I almost to the point....

[classicman]

you're just not *giving* enough.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

My point: 'government' is supposed to be about service and proxies, not directives and governors....what an individual pays should be tied intimately to services rendered to 'that' individual, not as generalized tribute in support of *communitarian agenda.

Service and proxies. Ok, will you please give me a few examples of the kinds of services and proxies you're talking about here?

Also--

Directives and governors, would you please give me a couple examples of what you have in mind here too?

I imagine you consider the services and proxies favorable aspects of government and directives and governors unfavorable ones. If this is incorrect, just say so and give me the right description please. The payment structure seems clear enough to me.

Thanks.

[henry quirk]

"There's no winning a debate with someone as selfish as you."

Maybe, but, you aren't even trying...

[henry quirk]

When I say 'proxies and services' I mean EVERYTHING currently done by federal, state, and local 'government'.

A proxy -- in this context -- is not a private provider (though I'm certainly not opposed to private providers instead of 'government') but rather 'government' and 'governors' assuming the constitutionally dictated role of 'servant', not 'leader'.

For example: I've no need for any president, congressperson, judge, governor, state representative, mayor, city councilperson, etc. to 'lead' me, 'provide' for me, or 'save' me. I don't need to be coddled, preached to, stood up for, directed, or protected. What I want for these folks to do is maintain the esoteric and physical infrastructure of the nation, the state, the town and leave me alone.

I'm certainly willing to pay a mutually agreed upon fee for the benefits I get from that maintenance, but, I will not pay for that which offers me no benefit.

Look at it this way: if my nephew stops up the toilet with TP (and I can't unclog it myself), I'm happy to pay the plumber to come and break the clog...I won't be so happy, however, being expected to pitch in to have my neighbor's clog broken...that toilet (and clog) is HIS problem and he can pay for his own benefits.


"The payment structure seems clear enough to me."

It's very clear...I'm expected to pay for the breaking the clog in my neighbor's toilet...unacceptable.

[Undertoad]

What if your entire neighborhood gathered together and made a deal to get plumbing services at half price by buying in bulk for everyone?






i forgot my pledge to not ask leading questions

[henry quirk]

Hey, that's fine by me, so long as the option to not participate is part of the deal.

Why would someone opt of such an apparently good deal?

Perhaps the plumber in question is just lousy at what he does: I may not see the value in getting crappy work done for half-price.

Or: if I'm a plumber myself, it would be pointless for me to go in on a deal to pay for services I provide to myself.

[Undertoad]

OK, you know residential plumbing, so you opted out. Now let's say there's a water main break which shuts off water to the entire neighborhood. The neighborhood uses its plumbing service and gets a huge break on the price of fixing it. As a result of the repair, your water is turned back on.

Do you have any obligation to pay part of the bill?

[henry quirk]

As I (unavoidably) share the water main with the others, for that one time repair, yeah, I'd pay my share of that half-price service.

The problem you present, of course, illustrates directly (and only) the flawed nature of living in such close confines with others (so close that shared water sources are unavoidable). Your problem doesn't, I think, negate my essential argument of paying for what one gets (and not paying for what one has no need or use for).

In fact: your problem, seen in a certain light, supports my position because, in your scenario, I pay for what I need (the water main) and don't pay for what I don't need (the general plumbing).

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

For example: I've no need for any president, congressperson, judge, governor, state representative, mayor, city councilperson, etc. to 'lead' me,

I agree. These people are my representatives, not my leaders.

You should love Obama, then. One of the biggest criticisms of him, by conservatives, is that he isn't a strong leader.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

'provide' for me,

I agree.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

or 'save' me. I don't need to be coddled, preached to, stood up for, directed, or protected.

You can protect yourself against the nukes coming from Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Wow!

Originally Posted by henry quirk

What I want for these folks to do is maintain the esoteric and physical infrastructure of the nation, the state, the town and leave me alone.

I'm certainly willing to pay a mutually agreed upon fee for the benefits I get from that maintenance, but, I will not pay for that which offers me no benefit.

