XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net   
      
   In article ,   
   Gary L. Burnore   wrote:   
   >On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:22:45 GMT, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net   
   >(Matthew Russotto) wrote:   
   >   
   >>In article ,   
   >>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.   
   >>   
   >>So if a person who uses any government services (even when the   
   >>government is a monopoly provider) is ineligible to be a   
   >>libertarian by reason of hypocrisy, is a person who uses any private   
   >>services (even when the government does not provide the service)   
   >>ineligible to be a socialist for the same reason?   
   >   
   >Nice example of a bad analogy, frootloop.   
      
   So you're saying it IS asymmetric?  That a socialist is free to use   
   private services, but a libertarian must not use government services,   
   even those he's being taxed for and even those which the government is   
   a monopoly provider for?   
   --   
   The problem with socialism is there's always   
   someone with less ability and more need.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)