🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:20:57 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:

>
>
>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"


But not limited to?