Cleopatra

Yes I do, however, I googled cheapest refuse collection in Texas as well as cheapest waste collection service in Texas and looked at four pages on each. This was the cheapest as far as I could see.

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

Cleopatra

Seriously, I would love you to prove me wrong on this. Can you please post the website of this company that charges less than $2 per month for 3 times a week rubbish collection.

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

John in Scotland

Interesting thread.

MKPK has raised an interesting ethical conundrum: at what point does taxation become theft?

I see it as being like capital punishment. Some people believe that the state has no right to execute people, and that capital punishment is, in and of itself, murder. This is the position generally considered progressive.

Some believe that the state has the right to execute whoever it likes, and it is never murder. This is pretty much a minority position.

Others, like myself, believe that in capital punishment is not, in an of itself, murder, but that in some cases becomes murder - when the state deliberately executes people without good (sufficient) reason.

Taxation is similar. Some believe that all taxation is theft, some believe that no taxation is theft, and others (like myself) believe that taxation is not, in and of itself, theft, but that money taken from tax-payers to be spent on things that governments ought not to spend money on is theft.

Now - here is the curious thing. You would think that people who believe that capital punishment is simply murder by the state would also believe that taxation is simply theft by the state. And a few libertarians do. But most progressives who hate capital punishment also believe that taxation is morally justified for just about anything (other than, perhaps, war).

g hall

Now we get to the nub of the argument which is How much state interference do you want in your life ?
What do expect as your rights and what do give as your responsibilities ?

None of us can live in isolation and we have to sacrifice something for the common good but at which point does that become to much

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Westcountryman

Exactly, and I'm sure that that line differs for each person.

__________________
Porthemmet Beach

g hall

But in that case we have to find an acceptable range else anarchy or totalitarianism follows

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Roland

This to me is the difference between state law and unwanted state intervention.

Up until the commies took over we were born free and the heavy hand of state law would enter into situations as it was deemed necessarily. A law that was strongly applicable many years ago would not be applicable now all be it the law may remain the problem that caused the law to be enforced may no longer be a problem and therefor the law would no longer need to be enacted on. Now the law is becoming preemptive it tries to bring about legislation on problems before the problem starts. When the hand of state law is enacted it brings the problem of affecting the rights of those that were not a party to the minority that caused the problem.

This is one of the dangers of centralized EU law if a situation arises in spain because of tensions over their for some historical reason then why should the law apply in say Denmark.

I can't think of a good example right now so I'l make one up-

If say the hard end of the national front started distributing leflets stating extreme racial hatred due to this there was racial tension, fighting, general threatening behavior etc.. The government here may bring in a law forbidding the distribution of such certain literature. A problem might arise that due to the legislation other literature of a similar nature but of not such an extreme nature may be cast into the category of the legislation. Five year down the line the tension has been eradicated and the law does not need acting on and need not be enforced.

But why should a situation in england that required extreme legislation due to a situation in england that was part of a historical English problem that meant temporary infringement of the right of freedom of speech and civil liberties be applicable in say Germany.

The only state intervention that should remain state intervention is when we
as a people all agree it should remain. As in I think we all agree murder should be illigal I doubt you'd have any disagreement that that is a consensus
opinion.

The only time other than this that the state should go against the consensus view is to stop the tyranny of the majority against the minority.

I tried to keep that as short as possible so hope you see my point.

Geoffrey Collier

kpdavis: I think that it was Benjamin Franklin who said; there are only two certainties in life; death and taxation. What social system do you suggest which will not require taxation? Has such a system ever existed- almost certainly not. Which social elite bas been able to exist without taxation as the major economic source of their revenue? Not a single one comes to mind.

Why not start a new Poujadeist Movement (Pierre Poujade). Should it be successful, I promise that I will not allow a civic statue to be erected in your honour, if they want to pay for it with tax-payers money.

Smidgey

Medieval Iceland perhaps.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel