Society wrote:

> "SteveR"  wrote in message
> news:JOkfDHBRDNKCJwKk{at}grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk...
>
>>Deborah Terreson writes:
>>
>>>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>
>>>>So why should eliminating women's suffrage
>>>>mean that women can't be taxed on income?
>>>
>>>Because of a pesky little item about taxation
>>>without representation. [...]
>>
>>When I lived in the US, I was taxed, but I didn't
>>have the vote, not once.  Isn't that taxation without
>>representation? [...]
>
>
> No.  You had representation in all the legislative
> bodies with jurisdiction over the place where you
> lived at the time, SteveR.  Likely, the names,
> addresses and telephone numbers of each of
> your representatives were listed in your phone
> book.  What you didn't have was the privilege
> of participating in choosing those representatives.

That's a bit of a slippery counter-argument.

I coudl just as readily say that you had
representation through tthe governot pror to
1776 - but it would be a specious argument when
in political reality the governor really
represented the interests of the british
parliament even if he was referred to as the
King's governor.

D.

> HTH.
>


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/5/05 7:57:34 AM ---