🚀 go-pugleaf

It appears that while water is free, or claimed by the "government" the 
rental to store such a product must be charged for.
As well as this, the accuracy of water meters and electricity meters
as well as speed cameras is not beyond reproach. Illegal testing 
procedures plus reliability of state government testing procedures are 
being called into question at this moment. Funny that, it involves 
corporations at all levels. The majority of Aussies are slack so will 
allow lies ABOUT it to happen.
If people are willing to have their freedoms stolen from them like the 
ORIGINAL austalian inhibitants, then you must learn to fight for them.
Otherwise things which cooperations would steal from you, under the 
cover of "government" statutes will become the things that will allow 
this country to be governed by others who have no right.
Big Brother isnt a  relative at all. He' a thief.
And perhaps some are fighting for their own survival in some countries.
Taxes are now being justified due to the spin doctors, who are in actual
paid liars.

0tterbot wrote:
> "len garden" <gardenlen2@bigpond.com> wrote in message 
> news:7arc93hhets939fthegmqu1hfclf8086pf@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:08:00 GMT, "0tterbot" <spl@t.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "George W. Frost" <frosty@iceworks.org> wrote in message
>>> news:TMiki.4794$4A1.4528@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> snipped
>>> will they indeed?
>>>
>> yes they will!! that is their plan. the falt rate charge will be for
>> ahving a water tank as i see it not for how much the tank holds but
>> there again they could go that way depending on the greed factor.
> 
> why will they?
> 
>>> i wonder why it is then that nobody would be able to collate how many 
>>> litres
>>> people are storing in dams, etc; and nobody wants to, and nobody is trying
>>> to. a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the bother, compared to
>>> charging for people's stored dam water.
>>>
>> and yes they are already gathering info on dam capacitites and they
>> already have rules that stipulate how much water you can trap for your
>> needs, all this can be done from high quality sattelite pictures,
>> they'll work on averages after all at the end of the day for them it
>> is all about control and profits.
>>
>> you try and put a dam in without paying the license and see what
>> happens, from experiences of others you'll get a knock on the door
>> pretty quickly.
> 
> well, that's just not what happens around here :-) getting a dam in is 
> rather, ah, informal.
> 
> WHO is gathering info on dam capacities, and where the hell are they?
> 
> anyway, even if people were to try to collate dam volumes by satellite, they 
> would have no hope of somehow making it worth the trouble and expense. some 
> dams are deep, and some are shallow. there must be millions of them. some 
> can't really be seen from the air. water can be stored underground. in 
> short, what you propose does not sound realistic.
> 
>> didn't think it was that strange the whole thing here is the confusion
>> between the basic requirement for a society/community to exist? and
>> draconian control for the sake of profit.
>>
>> sounds like water is a commodity to be traded on the stock market, at
>> the expense of the poorer people in our communities?
> 
> i'm pretty sure the stock market would never take on such an unreliable item 
> :-)
> 
> legally, rain water belongs to the crown. "town" water used to be rainwater 
> (as well as sea water, cleopatra's urine, russian snow, inside a desert 
> cactus, etc etc). therefore rain which falls as rain is free but if the 
> council pipes it in to you, you have to pay for that service. but rain is 
> free. if you own your storage item, and the crown owns the water, it does 
> not logically follow that someone could be charged for storing a free item 
> (which they borrow from the owner) inside an item they own themselves.
> 
>>> snipped
>>>
>>> nobody in australia pays "top price" for water. water is even more
>>> undervalued than petrol is. the price of town water will go up, for sure,
>>> because it's being undercharged compared to its value.
>>>
>> and nor should they our communites need basic utilities so they can
>> exist and develop and the way we have developed power and water along
>> with fresh air are fairly basic necessities for a healthy community,
>> not sure what life is going to be like for the have's when the have
>> not's can't afford those basics of life, they are having a difficult
>> enough time with accomodation and food let alone add more woes to
>> their subsistance.
>>
>> sounds like some are looking forward to the days of the lords of the
>> manor and slums.
>>
>> water is a natural right of life.
>>
>>> undoubtedly, when the price goes up, there will be a cacophony of 
>>> whingeing
>> >from conspiracy theorists (and generally greedy people who think communal
>>> problems are supposed to be dealt with by everyone else, not them).
>>>
>>>> Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.
>>> you're not wrong there, but i think you're looking at the wrong thing.
>>> kylie
>>>
>> sounds like you want to live in a castle of sand, not everyone is
>> neuvo rich. just give some thought to what it may be like living in a
>> community where basic rights and needs are only for those who can
>> afford it, and a thought to keep in mind anyone could end up treading
>> these boards of subsistance, things may look rosy now but unless you
>> are a mogel they can turn sour pretty quickly.
> 
> i'd think it's pretty obvious i'm not nouveau riche (nor a secret offspring 
> of the murdoch's either ;-) nor a mogul. when i've been struggling 
> financially, the cost of water was NOT one of the problems. water is cheap, 
> & anyone can afford it (unless they live somewhere that they're relying on 
> having it trucked in - and of course, people who are already poor are 
> somewhat unlikely to move somewhere that water needs to be trucked in 
> regularly - unless they're totally stupid, which might be their own 
> problem.)
> 
> where the poor struggle is with expenses such as costs of housing and that 
> type of fixed, high, unavoidable expense. these types of costs (rent & so 
> forth) can't be changed by the renter, are rarely negotiable, and are 
> genuinely expensive. if you are spending 40% of your weekly wage on rent, it 
> most assuredly is NOT one's water bill that's the _real_ problem.
> 
> electricity is another undercharged product (while we are on the subject). 
> it, too, is going to go up to reflect its real worth, so you might as well 
> get used to that idea now. the reality is simply that people are going to 
> have to stop thinking of running water & coal-fired power as "rights", 
> because they aren't. if they can't afford what they're using, it's up to 
> them to use less; it's up to all of us to consider what is actually 
> available for us to use, and therefore if our "right" is more important than 
> another person's "right" to the same water. it seems that some think they 
> have more "right" to it than others do.
> kylie
> 
>