🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Morgan wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 22:28:10 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Manuel Noriega wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 19:46:27 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Paul Morgan wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:06:12 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Popeye wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Keep in mind, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to avoid the
> >> >> >> roadblocks, walk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That is socialistic clap-trap. In the absence of any viable public transportion
> >> >> >province wide, and when it is *your* tax dollars that build and maintain those
> >> >> >highways, it IS a right, however like all rights, it comes with
> >> >> >responsibilities. Those responsibilities however, do not mean that your civil
> >> >> >liberties should be surrendered to an authoritarian government, be it federal,
> >> >> >provincial or local.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it is your right to drive on the roads, do it without a license,
> >> >> registration and insurance.
> >> >> Your arguement is stupid.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. My argument is based upon the fact that if a government is going to
> >> >collect taxpayer dollars for the purpose of building highways, building the
> >> >infrastructure of licensing, driver permits, and the required insurance that must be
> >> >obtained, that it becomes a RIGHT by virtue of the fact that each taxpayer has the
> >> >right to avail themselves of the services and products that their tax dollars are
> >> >allocated for.  I am not advocating the lawless operation of motor vehicles, your
> >> >counter argument is a straw man and I think that should be readily apparent to most
> >> >people.
> >>
> >> The fact that you draw a logical conclusion from the payment of taxes,
> >> does not mean the government draws that same conclusion. The fallicy
> >> in your argument is the "it becomes a right" statement. Just because
> >> maybe it SHOULD become a right, does not mean it actually does become
> >> a right. 1) the law is an ass, 2) the government is a big huge ass.
> >> --------------------------------
> >
> >Point taken. I recall a saying to the effect "any government that is big enough to give
> >you everything, is big enough to take everything away".
> >
> >When the government no longer serves the common interest of the people, it is the right
> >of the people to change their government.
> >
>
> I'm curious. By what means do you think we have the right to change
> government?

Preferably by legal means.

Mr. Ed

"The FAMOUS Mr. Ed"