups such as police or army we
>> have a problem. If these groups were purely free market then
>> we might have the problem of competing armies or competing
>> police forces. Freikorps anyone?
>>
>> Here is the one and only one area where an argument can be
>> made for government control and public funding.
>
>
>It'd be a pragmatic argument, and therefore one not based in principle.
As if anything else shouldn't be.
Rex F. May
Peter Bruells wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > "Peter Bruells" <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote in message
> > news:9p7bq2$1...@news.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE...
>
> > I dont recall too much organised crime being found in the Fire
> > Brigade, in fact I dont recall any.
>
> > German experience may differ
>
> I was refering to Old New York City, when private firecompanies whre
> in the hands of street gangs. Mordern fire brigades offer no motive
> for criminal activities, because they are not profit-orientated.
Ideally, fire departments would be retained by insurance companies.
--
Rex F. May
To order my book, click on:
http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm
See my cartoons daily at:
http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp
Rex F. May
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Fabian wrote:
>
> >
> > Bob, you are not an advocate of anarchism, you are an advocate of
> > laissez faire capitalism.
>
> The differences between laissez faire capitalism and anarcho capitalism
> are not worth fighting a civil war. In either system you would hardly
> know there is a government.
>
> Bob Kolker
No sense me repeating things. I'll just say Bob's right about
everything today.
Rex F. May
William Black wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3BB73146...@mediaone.net...
> >
> >
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > > trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
> >
> > Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a privatized
> > system. It so happens, for historical reasons, we have government
> > funded (tax loot funded) fire departments.
>
> That's because private one's were tried.
>
> In London, in the nineteenth century, some old buildings still have 'fire
> marks' on them.
>
> It was stopped because fire fighting teams wouldn't, or were ordered not
> to, fight a fire unless the buildings owners signed up with their 'fire
> company'.
>
> People died, there was a scandal, the London Fire Brigade was started.
>
> So that's one silly idea trashed for a start, I'm afraid fighters are, of
> necessity, a socialist solution to a problem where capitalism failed.
How's this notion:
When no men are enlightened, freedom doesn't work.
When some men are enlightened, some freedom works.
When all men are enlightened, all freedom works.
Could it be that 'enlightened self-interest' just wasn't fully formulated
a century ago?
Fabian
>
>
> Fabian wrote:
>
> >
> > Bob, you are not an advocate of anarchism, you are an advocate of
> > laissez faire capitalism.
>
> The differences between laissez faire capitalism and anarcho
capitalism
> are not worth fighting a civil war. In either system you would hardly
> know there is a government.
Well guess what Bob? laissez faire capitalism was trried in the 19th C,
and found distinctly lacking in terms of social weal. The company was
king in many towns then, and pollution reached its worst extent. There
were other problems with laissez faire, but I shan't bore you.
You are of course free to point out that, like communism, it wasn't
really tried in its pure form. That's the argument the Taliban is using
about Islamic government right now.
--
--
Fabian
Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on cologne and they
go out and smell each other.
Matt Giwer
Capitalism is a common but undescriptive term for this
subject. What Marx was describing when he used the term was the old
line nobility using their wealth derived from ownership of the land
and their position to get royal charters to become the owners of the
industrial revolution. He description of life under his system has
peasants living like the nobility as though they were not working at
all.
Rather here we should be talking about elementary
principles. Freedom of action, freedom of association and equal
protection under the law.
A person is free to be an employer or an employee. Employers
and employees are free to establish and disolve their association. The
must be no distinctions in law or custom between employers and
employees. If these principles are honored there are no issues.
If the employer does not have the unfettered right to hire and
fire then the employee should not have the unfettered right to work
for or to quit.
--
<A href="www.votescam.com">The software that counts votes is not available
for public inspection.</a> It is not open source. Two years ago ABC
published correct election results on the web a day in advance.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 213
Matt Giwer
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Paper money is also a commodity. The cost of that commodity is
>> the interest to borrow it. That is how the Fed and banks distribute
>> it. The printing press permits creation of that commodity in excess of
>> demand resulting in profits from both inflation and borrowing costs.
>Actually its not so much printing press money as phoney baloney
>Federal Reserve Accounts set up on promises by the Federal
>Government to steal from the citizens to pay Fed I.O.U's. Checks can
>be written against these bogus accounts to pay for real stuff.
