RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| What a joke, again.
For those who do not like it and are posting against people supported systems instead of corporate slavery, ask the people in Provo if they think you are jealous, or they are being taken to the cleaners.
I like how people on the other side of the country are telling those of us who live out here how we should spend our money. If you don't like it, move out here, register to vote, run for office, and change it. I know of a few people who hate the Utopia and related initiatives, but I know of a lot more who are for it. It is OUR tax money, it is still MOSTLY a majority rule (except when lawyers and corporates get involved), so we should be able to do what we want as long as it does not violate rules (yeah, I know corporations buy new rules to stop us, look at Qwest and UTOPIA).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
 ·Bright House
| said by RayW :
For those who do not like it and are posting against people supported systems instead of corporate slavery, ask the people in Provo if they think you are jealous, or they are being taken to the cleaners.
I like how people on the other side of the country are telling those of us who live out here how we should spend our money. If you don't like it, move out here, register to vote, run for office, and change it. I know of a few people who hate the Utopia and related initiatives, but I know of a lot more who are for it. It is OUR tax money, it is still MOSTLY a majority rule (except when lawyers and corporates get involved), so we should be able to do what we want as long as it does not violate rules (yeah, I know corporations buy new rules to stop us, look at Qwest and UTOPIA).
I don't know what the vote numbers was to approve the muni system so I am not going to give a definite answer. We are not talking about voting someone into office. We are talking about spending other people's money.
According to your logic, for example. If 54% of the people vote for the muni system and the other 46% of the people vote against, you are forcing the 46% to pay for something you want. If the other 46% of the people don't want it, to bad. Basically you got what you want and that's all that matters.
The muni system is based on if most of the people sign up to get it. If the town don't get the numbers they need to support the system, then either the town will have to issue more bonds which means raising taxes, ask the state for help which means the people of that state will pay or sell it to a private company.
People want more and more things and want the government to pay for it. They don't think about the other hard working folks, who are barely getting by who have to pay for it. This is why NJ is in the situation it is in. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| So? Do not apply your issues to us out here. It is easy to sit 2000 miles away and bash others, but unless you are out here, that is all you are doing.
Qwest, AT&T have dragged their collective feet for most of our areas here. Comcast has done some things in my neighborhood (and others), but the stories I get on the overall service do not make me want to dash out and and have them run cable to my house. Since so many people think the net is a necessity and the government ought to do something, they did. It was just not lining the right corporate pockets which gets certain people's knickers in a twist.
Of course, we could makes deals like certain places back east did, and still waste money. But that is ok, that goes to corporate salaries and golden parachutes.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to viperpa33s
Gee, if 54% of the people send children to public school, then they are forcing the the other 46% of the people to pay for it.
Guess what, that system is called a DEMOCRACY. You see, in a democracy, the majority decision stands. If the MAJORITY of people vote for a government sponsored program, then guess what, EVERYONE pays. If you don't like it, move to china.
In the REAL world, the public gets to decide where they want their tax dollars spent. If they want muni broadband, then so be it. If you don't like it, then MOVE somewhere else.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Storm72
join:2003-07-03
Bourbonnais, IL
clubs:
| reply to RayW
I consider myself a small-l libertarian, but I have no problem with muni-broadband if the voters of a municipality support it and are willing to pay for it since I see it as a reasonable response to some of the biggest recipients of corporate welfare and special favors from the government, namely the telcos and cable companies. I thought libertarianism was about trying to decrease the number of laws on the books and protecting individual rights, not advocating new laws that are geared solely toward protecting corporate interests. |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
said by RayW :
So? Do not apply your issues to us out here. It is easy to sit 2000 miles away and bash others, but unless you are out here, that is all you are doing.
Who says I was telling you what to do or was bashing people? I live in a area which only had dial up and other cities in NJ had DSL but I didn't expect my town to start a muni service. That would be inconsiderate of me to expect someone else to pay for something that I wanted that was no value to society as a whole. You can do what you like, more power to you.
said by karlmarx :
Gee, if 54% of the people send children to public school, then they are forcing the the other 46% of the people to pay for it.
Guess what, that system is called a DEMOCRACY. You see, in a democracy, the majority decision stands. If the MAJORITY of people vote for a government sponsored program, then guess what, EVERYONE pays. If you don't like it, move to china.
In the REAL world, the public gets to decide where they want their tax dollars spent. If they want muni broadband, then so be it. If you don't like it, then MOVE somewhere else.
We are not talking about supporting schools, supporting police or fire dept's, supporting roads and bridges, we are talking about internet service. Your comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't consider 54% a majority, borderline at best. If 80%+ of the people approved, I would consider that a majority. Just like tv service, internet service is not considered a necessity.
If I have to pay more in taxes and have less to spend on my family, then I have a right say what I feel, that's DEMOCRACY.
What a way to start the New Year....lol All in all, I love a good debate  |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Well it looks like people want democracy at certain stages of their life.
Its democratic for me to pay out the nose for other peoples kids in school , so I am apparently bettering america when I pay for kids to go to school. But I am not bettering them when I pay taxes and its used for internet ?
I think Karlmarx hit the nail on the head. I didn't get to vote on if my taxes go to public school others did. They got a chance to do it here and majority ruled. Now that is what I call democracy.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to viperpa33s
You replied to KarlMarx. And as much I hate to agree with him....
Many people on this board cry "the government ought to do something". Well, out here they did and most of us approved of it and now people on this forum are crying about it. Some people think we do not need schools, some think the cops are a waste of money, others think that parks are a waste of money, still others think libraries are a waste of taxes.. So if 21% of the people disagree, then the majority has to suffer?
