| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 08:52:54 PM |
| Object: |
New Constitutional Amendments |
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
.
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:29:38 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a89d03$0$58125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a85c2c$0$58099$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote
Deuteros wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for
a really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an
entire highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are
more willing to sell.
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector).
Smirk. I suspect that your knowledge of the "real world" is extremely
limited. There's hardly any other explanation for your fanciful
notions about how people will become generous and accomodating when
asked to sell their homes.
You didn't answer the question.
You didn't ask a question.
Why do you think the government should get
a special pass while private organizations still have tro negotiate a
selling price with a landowner?
Common good vs. private gain.
And who gets to decide what is the common good? The government? Individual
rights are more important than the common good.
The government forcing you to sell your house to make room for a Walmart
would benefit the common good but do you think such procedures should be
allowed?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:33:33 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector).
Smirk. I suspect that your knowledge of the "real world" is extremely
limited. There's hardly any other explanation for your fanciful
notions about how people will become generous and accomodating when
asked to sell their homes.
Funny how this all started when "Deuteros" couldn't admit that he fucked
up when he claimed the reason lying coward bobby's job gets benefits
because of the "free market". Like lying coward bobby "Deuteros" can't
admit being wrong either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 01:55:13 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a7be7a$0$10083$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for
liberty in our time. Here are some suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
take or control an individual's property without that
individual's consent (Government won't be able to take your
property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector). Why do you want
the government to have a special pass?
Because the government's job is to provide public goods, and solve a
legion of other market failures.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 04:17:44 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a861a1$0$10078$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a7be7a$0$10083$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector). Why do you
want the government to have a special pass?
Because the government's job is to provide public goods, and solve a
legion of other market failures.
The government can provide public goods without usurping property rights.
Besides, most of the public goods the government provides are already
supplied, or could be supplied by the private sector.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 03:55:41 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a861a1$0$10078$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a7be7a$0$10083$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that
they already ignore every day of the week. Since when have
Senators cared about what the Constitution says? Why bother
changing it? At any rate, it's a good time to ponder how the
Constitution could be improved. If government officials ever
followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements would
translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years
without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may
legitimately take or control an individual's property without
that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector). Why do you
want the government to have a special pass?
Because the government's job is to provide public goods, and solve a
legion of other market failures.
The government can provide public goods without usurping property rights.
Besides, most of the public goods the government provides are already
supplied, or could be supplied by the private sector.
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to carry
your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are not
absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some circumstances,
a court can restrict the way you can use your own property because of
the damage you are doing to another. A famous case I had to study in law
school concerned to neighbours who were arguing. One of them built a
high water tower just on the corner of his land, so that the other one
had no sun in his house for large parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property rights
is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 08:22:13 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a9269d$0$10091$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to carry
your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are not
absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some circumstances,
a court can restrict the way you can use your own property because of
the damage you are doing to another. A famous case I had to study in law
school concerned to neighbours who were arguing. One of them built a
high water tower just on the corner of his land, so that the other one
had no sun in his house for large parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property rights
is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens from
coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this purpose.
Courts and legislature are also legitimate government functions, although
private courts do exist and are practical. But a large part of our
government would be better off if handed over to the private sector.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 08:59:22 AM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a9269d$0$10091$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to carry
your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are not
absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some circumstances,
a court can restrict the way you can use your own property because of
the damage you are doing to another. A famous case I had to study in law
school concerned to neighbours who were arguing. One of them built a
high water tower just on the corner of his land, so that the other one
had no sun in his house for large parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property rights
is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens from
coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this purpose.
Courts and legislature are also legitimate government functions, although
private courts do exist and are practical. But a large part of our
government would be better off if handed over to the private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are alreday
many governments where services are controlled by private interests.
The common word used to describe such governments is "corrupt", and
they do NOT work very well.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 04:28:31 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a96dca$0$58044$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a9269d$0$10091$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to
carry your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are
not absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some
circumstances, a court can restrict the way you can use your own
property because of the damage you are doing to another. A famous case
I had to study in law school concerned to neighbours who were arguing.
One of them built a high water tower just on the corner of his land,
so that the other one had no sun in his house for large parts of the
day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property rights
is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens
from coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this
purpose. Courts and legislature are also legitimate government
functions, although private courts do exist and are practical. But a
large part of our government would be better off if handed over to the
private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are alreday
many governments where services are controlled by private interests.