All transactions are backed by the amount of money in
circulation. Fed IOUs are as in Social Security and Medicare which it
finds incapable of financing through taxation or reducing the enforced
benefits.
--
In humility, I can say I have not made all the mistakes possible.
But I must say it is not for lack of trying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 418
Scott D. Erb
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> > No, I'm talking about differences of opinion in a system of laws
> > and democratic institutions.
>
> Fuck democracy. It is mob rule.
It's better than any system in the annals of the history of
politics, save perhaps some pre-modern tribal structures, and
compared to anything else in the world it works to enhance
individual freedom, protect human rights, and hold the use of
power accountable. We're a long way from perfecting it, it's a
process that is self-correcting and self-reforming. There is no
alternative that has been presented that won't, if you look at
the real world evidence out there, likely lead to horrid
disadvantages. Unless you can prove otherwise, no one need take
you seriously, regardless of how righteous you feel.
> > Face it, you can bitch, whine and moan and play the victim all
> > you want, but the bottom line is that you want everyone to play
> > by your rules and follow your idea of what things are, and that
> > just ain't gonna happen.
>
> No, I just wish to be left alone and my property too. I could
> not care less what happens to others. I have no part of them
> and they have no part of me. What am I to strangers or
> strangers to me. Nothing and nothing.
>
> You just cannot comprehend that, can you?
Here's the deal: you don't interact with anyone else, and no one
will bother you. You become part of a society, and you know what
-- you can't stomp your feet and expect people to see things your
way. Perhaps you should move out to Montana, buy a little land,
put up a shack, grow your own stuff, work on the side for cash,
and I doubt you'll be bothered. But hey, you play the game in
modern America with others, and you don't get to make the rules.
The rules in a non-democratic society are made by those who
simply grab and hold power. In our society we together make the
rules, because the rules govern how we interact.
Scott D. Erb
"Rex F. May" wrote:
>
> William Black wrote:
> How's this notion:
> When no men are enlightened, freedom doesn't work.
> When some men are enlightened, some freedom works.
> When all men are enlightened, all freedom works.
>
> Could it be that 'enlightened self-interest' just wasn't fully formulated
> a century ago?
Trouble is...interests are not the same for everyone, they are
subjective and depend on the goals and values of the individual.
Interests are also social -- we learn particular values from our
culture (e.g., tastes, what beauty is, what music is good) and
the result is a subjective interest informed and partially
constructed through our social experience.
So it's not just enlightenment, but to have a system work without
a government or with very little government would require a
culture of mutual respect, a willingness to help, and a
willingness by the powerful not to abuse that power to create de
facto governments or exploit others. I don't think our culture
is there yet, and hence regulations and governments remain very
necessary. But we should work to hold them more accountable,
their use of power more transparent, and build a culture that can
make government ultimately very small. Some believe the way that
will happen is through an anarcho-communism or libertarian
socialism, others think market capitalism is the way. Either is
possible, but you need a culture that can support that kind of
system before it can work.
Vince Brannigan
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
>
> Just because some thugs have declared their scrip to be money
> does not mean I have to assent to this. Naturally I use this phoney
> baloney scrip, as do you, because I have no choice, but I will not
> grant a sanction to the thuggary, the tyranny and the force that makes
> me do it. To put it simply, I am outgunned.
No, outvoted.
but be safe. burn all your money or better still send it to the red cross
Vince
Michael Schneider
> "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> > > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > > trying [to] save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
> >
> > It's a shame the monopoly structure of government involvement in those
> > professions left them no other employment options in their preferred line
> > of work....but that wouldn't be an excuse to get on usenet and argue for
> > the soaking of their fellow man, now would it?
>
> Your unwillingness to provide a straight answer is noted
Willshaw: They're paid with stolen money. Is that clear enough for you?
> > > How about the Special forces teams in Afghanistan ?
> >
> > Only the government ones.
>
> Ah so you are in favor of the Taliban approach
> to raising the armed forces
Ah, so you who cannot distinguish between funding and "raising"?
Half the Taliban army is conscripts who are now disappearing in droves.
The officers are paid off in loot confiscated during the reign of terror.
The ground troops that remain wholely committed are militant fanatics who
freely joined.
