bobevenson wrote:The difference is that we've got guns and you don't, and please don't make the ridiculous comment that our guns are no match for the government's armed forces!
Of course they are, no idea why the Afghans and Iraqi's lost when everyone and their mother had RPG's and AK's? That's very thoughtful of you, reverend Bob, but I really would like to know how small arms can prevail against nuclear weapons.bobevenson wrote:...don't make me patronize you by going into details.
Please, if the citizens revolted against the U.S. government, you're suggesting the response would be nuclear weapons?uwot wrote:That's very thoughtful of you, reverend Bob, but I really would like to know how small arms can prevail against nuclear weapons.bobevenson wrote:...don't make me patronize you by going into details.
No. It is you that is insisting that a tyrannical US government wouldn't resort to them. Why do you think there is a limit to US governmental tyranny?bobevenson wrote:Please, if the citizens revolted against the U.S. government, you're suggesting the response would be nuclear weapons?
Please, what's the government going to do, drop an atomic bomb on Washington, D.C.? There is no limit to government tyranny, and that's why Americans, under the U.S. Constitution, have the right to bear arms. Of course, places like England don't have a constitution, so I guess they can do just about whatever they want, like charging you for watching TV!uwot wrote:No. It is you that is insisting that a tyrannical US government wouldn't resort to them. Why do you think there is a limit to US governmental tyranny?bobevenson wrote:Please, if the citizens revolted against the U.S. government, you're suggesting the response would be nuclear weapons?
You get free TV in America?bobevenson wrote:... Of course, places like England don't have a constitution, so I guess they can do just about whatever they want, like charging you for watching TV!
The major TV networks are free with your own antenna. Cable and satellite TV are available in a competitive free market, and nobody has to pay the government a goddamn cent!Arising_uk wrote:You get free TV in America?bobevenson wrote:... Of course, places like England don't have a constitution, so I guess they can do just about whatever they want, like charging you for watching TV!
Er Bob, that's not 100% true. There are taxes on cable bills and probably satellite bills too.bobevenson wrote:The major TV networks are free with your own antenna. Cable and satellite TV are available in a competitive free market, and nobody has to pay the government a goddamn cent!Arising_uk wrote:You get free TV in America?bobevenson wrote:... Of course, places like England don't have a constitution, so I guess they can do just about whatever they want, like charging you for watching TV!
There are improper taxes on everything. The only proper tax is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Er Bob, that's not 100% true. There are taxes on cable bills and probably satellite bills too.bobevenson wrote:The major TV networks are free with your own antenna. Cable and satellite TV are available in a competitive free market, and nobody has to pay the government a goddamn cent!Arising_uk wrote: You get free TV in America?
PhilX
So instead of paying for a license, you pay tax for owning a TV. I have to say, Reverend Bob, I like our system better. At least we get something worth watching for our money. As it happens, we also have a type of property tax as you describe, it's called Value Added Tax. When we buy something, it is added to the intrinsic value, just as you prescribe, but it is a one off, point of sales tax. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating that we pay VAT for as long as we own a television, even if we never watch it. Should we really be charged for something we don't use?bobevenson wrote:There are improper taxes on everything. The only proper tax is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.
Sorry, it's the government doing the scamming!MagsJ wrote:You now need a TV license if you are in possession of a TV set.. whether it works or not... that law came in a few years back to counteract the 'my TV ain't working' scammers.
bobevenson wrote:Sorry, it's the government doing the scamming!MagsJ wrote:You now need a TV license if you are in possession of a TV set.. whether it works or not... that law came in a few years back to counteract the 'my TV ain't working' scammers.