The common word used to describe such governments is "corrupt", and
they do NOT work very well.
Examples please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 06:19:04 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to
carry your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are
not absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some
circumstances, a court can restrict the way you can use your own
property because of the damage you are doing to another. A famous case
I had to study in law school concerned to neighbours who were arguing.
One of them built a high water tower just on the corner of his land,
so that the other one had no sun in his house for large parts of the
day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property rights
is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens
from coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this
purpose. Courts and legislature are also legitimate government
functions, although private courts do exist and are practical. But a
large part of our government would be better off if handed over to the
private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are alreday
many governments where services are controlled by private interests.
The common word used to describe such governments is "corrupt", and
they do NOT work very well.
Examples please.
Mexico, Bolivia, Egypt, Nigeria, ...
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 07:18:37 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a9f0f8$0$58051$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to
carry your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are
not absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some
circumstances, a court can restrict the way you can use your own
property because of the damage you are doing to another. A famous
case I had to study in law school concerned to neighbours who were
arguing. One of them built a high water tower just on the corner of
his land, so that the other one had no sun in his house for large
parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property
rights is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens
from coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this
purpose. Courts and legislature are also legitimate government
functions, although private courts do exist and are practical. But a
large part of our government would be better off if handed over to
the private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are alreday
many governments where services are controlled by private interests.
The common word used to describe such governments is "corrupt", and
they do NOT work very well.
Examples please.
Mexico, Bolivia, Egypt, Nigeria, ...
I wanted examples, not a list of countries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 12:58:40 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a9f0f8$0$58051$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to
carry your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are
not absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some
circumstances, a court can restrict the way you can use your own
property because of the damage you are doing to another. A famous
case I had to study in law school concerned to neighbours who were
arguing. One of them built a high water tower just on the corner of
his land, so that the other one had no sun in his house for large
parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property
rights is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens
from coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this
purpose. Courts and legislature are also legitimate government
functions, although private courts do exist and are practical. But a
large part of our government would be better off if handed over to
the private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are alreday
many governments where services are controlled by private interests.
The common word used to describe such governments is "corrupt", and
they do NOT work very well.
Examples please.
Mexico, Bolivia, Egypt, Nigeria, ...
I wanted examples, not a list of countries.
No, you wanted to keep your head in your *****.
http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/fp/fp060496.htm
Notice that the list of least corrupt nations tend to be more
socialist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 05:34:29 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aaf760$0$58110$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a9f0f8$0$58051$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of
free speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear
arms to carry your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property
rights are not absolue either. They are subject to restrictions.
In some circumstances, a court can restrict the way you can use
your own property because of the damage you are doing to another.
A famous case I had to study in law school concerned to neighbours
who were arguing. One of them built a high water tower just on the
corner of his land, so that the other one had no sun in his house
for large parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property
rights is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens
from coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this
purpose. Courts and legislature are also legitimate government
functions, although private courts do exist and are practical. But
a large part of our government would be better off if handed over
to the private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are
alreday many governments where services are controlled by private
interests. The common word used to describe such governments is
"corrupt", and they do NOT work very well.
Examples please.
Mexico, Bolivia, Egypt, Nigeria, ...
I wanted examples, not a list of countries.
No, you wanted to keep your head in your *****.
http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/fp/fp060496.htm
Notice that the list of least corrupt nations tend to be more
socialist.
China and Venezuela are two of the most socialist countries in the world
and they're on the list of the top ten most corrupt countries.
But I was talking more about efficiency than corruption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 08:23:38 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of
free speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear
arms to carry your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property
rights are not absolue either. They are subject to restrictions.
In some circumstances, a court can restrict the way you can use
your own property because of the damage you are doing to another.
A famous case I had to study in law school concerned to neighbours
who were arguing. One of them built a high water tower just on the
corner of his land, so that the other one had no sun in his house
for large parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property
rights is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens
from coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this
purpose. Courts and legislature are also legitimate government
functions, although private courts do exist and are practical. But
a large part of our government would be better off if handed over
to the private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are
already many governments where services are controlled by private
interests. The common word used to describe such governments is
"corrupt", and they do NOT work very well.
Examples please.
Mexico, Bolivia, Egypt, Nigeria, ...
I wanted examples, not a list of countries.