Are you in favor of conscript armies paid with stolen money?
Your answer please: _____.
Michael Schneider
> "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>
> > Government is the biggest racket in the country.
>
> And the Only one accountable to the people every 4 years
So?
It's immoral.
Michael Schneider
<mdm...@att.net> wrote:
> mi...@usfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>
> >"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >>
> >> > only feasible path at this point -- unless you can offer a
> >> > superior alternative and explain how it will work, and how it
> >> > could be implemented.
> >>
> >> Here is my proposal. Keep your hands off my property and
> >> person. Anything I need will will buy or barter for using my
> >> own efforts as the source of my revenue. You leave me alone
> >> and I will leave you alone. Now what is wrong with that
> >> proposal?
> >
> >He's a *leech*, Bob.
> >He can survive no other way.
>
> That's funny. I didn't see where he said that he benefitted from what
> his country does collectively without paying his share of it.
<guffaw>
Lemme know when you see Erb's narrow ass in the private sector, and get
back to me. Otherwise you have a tough sell convincing me that he produces
*anything* of marketable value that others would buy with their own
dollars given a choice.
Michael Schneider
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3BB76F92...@mediaone.net...
> >
> > The differences between laissez faire capitalism and anarcho
> capitalism
> > are not worth fighting a civil war. In either system you would hardly
> > know there is a government.
>
> Well guess what Bob? laissez faire capitalism was trried in the 19th C,
> and found distinctly lacking in terms of social weal.
You mean the average American did not progress from a dirt-scratching
savage to the most economically well-off being in the world in only 100
years?
> The company was king in many towns then
If it *built* them. Research Thurber, Texas.
> and pollution reached its worst extent.
Try the Soviet Union dumping nuclear reactors in lakes and Polish
factories under commie control blanketing surrounding towns with soot-snow
(National Geographic from several years back).
> There were other problems with laissez faire, but I shan't bore you.
Well thank goodness for small favors. I certainly wouldn't want to be
bored with the hoary old urban legend that "capitalism" was to blame for
the Great Depression.
Rex F. May
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
Fair enough. So a lot of the disagreement here is about how
ready people in general are to be free, or, if they're not ready,
what the best strategy is to prepare for freedom.
Tom Robertson
>In article <ic6frt4q7usv3ojr6...@4ax.com>, Tom Robertson
><mdm...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> mi...@usfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > only feasible path at this point -- unless you can offer a
>> >> > superior alternative and explain how it will work, and how it
>> >> > could be implemented.
>> >>
>> >> Here is my proposal. Keep your hands off my property and
>> >> person. Anything I need will will buy or barter for using my
>> >> own efforts as the source of my revenue. You leave me alone
>> >> and I will leave you alone. Now what is wrong with that
>> >> proposal?
>> >
>> >He's a *leech*, Bob.
>> >He can survive no other way.
>>
>> That's funny. I didn't see where he said that he benefitted from what
>> his country does collectively without paying his share of it.
>
>
> <guffaw>
>
> Lemme know when you see Erb's narrow ass in the private sector, and get
>back to me. Otherwise you have a tough sell convincing me that he produces
>*anything* of marketable value that others would buy with their own
>dollars given a choice.
That's irrelevant. Government, ideally, is in the business of
providing society with what is better paid for collectively than
individually. Those who don't pay their share are leeches.
Tom Robertson
<snip>
> Are you in favor of conscript armies paid with stolen money?
>
> Your answer please: _____.
No. But I am in favor of conscript armies paid for with tax revenues.
Tom Robertson
>"Keith Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > Government is the biggest racket in the country.
>>
>> And the Only one accountable to the people every 4 years
>
>
> So?
>
> It's immoral.
Tax evaders freeloading off taxpayers are immoral.
David Johnston
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>>
>> Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
>> trying save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
>Firefighting and police (or secuirity) could be available in a privatized
>system.
Yes. Of course that would be a system in which large parts of big
cities have no formalised law and where fires rip through them the
same they did in the good old days of Rome's private fire department.
David Johnston
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Bruells wrote:
>
>> There WERE private-funded firefighters ince. In New York City, for
>> example. They'd rather let a building burn down than to cooperate with
>> their competitors.
>>
>> The problem with such key services is, that they become the hiding
>> ground for thugs - or in better regulated societies - true organized
>> crime.
