Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)

[Petro <petro@playboy.com>]

At 1:09 PM -0500 11/8/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Just face it. It isn't the threat of violence that pisses you off. It's that
>you have social responsibilities to those around you. Taxes represent a
>responsibility that you don't want and to hell with the consequences.

	No, it's that facists & socialists like yourself think we should be
happy letting you decide what our social responsibilities are.

	I am perfectly willing to pay for a police force. A police force
that arrests ALLEGED rapists, treats them like human beings until found
guilty and then deals with them as the law indicates. I am NOT willing to
pay for a police force that spends most of it's time (well, aside from
eating doughnuts, drinking coffee and collecting bribes) chasing after
teenagers with illegal chemicals. I am not willing to pay for a police
force that extorts money from these same teenagers. I am not willing to pay
money for a police force that thinks it needs to arrest people for
"loitering", "Mob Action", when it's defined as more than 4 people standing
together in a public place, and ESPECIALLY when EVERY TIME THEY ARREST
SOMEONE, IT'S THROWN OUT OF COURT.

	I am willing to pay for the streets I use. I am not willing to pay
the same fees to ride my bicycle (my current primary form of
transportation) as you do to drive your 2 ton SUV.

	I am willing to pay for fire protection. I am not willing to pay
for "universal health care", "welfare", and other such nonsense.

	In other words Jim, Fuck You. I, and I'd bet most people here,
including Mr. May, are perfectly willing, and hell even eager to pay their
share, to assume their social responcibility, they just get very, very
angry at having to pay OTHER peoples social responcibility, and get very,
very angry at having to pay for other shit (Senate Luncheons and Swimming
Pools, the Militaries greatly inflated budget, all the waste that is todays
federal government).

	They get even angrier when some putz like you comes along and tries
to tell them what their social responcibility is.

>> anyone else from telling it to fuck off?  Such a state cannot govern
>> those who do not wish to be governed, and so would not be a government.
>
>No state can govern those who don't wish to be governed, violence or no.

	Yes, but a state can kill those who don't wish to be governed. Can
and does routinely.

>[I've deleted a great gob of this since it's the same just rehashed in
>different sentences.]

	But did you bother to read them this time?
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather na�ve, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com