🚀 go-pugleaf

Andy Collier wrote:
> 
> In article <35C9EA6B.192C3AC5@ibm.net>, cawrigh@ibm.net says...
> > James, Dave G wrote:
> > >
> > > Chuck - do you somehow feel that, if the election results in a new
> > > stadium, that somehow the public has been _forced_ to pay for it?
> > > Explain this to me, please.
> >
> > If it passes, everyone who votes for the stadium will be compelling
> > everyone else who either voted against the stadium, didn't vote, or
> > who couldn't vote to pay for the stadium without their permission.
> >
> > Last time I checked, taxes are not optional.
> 
> Umm this is called Democracy my friend - majority rules when it comes to
> passing laws of this sort 

No, it's called tyranny of the majority.  It's two wolves and
a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Here's a list of some of the wonders of majority rule:

1.  The majority of people in Salem Massachusetts at one
time approved of burning alive at the stake innocent people
accused of being witches. 

2. Until the late 1950s and early 1960s, the majority in many 
southern states favored laws that forced segregation of blacks.

3.  From the founding of the US until a dozen or so years before
the Civil War, the majority of Americans supported slavery
laws.

4.  The majority of Americans supported country's westward 
expansion and the crushing blows dealt to the American 
Indians.

> (You want a one person veto of every law?  Then
> forget about having any laws - go live as a hermit if you want everything
> your way).  

No, I don't want one person veto.  I don't want to veto the private
decisions of individuals to voluntarily pay for a new stadium.  I
don't want unjust laws.  A law that compels people to pay for 
a Broncos stadium is unjust.  It is unjust because a new 
stadium is something that could easily be handled by the
private sector, and thus there can be no justification for
using force to get what you want.

> Republican Democracy  - best of a bad lot as the sayings go
> (majority rules, tempered by retaining fundamental rights at the level of
> the individual).  

And how are individual rights advanced by flogging your 
neighbors for the frivolous purpose of providing corporate
welfare for building the Bowlen Bowl?

> I pay for roads that I dont use, public transit that I
> dont take (RTD), schools my child doesn't attend, and "cultural
> facilities" that I dont use.  I pay lots of taxes I dont like ($40K a
> year to the federal government alone) that float a lot of programs I dont
> like or need.  

Sounds like you pay for a lot for things you don't use.  What a 
silly system.  Why not have a system where you pay porportional 
to how much you use.  I think we're close to that mark with
roads where the more you dive the more you pay in gasoline tax.
There probably needs to be some tweaking though so that truckers 
pay for the damage they do to roads.  

> But the laws are the laws - and if you elect to live in an
> area, you also abide by its law.  Dont like it?  Then move out of the
> stadium district - or work to eliminate the laws you think are unjust and
> improper.  My opinion - its a small enough chunk compared to others - and
> the loss of the team would hurt more than the losses incurred keeping the
> team.

There's the old tired love it or leave it argument throwing up a 
smoke screen to hide injustice.  I seam to recall this same tactic
was used to defend the unjust Korean and Vietnam wars.  Sorry Andy,
your smoke screen is transparent.  

I am trying to stop an unjust law to provide corporate welfare for
the Bowlen Bowl.

$400 million may be chump change to you, but to me that's a boat
load of money.  That's enough money to build 26 schools at $15
million each.   It's enough money to buy 16,000 acres of
open space at $25,000/acare.  It's enough to buy 4,000 homes for
homeless people at $100,000/each.  You are a cold hearted son of 
a bitch for prioritizing the Bowlen Bowl ahead of these things
for our scarce tax dollars.  

Chuck Wright
http://www.free-market.com/