>
>And just what do you think Your Government is. It is the biggest
>organized crime ring in the world. Its revenues (all taken by
>force, btw) exceeds that of private organized crime by at least
>two orders of magnitude. The fact that we elect our Cappo de
>Tutti Cappi is of little relevence.
It is of huge relevance.
Robert J. Kolker
Tom Robertson wrote:
> That's irrelevant. Government, ideally, is in the business of
> providing society with what is better paid for collectively than
> individually. Those who don't pay their share are leeches.
With the possible exception of national defense there is nothing
better paid for collectively than privately.
Bob Kolker
Matt Giwer
>mi...@usfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>>"Keith Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> So?
>> It's immoral.
Which acknowledged moral authority has revealed the moral
principle from God?
--
Playing your state's lottery is the only way to
pay the fool tax.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 607
Robert J. Kolker
Tom Robertson wrote:
> Tax evaders freeloading off taxpayers are immoral.
The best way to do away with the "immorality" is to
do away with taxes. Then everyone will pay for what
he gets. Services should be sold the same way cereal
is sold at the grocery store. Strictly cash and carry.
Bob Kolker
Tom Robertson
How about clean air? In what individual's interest might it be to act
against a corporation that is polluting everyone's air?
Robert J. Kolker
Tom Robertson wrote:
> How about clean air? In what individual's interest might it be to act
> against a corporation that is polluting everyone's air?
Wonderful. We have had our government since 1787 and we
still have dirty air. What good is the government? Besides
governments are notoriously corrupt, and justice can be
bought.
Bob Kolker
Michael Schneider
<mdm...@att.net> wrote:
> Government, ideally, is in the business of providing society with
> what is better paid for collectively than individually.
What right does the Borg have to bend me to its will?
> Those who don't pay their share are leeches.
Is this stupidity genetic, or do you have to work at it?
Tom Robertson
>On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Tom Robertson wrote:
>
>>mi...@usfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>
>>>"Keith Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>>>> > Government is the biggest racket in the country.
>
>>>> And the Only one accountable to the people every 4 years
>
>>> So?
>
>>> It's immoral.
>
>>Tax evaders freeloading off taxpayers are immoral.
>
> Which acknowledged moral authority has revealed the moral
>principle from God?
I couldn't have said it better, myself. And what you wrote was far
more my point than what I wrote. Perception of obligation is always
intuitive and beyond the reach of proof. There is no more reason to
say that obligations are incurred only by individuals making
agreements with other individuals than there is to say that
obligations are also incurred by unrequested benefit, such as what a
government provides with its tax revenues. Those who disagree can
assert what they believe back and forth forever, but they can never
support their position with reasons. And there is also no reason to
believe that any particular individual's intuition is any more
accurate than anyone else's.
Michael Schneider
Tom "7 of 11" Robertson wrote:
> mi...@usfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> > Are you in favor of conscript armies paid with stolen money?
> > Your answer please: _____.
>
> No. But I am in favor of conscript armies paid for with tax revenues.
So you're in favor of slave armies paid for with stolen money, provided
some of the words in that clause are changed into euphemisms which mean
exactly the same thing to anyone with a lick of sense.
Tom Robertson
How will, say, the cost of protection from arsonists be paid for by
those who benefit from arsonists being put in jail except by taxation?
It's at least conceivable that it's in society's interest as a whole,
but in no particular individual's interest, to put arsonists in jail.
Assuming no one is morally obligated to pay for unrequested benefit,
why would anyone pay for putting arsonists in jail if they weren't
legally obligated to do so?
quasar
would be no need for conscription.
Hence, a draft is used only to force citizens (term used loosely) to fight a
war on behalf of a government.
Second Tier Example - the United Nations is an organization of governments,
its purpose being to perpetuate member governments. The United Nations does
not enter into "police actions" until a member government is threatened,
regardless their "humanitarian claptrap". To use Amercian transcripts to
protect another goverment is a slave army of the worst sort.
And yes, they are paid with stolen money.
Michael Schneider <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:mike1-30090...@c4-208.xtlab.com...
Tom Robertson
Do you rule out the possibility that our air would be even more dirty
had the government done nothing about it?