Then others won't pay for that which offers them no benefit. Like your roads, your mail, your water, your sewage treatment, and whatnot. Good luck with those all by youself.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Hey, that's fine by me, so long as the option to not participate is part of the deal.

You've opted in by living our beloved US of A.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As I (unavoidably) share the water main with the others, for that one time repair, yeah, I'd pay my share of that half-price service.

The problem you present, of course, illustrates directly (and only) the flawed nature of living in such close confines with others (so close that shared water sources are unavoidable). Your problem doesn't, I think, negate my essential argument of paying for what one gets (and not paying for what one has no need or use for).

In fact: your problem, seen in a certain light, supports my position because, in your scenario, I pay for what I need (the water main) and don't pay for what I don't need (the general plumbing).

They took away the Unibomber's shack, but you might get a good deal on his (former) property.

[Undertoad]

OK, now the neighbors are angry. You didn't participate in the plumbing deal they made, so they expect you to pay your share... but pay it at full price.

[henry quirk]

"These people are my representatives, not my leaders"

For 'reps': those folks sure do hand 'down' a god-awful number of directives.

#

"One of the biggest criticisms of him, by conservatives, is that he isn't a strong leader."

First: I'm not a conservative...I don’t give a flip what 'they' have to say about anything.

Second: in my assessment. Obama is no different than any other sitting politician, that is, he wants power, has power, uses power to gather more power...to get and maintain power, he kisses the (collected) asses of some and directs others...for me: except as obstacle, he isn't relevant.

#

"You can protect yourself against the nukes coming from Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Wow!"

Insofar as I'm aware: no atomics are en route to America from any of those places... ...more seriously: the possibility of atomics from one of those places is made all the more possible by the insistent intrusion of American 'governors' into the business of other countries when said intrusion was and is uncalled for and unjustified...tend to the esoteric and physical infrastructure of 'here', leave 'there' alone, and -- maybe -- 'there' will leave 'here' 'be'...also: I have no problem paying for civil defense since, of course, I benefit...as I say: send me the bill for the specific services rendered and -- if all is in order on the invoice -- I'll be glad to pay it.

#

"Then others won't pay for that which offers them no benefit. Like your roads, your mail, your water, your sewage treatment, and whatnot. Good luck with those all by youself."

Lots of folks don't use the roads, the postal service, public water, public sewerage and whatnot, so, why should those folks foot part of the bill for those that do?

For myself: I (currently) use roads (send me the bill), the postal service (send me the bill), public water (send me the bill), public sewerage (send me the bill) and whatnot (send me the bill).

But bill me for the water I use, the specific roads I use, the specific sewage I produce, etc.; don't bill me as you would, for example, a long-haul trucker whose use of the roads is significantly large than mine.

#

"You've opted in by living our beloved US of A."

HA! An accident of birth (that I should 'be', 'now', in 'this' place) obligates me to jack.

#

"you might get a good deal on (the Unibomber's) property"

HA! Since my life is 'here', why the hell would I go 'there'?

Make no mistake: I live where I choose....I go where I choose...tough shit on any one who doesn't like it.

##

"...they expect you to pay your share... but pay it at full price."

We could...

1-go to court and let some schmuck decide things.

2-use a private arbiter to decide things.

3-go to war...I shoot at 'them'...'they' shoot at me...folks die.

4-'they' could come to 'their' senses and accept, what is to me, fair: that is, my paying of my share of the collected half-price bill for the repairs. Keep in mind: that the neighbors came together to seek out this half-price deal doesn't make any of them my proxy, obligates me to nothing (other than paying what is, for all intents, the market value of my share of repairs).

*shrug*

Which do YOU prefer?

For myself: I'm torn between 3 and 4...

[Undertoad]

You expect to get the benefit of collectivism, even if you don't participate.

[henry quirk]

How so?

And: define 'collectivism'...it's one of those words misused often.

[Undertoad]

Well, you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan.

Your non-participation made the plan less attractive to the market. In the bulk buying negotiation, you were one fewer buyer.