No, you wanted to keep your head in your *****.
http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/fp/fp060496.htm
Notice that the list of least corrupt nations tend to be more
socialist.
China and Venezuela are two of the most socialist countries in the world
Whoops, there you go with the lies again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 01:38:38 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in news:43aaa7ad$0$2741$892e7fe2
@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a9f0f8$0$58051$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of
free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to
carry your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights
are
not absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some
circumstances, a court can restrict the way you can use your own
property because of the damage you are doing to another. A famous
case I had to study in law school concerned to neighbours who were
arguing. One of them built a high water tower just on the corner
of
his land, so that the other one had no sun in his house for large
parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property
rights is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens
from coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this
purpose. Courts and legislature are also legitimate government
functions, although private courts do exist and are practical. But
a
large part of our government would be better off if handed over to
the private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are
alreday
many governments where services are controlled by private interests.
The common word used to describe such governments is "corrupt", and
they do NOT work very well.
Examples please.
Mexico, Bolivia, Egypt, Nigeria, ...
I wanted examples, not a list of countries.
Why don't you "want" in one hand and defecate in the other to see which
hand gets full the fastest?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 03:26:30 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43a9269d$0$10091$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
1. You seem to make the silly mistake of believing that rights are
absolute. Newsflash: they are not. You can't use your right of free
speach to slander someone, you can't use you right to bear arms to carry
your gun into, say, the white house, etc. Property rights are not
absolue either. They are subject to restrictions. In some circumstances,
a court can restrict the way you can use your own property because of
the damage you are doing to another. A famous case I had to study in law
school concerned to neighbours who were arguing. One of them built a
high water tower just on the corner of his land, so that the other one
had no sun in his house for large parts of the day. That is not ok.
Now it just so happens that one of the restrictions on property rights
is already given in the constitution. Isn't that handy?
2. Private sector army, police, courts, legislature? Need I go on?
The primary prupose of government should be to protect its citizens from
coercion or force. Thus, the army and police would serve this purpose.
Courts and legislature are also legitimate government functions, although
private courts do exist and are practical. But a large part of our
government would be better off if handed over to the private sector.
Typical right-wing propaganda for the suckers.
We don't need to try such a government here because there are alreday
many governments where services are controlled by private interests.
The common word used to describe such governments is "corrupt", and
they do NOT work very well.
Actually, it's not so simply. Since a few weeks, I'm working as a Ph.D.
fellow on research to model just this decision: Privatise, public
authority, or something in between? To do this, we apply models similar
to those developed for businesses: outsource, do it in house, or
something in between (joint venture, etc.)? It turns out there are a
great many factors that play into this decision, most of which having to
do with the question of who would have to contract with whom, and to
what extent is there competition for either end of the contract. It also
matters whether each party has sufficient information, or whether they
at least have the same information, whether there is scope, after the
contract has been made, for one party to try to make an extra buck at
the expense of the other, etc.
Take the interstate: because certain parcels of land are absolutely
necessary for the road to make any sense at all, the owners of that land
are like monopolists. They can hold out for a very high purchase price.
While one may argue that they deserve it, that is not entirely true. In
any monopoly the price is above the competitive level. The most
important consequence of this fact is not that there is a transfer of
wealth from the consumer to the monopolist, but rather that there is a
deadweight loss: A welfare loss representing people who would pay more
than it consts to make the good, but less than the monopolist is
charging. Going back to the roads example, the key point is not that the
owner of that piece of land might get lucky, but rather that we might
end up with a situation where, if you lump all the costs (labor, cement,
land, everything) and all the benefits (decreased travel time, increased
economic activity, etc.) together, building the road creates more value
than it costs to build it, but nevertheless it doesn't get built, thus
creating a welfare loss.
The other question with that road is what the private company would do
after they build it. Because at that point, they are essentially a
monopolist. How much so depends on the rest of the road network, but
still. Presumably, they would recoup their investment by levying a toll.
No problem. But how high would that toll be? Higher or lower than the
competitive market price (i.e. roughly the total costs of building the
road divided by the total number of cars expected to use the road over
its lifetime)? Same logic: monopolists overcharge, relative to a
competitive market. As such, they create a wealth transfer from the
consumer to the monopolist, as well as a deadweight loss compared to
perfect competition.
