XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore
From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
On 2011-03-13, Gary L Burnore wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2011-03-12, Gary L Burnore wrote:
>>
>>> It's obviously not worth it. As he drives on a public road from his
>>> employer who's likely getting a tax break, he'll make use of the
>>> bridges and lights provided by the government.
>>
>>Be sure to let me know when
>>a) the government is not the monopoly provider.
>
> Fool, were a business to have built the bridge and maintained it, not
> only would you have to pay to cross it every time, but you couldn't
> have ANY say in who runs or maintains it and/or how they do. You'd
> simply have to drive across a different bridge, making that business a
> monopoly provider.
1) I don't have any say in how it is built/maintained/or anything
else when it's government run.
2) When government run I already pay for it if I cross it or not.
3) When government run I pay for other people to cross it.
>>b) when I can opt out paying said government.
>>
>>> Were he robbed while walking down a publicly available sidewalk to the
>>> local park kept clean by government workers, he'd go to the police and
>>> report it.
>>The only times I've ever been robbed it has been by government
>>employees.
> Riiiiight. Provide evidence that a public employee, acting in behalf
> of the governenment robbed you. The legal term of robbery, not your
> made up one.
legal plunder is still robbery. ( http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html )
> Lie away, "brent". It's the best you can do.
Really, you're one sad sack.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