Tom Robertson
>In article <duofrt8jbph3t0la6...@4ax.com>, Tom Robertson
><mdm...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Government, ideally, is in the business of providing society with
>> what is better paid for collectively than individually.
>
>
>What right does the Borg have to bend me to its will?
What right do you have to freeload? What right does someone with whom
you make an agreement have to force you to live up to the agreement?
>> Those who don't pay their share are leeches.
>
>
>Is this stupidity genetic, or do you have to work at it?
Might your not giving any reasons for your intuition that obligations
are created only by individuals making agreements with other
individuals mean that you don't have any?
Tom Robertson
>
>Tom "7 of 11" Robertson wrote:
>
>> mi...@usfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>> > Are you in favor of conscript armies paid with stolen money?
>> > Your answer please: _____.
>>
>> No. But I am in favor of conscript armies paid for with tax revenues.
>
>
>So you're in favor of slave armies paid for with stolen money, provided
>some of the words in that clause are changed into euphemisms which mean
>exactly the same thing to anyone with a lick of sense.
Anyone with a lick of sense knows that freeloading is stealing.
I can assert my position as many times as you can assert yours. If
you have reasons to support yours, why don't you give them?
Tom Robertson
>It seems that should the populace find it desirable to fight a war, there
>would be no need for conscription.
>
>Hence, a draft is used only to force citizens (term used loosely) to fight a
>war on behalf of a government.
It can also be used to minimize the free rider problem. Why should
some men risk their lives for those who won't? I see no reason to
believe that less freedom is worse than less security.
Matt Giwer
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>Tom Robertson wrote:
>>> How about clean air? In what individual's interest might it be to act
>>> against a corporation that is polluting everyone's air?
>>Wonderful. We have had our government since 1787 and we
>>still have dirty air. What good is the government? Besides
>>governments are notoriously corrupt, and justice can be
>>bought.
>Do you rule out the possibility that our air would be even more
>dirty had the government done nothing about it?
As limiting emissions costs money without increasing
productivity where is the cost benefit analysis? It increases the cost
of goods without increasing the quantity of goods.
Limiting emissions is an expenditure on a non-productive
activity absent evidence of an overall benefit.
--
It is an uncompromising world that will not behave
according to one's beliefs.
-- The Iron Webmaster. 248
Michael Schneider
(This is a trick post.)
In article <e7ufrt0ig1lsdmigs...@4ax.com>, Tom Robertson
<mdm...@att.net> wrote:
Do you rule out the possiblity that New York and other major cities would
be suffocating under mountains of manure if the government hadn't outlawed
horses in 1905?
Michael Schneider
<mdm...@att.net> wrote:
> mi...@usfamily.net (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>
> >In article <duofrt8jbph3t0la6...@4ax.com>, Tom Robertson
> ><mdm...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Government, ideally, is in the business of providing society with
> >> what is better paid for collectively than individually.
> >
> >What right does the Borg have to bend me to its will?
>
> What right do you have to freeload?
I have the right to accept or reject anything you give to me without a
contract. If you don't like me having them, don't give them to me. If you
can't figure out a way to give it to your friends and not me, then stop
making them. If you built them with stolen property to start with, then
you're also a thief in no position to argue who has the right to use what
property.
> What right does someone with whom
> you make an agreement have to force you to live up to the agreement?
What "agreement" are you talking about, puddin'head?
You're going to produce my signature on something now, right?
Or is this another communazi "social contract" argument?
Michael Schneider
> Anyone with a lick of sense knows that freeloading is stealing.
You're referring, of course, to things the government paid for with
stolen money. But in your dumbfuck inverted-reality universe, it's not the
government that stole, but those peasants who were able to avoid being
fleeced.
You're a disgusting little *communist*.
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> I have the right to accept or reject anything you give to me without a
> contract. If you don't like me having them, don't give them to me. If you
> can't figure out a way to give it to your friends and not me, then stop
> making them. If you built them with stolen property to start with, then
> you're also a thief in no position to argue who has the right to use what
> property.
