🚀 go-pugleaf

In the article that I'm quoting, ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
- I've so far kept my lip zipped since my last posting.  This response, however,
- is too tempting.
 
	I know exactly how you feel.   :-) 

- >Nothing self-evident about it.  In fact, what is self-evident is that having
- >roughly half of of our respective incomes stolen by various levels of govern-
- >ment is utterly outrageous.
- 
- That is not self-evident.  Where is your figure of "half" from?
- And exactly how is it stolen?

	Well, I don't know how the figure of 1/2 was derived;  It is less   
   than half for me.  However, as to your second point, let consider a 
   situation where a bunch of thugs threaten you with personal bodily harm 
   if you don't give them x ammount of money.  Now, if these thugs happen 
   to be poor, underpriviledged youths, it is considered stealing.  However, 
   if the thugs happen to be IRS employees, the government sanctions the 
   theft.  It is, nonetheless, theft.   

   steal: to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) 
          without permission   
   
- Once again, how much of your taxes goes to paying for this type of stuff?

	All my income tax and all 14% of the social "security" tax. 

- How much tax savings will you gain by doing this?  I don't think it is a
- significant amount, but let's for the sake of argument suppose that it is.

	A very large tax savings.  That's why the Feds won't allow it. 

- I hope you realize that not all of us out here think the way you do.
- I might go along with your system, but I would probably choose to send
- my money in other directions.  If you poll 1000 people, you may find 1000
- different ways they'd like their money spent.  

	Fine.  What's wrong with freedom?  

-                                                So, your system will not make
- many people happy.  The naive solution is to let the individual taxpayer

	Why won't it make many people happy?  They will finally be able to 
   decide how to spend their own money, rather than having the Federales
   force them, at gunpoint, to contribute to causes/projects that they may 
   find morally repugnant.  To quote ATL, I thought this country was based 
   upon freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of your own religion, 
   to make your own decisions.  That's baloney, cuz if I got to play by your 
   rules I'm being phoney.   

	If you mean that a volutary tax system won't make the THIEVES happy, 
   I'll have to agree with you on that point.  On the other hand, I don't 
   give a rat's arse whether foiling their crime will make them unhappy. 
   Unlike a certain Republican candidate for governor, I don't think that 
   women (or taxpayers) should have to lie back and "enjoy it."  I am, to 
   borrow a phrase, PRO-CHOICE when it comes to self-defense from predators, 
   regardless whether the predator is four-legged, two-legged or the gov't.  

- the average taxpayer is as thick as two short planks, and probably not capable
- of making rational decisions on where their tax money goes (current company
- excepted, of course).

	I guess we shouldn't allow "them" to vote either, huh?  

- >                               The "service" is excessive, inefficiently
- >			       applied, over-bearing, intrusive, frequently
- >                               unnecessary, and not infrequently detrimental
- >			       to the welfare of the public it is intended
- >                               to serve.
- 
- Perhaps that is inherent in all forms of government.  I've yet to see
- a government of a large, diverse nation that is any different.

	Perhaps the Federales should be limited by the Constitution. 
   Ooops.  Let me rephrase that.  Perhaps the Federales should obey 
   and be bound by the limits set upon them by the US Constitution. 

	Now, if we could just repeal the Sixteenth Amendment ...  


-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  "One has a moral responsibility  
  Jordan M Kossack     |      to disobey unjust laws."    
  +1 713 240 2073      |   -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.