As I said before, if you want to be ripped off by corporate entities telling your representatives what to do, that is your prerogative, but out here we the people are trying to do something. And you know? Some of the folks out here have noted that where the muni system has gone, the corporate entities have improved service and lowered rates. Wish my area would hurry up and get built in so I could see that, or actually jump ship to the better (note: I did not say perfect) service that Utopia seems to be offering. (Actually, I suspect that Comcast is prepared to turn on some high power stuff as soon as Utopia gets here this year. They were laying a lot of fiber down the road a year ago, but no one has reported improved service).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to viperpa33s
"I wouldn't consider 54% a majority, borderline at best."
Umm, and that of course is the root cause of your problem. You apparently never finished 3rd grade math. 50.0001% = Majority. You're probably one of those people who think BUSH won the Majority vote (he didn't).
If 51% of the people agree on something, then, by definition, it's the majority. If only 49% agreed, then it COULD be construed as the majority, if there were 3 choices. Hell, if 25% of the population voted for one of 5 choices, that would be a MAJORITY.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Karlmarx, it is never wise to insult someone. If you want to have a honest debate, I am all for it. If you want to insult someone, then it shows what kind of person you are.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking, don't mean you have to insult them. People have there own opinions about things and you need to respect that. I may not like your opinion but I respect it.
If you want an honest debate, I will be more than happy to debate you but keep your insults to yourself. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx  : Hell, if 25% of the population voted for one of 5 choices, that would be a MAJORITY. Not true, a majority is defined as anything over 50%. In some places where they have three people running for election and no one gets more than 50%, they hold another one with the top two since no one had a majority. What you are thinking of is called a PLURALITY "a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast"
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to Storm72
welcome to the new libertarianism.
say hi to John Stossel over there... |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net | reply to Storm72
You, sir, are a dying breed!
It is a great crime that conservative thought has been corrupted and perverted to mean little more than a blind defense of unrestrained corporate power.
Keep the faith. Your day will come again. |
|
houselog442
join:2005-10-05
| reply to viperpa33s
A debate with a communist? Thats funny. Communists do not believe in debate, they want the government to run and control everything. And if you disagree with them than you must be shot because that is how communism works! The only good communist is a dead one! |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to viperpa33s
"...that I wanted that was no value to society as a whole"
What's the basis for saying this? If the internet is of value to society, then the ability of people to connect to it, at a speed that allows one to utilize it's full potential, is of value to society.
Networks are only valuable because people are connected to them. The more people connected the more valuable they become. If the network only connected you and your neighbor how much value would it have in comparison to the value it has when it connects you to billions?
"Your comparing apples to oranges. "
Are you sure? Why is communications infrastructure fundamentally different from other infrastructure that facilitates human activity? Communications is as central to economic growth as roads or electricity were in the 20th century. It is basic infrastructure.
People don't remember history. Do you think universal education was always considered socially beneficial? The reformers who pushed for universal education were considered dangerous radicals and conservatives made the same arguments then that they make now about communications infrastructure. In fact, education was dangerous. It gave the lower classes ambitions and they forgot their rightful place in the world, which was engaging in tedious physical labor for the benefit of their superiors. There was a time when police departments were often paid and essentially owned by the companies who ran many of the company towns across the country. Have a look at the history of labor disputes and the ways police departments, paid by the company, brutally broke up strikes.
You will see the same arguments used time and again throughout history. The only reason we accept the argument when made about communications infrastructure and not when made about roads and schools and electricity is because of habit. It is only because people in the past fought these arguments and changed perceptions that we have any of the benefits of modernity. It wasn't inevitable that americans would be educated and have indoor plumbing, electricity, safe drinking water. Things could have turned out differently if different people had been in power and had won these arguments. We could still live in a society where only a privileged few had any of these benefits. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to viperpa33s
said by viperpa33s : We are talking about spending other people's money. No, they're talking about spending tax money; i.e., money collected according to ability to pay, based on democratic and/or representative decisions, to be spent how the citizens decide it should be spent.
In other word, tax revenues are not a "fee" for which you should expect a return in kind equal to the amount of taxes you pay. As others have said, that would mean singles and senior citizens wouldn't have to pay school taxes.
If the citizens of Provo decideed to spend the taxes they collected that way, fine. As is often said on this website, those who don't like it can always move; another option is to convince a majority of their fellow citizens to think the same way as they do. But if most citizens in Provo want to do this, why should they be "banned" from doing so? I can think of alot worse ways to spend it (here in Oregon, don't get me started on PERS).
quote:
They don't think about the other hard working folks, who are barely getting by who have to pay for it.
Huh? People "who are barely getting by" pay hardly any taxes at all. Funny that oftentimes, the folks that are bing taxed at 5-10% of their income complain the most. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to houselog442
said by houselog442 :And if you disagree with them than you must be shot because that is how communism works! That's how totalitarian socialism works... Communism has never existed on the planet.
--
Prove it... |
|
disconnected
@snet.net
| reply to BosstonesOwn
The problem with democracy is is that it is really two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
And the USA was designed to be a Republic. "...and to the Republich, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all."
Taxation is forced labor, and forced labor is slavery.
Those who argue that it is not forced labor, fail to realize that failure to pay taxes results in quite unpleasant initiation of force, by government, against the individual. |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :Communism has never existed on the planet. And I fervently hope it never will. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :Communism has never existed on the planet. Not true. The pilgrims tried communism for awhile when they first settled in America. They quickly found out that there was no incentive for anyone to work hard when everyone got the same share of the goods. After a harsh and deadly winter, they changed to a system of private land ownership and changed their fortunes.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