>
>
>
Try making your lungs reject smoke particles from the power plant
down the street cause there's no contract
Or making your intestines filter the cholera organisms
from the water supply on the basis that you didnt contract
to buy them
Lots of luck preventing the fire spreading from your
neighbours property to your own by yelling
'You dont have a contract'
We have laws and public employees to enforce them
in the above areas since the laissez faire capitalism of the
19th century signally failed to address them
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> "Keith Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > It's a shame the monopoly structure of government involvement in
those
> > > professions left them no other employment options in their preferred
line
> > > of work....but that wouldn't be an excuse to get on usenet and argue
for
> > > the soaking of their fellow man, now would it?
> >
> > Your unwillingness to provide a straight answer is noted
>
>
> Willshaw: They're paid with stolen money. Is that clear enough for you?
>
Nope
You've answered the question you wanted me to ask
not the one I did ask. Let me restate it for you
> > > > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > > > trying [to] save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
> > > > How about the Special forces teams in Afghanistan ?
> > >
> > > Only the government ones.
> >
> > Ah so you are in favor of the Taliban approach
> > to raising the armed forces
>
>
> Ah, so you who cannot distinguish between funding and "raising"?
>
> Half the Taliban army is conscripts who are now disappearing in droves.
> The officers are paid off in loot confiscated during the reign of terror.
> The ground troops that remain wholely committed are militant fanatics who
> freely joined.
>
Once again your ability to avoid the issue is noted
> Are you in favor of conscript armies paid with stolen money?
>
> Your answer please: _____.
Nope and neither is the US Army which is made up of volunteer
soldiers funded by taxation voted for by a Congress elected by
the people
The British Army is likewise an army of volunteers funded
by a democratically elected government
In fact the only force that fits your description is the Taliban
none of whom are government employees
Keith
Michael Schneider
Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Keith, you endorse theft.
There's nothing else to really say, other than that you're contemptible.
And your *excuses* are just bullshit.
Michael Schneider
Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> news:mike1-30090...@c4-151.xtlab.com...
> > "Keith Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > "Michael Schneider" <mi...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> > > > > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > > > > trying [to] save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
> > > >
> > > > It's a shame the monopoly structure of government involvement in
> those
> > > > professions left them no other employment options in their preferred
> line
> > > > of work....but that wouldn't be an excuse to get on usenet and argue
> for
> > > > the soaking of their fellow man, now would it?
> > >
> > > Your unwillingness to provide a straight answer is noted
> >
> >
> > Willshaw: They're paid with stolen money. Is that clear enough for you?
> >
>
> Nope
>
> You've answered the question you wanted me to ask
> not the one I did ask. Let me restate it for you
>
> > > > > Did the Firefighters and Police officers who died in New York
> > > > > trying [to] save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion ?
>
>
>
>
Yep. Now explode brown, thief.
> >
> > > > > How about the Special forces teams in Afghanistan ?
> > > >
> > > > Only the government ones.
> > >
> > > Ah so you are in favor of the Taliban approach
> > > to raising the armed forces
> >
> >
> > Ah, so you who cannot distinguish between funding and "raising"?
> >
> > Half the Taliban army is conscripts who are now disappearing in droves.
> > The officers are paid off in loot confiscated during the reign of terror.
> > The ground troops that remain wholely committed are militant fanatics who
> > freely joined.
> >
>
>
> Once again your ability to avoid the issue is noted
>
> > Are you in favor of conscript armies paid with stolen money?
> >
> > Your answer please: _____.
>
> Nope and neither is the US Army which is made up of volunteer
> soldiers funded by taxation voted for by a Congress elected by
> the people
>
> The British Army is likewise an army of volunteers funded
> by a democratically elected government
>
> In fact the only force that fits your description is the Taliban
> none of whom are government employees
>
> Keith
--
Keith Willshaw
I note you failed to refute any of the points I made and
simply fell back on ad hominem attacks and invective
This seems to indicate you have no answers
Keith
Keith Willshaw
In article <1001919376.9808.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Keith
Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > > > > trying [to] save people have phony Baloney jobs in your opinion
?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yep. Now explode brown, thief.
>
At last a straight answer.
In your opinion people prepared to give their lives selflessly
rescuing others have phoney jobs and those who are prepared
to pay them to do so are thieves
I dont share your values, thank the Lord.
Nor do the majority of the people who live in the USA.
Keith
Eugene Griessel
>I dont share your values, thank the Lord.
>Nor do the majority of the people who live in the USA.
Mike has values? That should hit the headlines.
Eugene L Griessel www.dynagen.co.za/eugene