XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article  Manny Davis   
    writes:   
      
   >But the state has no money of its own. All costs are borne by the   
   >taxpayer, and the taxpayer is NOT the state.   
      
   That's where you are wrong.  The state is US.  The state is the combination   
   of all the people plus infrastructure.   
      
   >ways the state can obtain money:   
   >   
   >1. It can demand tribute (aka taxation) from the people. Those who   
   >do not pay tribute are arrested and imprisoned.   
      
   That's one way to do it.  Or it could charge use fees.   
      
   >2. It can take out a loan, spend and waste the money, then force the   
   >taxpayer to repay the loan.   
      
   Done quite a bit today.   
      
   >3. It can print paper dollars. Each additional paper dollar printed   
   >devalues the existing dollars and is therefore just another tax.   
      
   Not really, if done the right way.  Try reading Heinlein's _For_Us,_the_   
   _Living_ for some descriptions of an economy that uses fiat money which   
   doesn't devalue.   
      
   >Please don't respond with "we the citizens (taxpayers) are the   
   >government". We are not.   
      
   Really?  The government isn't people?  The people who are elected aren't   
   taxpayers?  The people who participate in elections aren't part of the   
   government?   
      
   Do you think we are ruled by aliens on Mars?   
      
   >> and it increases disrespect for the state   
      
   >I don't think the drug war increases disrespect for the state, because no   
   >sane individual respects the state in the first place.   
      
   That's your definition of "sane".  Not mine.  Not most people's.   
      
   >> and social disorder.   
      
   >Governments relish social disorder. Social disorder causes "crises" and   
   >"emergencies" which, as we all know, permit the state to grab even more   
   >power.   
      
   You have a point there.   
      
   >Tell me, was the 9/11 terrorist attack good or bad for the   
   >government? Is the government more or less powerful now since 9/11?   
      
   It's good for our current government if you define power-grabbing as "good".   
      
   It's not good for our government if you define government as our Constitution   
   defines it.   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   "... Now you're ready for the actual shopping.  Your goal should be to get it   
    over with as quickly as possible, because the longer you stay in the mall,   
    the longer your children will have to listen to holiday songs on the mall   
    public-address system, and many of these songs can damage children   
    emotionally.  For example: `Frosty the Snowman' is about a snowman who   
    befriends some children, plays with them until they learn to love him, then   
    melts.  And `Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' is about a young reindeer who,   
    because of a physical deformity, is treated as an outcast by the other   
    reindeer.  Then along comes good, old Santa.  Does he ignore the deformity?   
    Does he look past Rudolph's nose and respect Rudolph for the sensitive   
    reindeer he is underneath?  No.  Santa asks Rudolph to guide his sleigh,   
    as if Rudolph were nothing more than some kind of headlight with legs and   
    a tail.  So unless you want your children exposed to this kind of   
    insensitivity, you should shop quickly."   
      
   		-Dave Barry, "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)