All of these are disadvantages of private enterprise in these
circumstances. To offset this is the lack of any incentives for cost
minimization in public office. Or, in plain english, the government
waists our money. The question is: who waists less money, in any given
case, the government or a private monopolist? This question has to be
answered from case to case, from market to market, from product to
product, from country to country, even. Just because health care is
provided by the government over here, while it is largely private in the
US doesn't mean either system is wrong. It might be, or the difference
might simply be due to different circumstances.
Please forgive me for giving you only a short version, but my Ph.D.
thesis won't be finished for another four years.
Yours,
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 07:15:17 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 19 Dec 2005 23:34:17 GMT iin alt.atheism?
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more willing
to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 08:46:27 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 19 Dec 2005 23:34:17 GMT iin alt.atheism?
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent domain
so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies have to pay a
premium for prime real estate. Why should the government be an exception?
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
Do you really think a landowner should be forced to sell because the
government thinks it might be nice to build a road on his property?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 09:05:04 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent domain
so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
You're also trying to change the subject.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
You are an idiot. Such deals are next to impossible when there are
hundreds of property owners involved.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 09:27:55 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a774e0$0$58068$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
So if a landowner is going to receive the same amount of money as he would if
he sold it to a private entity then why do you even need eminent domain?
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
You are an idiot. Such deals are next to impossible when there are
hundreds of property owners involved.
Private developers do it all the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 09:42:31 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a774e0$0$58068$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
So if a landowner is going to receive the same amount of money as he would if
he sold it to a private entity then why do you even need eminent domain?
You really are an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 08:08:28 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a77da7$0$58095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a774e0$0$58068$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for
a really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an
entire highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are
more willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through
a pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the
road to astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
So if a landowner is going to receive the same amount of money as he
would if he sold it to a private entity then why do you even need
eminent domain?
You really are an idiot.
Your lack of an argument and your admission of defeat is noted and accepted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 01:29:23 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a77da7$0$58095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a774e0$0$58068$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for
a really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an
entire highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are
more willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through
a pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the
road to astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
So if a landowner is going to receive the same amount of money as he
would if he sold it to a private entity then why do you even need
eminent domain?
You really are an idiot.
Your lack of an argument
Pearls before swine.
an argument and your admission of defeat is noted and accepted.
So you need to start lying in order to declare victory. What a
surprise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 10:51:06 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a774e0$0$58068$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
So if a landowner is going to receive the same amount of money as he would if
he sold it to a private entity then why do you even need eminent domain?
You really are an idiot.
He really is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 10:50:28 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
willing to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent domain
so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
You're also trying to change the subject.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
You are an idiot.
He is. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 08:10:57 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent domain
so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies have to pay a
premium for prime real estate. Why should the government be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
The Constitution requires fair market value. what that is often ends
up in the courts.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
Or the landowners all band together to jack up the price.
Do you really think a landowner should be forced to sell because the
government thinks it might be nice to build a road on his property?
No, I think a landowner can be compelled to sell if the government can
show a compelling need for the parcel.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 04:13:01 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:i04gq1pvml71kg62tg81m1pkj94gd9k9qc@4ax.com:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies
have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should the government
be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like everybody
else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide whether or not
the road is worth the price they would have to pay for the land.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
Or the landowners all band together to jack up the price.
Do you really think a landowner should be forced to sell because the
government thinks it might be nice to build a road on his property?
No, I think a landowner can be compelled to sell if the government can
show a compelling need for the parcel.
That sounds good but the final decision to sell should be made by the
landowner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:07:36 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies
have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should the government
be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like everybody
else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide whether or not
the road is worth the price they would have to pay for the land.
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:26:41 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a89cc8$0$58125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through
a pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the
road to astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies
have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should the
government be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like everybody
else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide whether or
not the road is worth the price they would have to pay for the land.
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government is
disbanded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NCVT" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:28:53 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government is
disbanded.
Says the libertarian freeloader whose knowledge of the law and the Constitution
is less than that of a 10 year-old. You fucking kooks are hilarious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:38:03 PM |
|
|
"NCVT" <ncvt@hlnc.pra> wrote in
news:1135135733.2ca884f40ad9de27af289771ad267e04@roc.usenetexchange.com:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government
is disbanded.
Says the libertarian freeloader whose knowledge of the law and the
Constitution is less than that of a 10 year-old. You fucking kooks
are hilarious.
Yet another brainwashed idiot who actually thinks his government operates
within the limits of the constitution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
