-=> Quoting Charles Murray to Jim Casto <=-
 CM> WEARING of seatbelts is a law in most states, we aren't talking
 CM> personal safety ... we are talking you are _NOW_ a criminal if
 CM> you do not wear them . Where is the justice here please ?
 
 The "justice" is that the law was put into place by either the people of 
our
 community or their elected representatives. That's how our form of 
overnment
 works.
 
 CM> I am not a anarchist, I believe in having many laws, laws that
 CM> protect, serve and defend the innocent, young or elderly.
 Seatbealt laws _do_ protect the "innocent, young and elderly". That's one of
 the reasons for them.
 CM> I do strongly dissagree with the tax system,the IRS and the federal
 CM> reserve as they are being used .
 Then do everything you can to get them changed to your liking. Get into
 politics. Run for Congress, run for President. Come up with a better answer
 that will please the majority in your community, state or nation. (Or go
 somewhere and form your own country, but stand by to be invaded.) 
 
 CM> I was not yet born when these
 CM> things/acts/programs etc. were enacted I am only 43 . So I never
 CM> had a choice in a matter of voting for them .
 Would it have made any difference if you had voted against them?
 CM> NOTE: enacted they
 CM> were not voted on by the people, the people never had a choice
 CM> in the matter (and the federal reserve is a PRIVATE banking -
 CM> institute) it is not public and nor dose it belong to the people
 CM> but maybe you did not know this FACT...
 The _people_ did (and still do) have a voice because those things were put
 into place by the majority of the people's elected representatives. It
 would be virtually impossible to have a true "one person-one vote"
 democracy. There has literally _never_ been one of those in all of recorded
 history. _Someone_ (even if age is the factor) will be disenfranchised.
 Should we allow new-born babies to vote?
 CM> I was not asked to
 CM> vote for a seatbelt law in my state . NEVER!
 
 BUT... You DID have a chance to vote for (or against) the people that DID
 put the law into place, did you not? And you DO have the chance to have the
 law repealed, do you not?
 CM> And all I say is if
 CM> you are truely happy being a slave to these agents of control and
 CM> wish not to see any reform peace be with you!
 You keep implying that I am "happy" being a "slave" or opposed to "reform".
 STOP IT.
 CM> but I have the
 CM> right to complain and ask why of my goverment .
 You are absolutely right. And my taxes protect the right for you to 
omplain.
 We could _all_ (from the President on down) stop paying taxes. Then where
 would we be?
 
 CM> So I say once more
 CM> ... refuse to pay these taxes and see how long you have you "so
 CM> called" freedom :) you only own what they allow , they the
 CM> goverment be it local or federal own you via you taxes .
 I _choose_ to pay _some_ taxes to have the type of government that you 
njoy.
 I _voluntarily_ make that amount as small as possible. I don't pay any
 tobacco tax, liquor tax, sales tax (as long as I buy within my own state). I
 could avoid income tax by not having any declarable income (panhandlers do
 it all the time). I could avoid real estate tax by not buying/owning any
 real estate. BUT... because I feel that I can be more comfortable with an
 income (as opposed to panhandling) I _voluntarily_ submit to the obligation
 to pay taxes. No one is holding a gun to my head saying I MUST work for a
 wage. Just like no one is FORCING me to buy cigarettes so I can pay the
 tobacco tax. (Nice article in today's local paper about taxes, government,
 and the public's perception.)
 CM> And agree
 CM> or dissagree with what the taxes are used for is not the question.
 
 You just _said_ it was up above. "... to complain and ask of my government."
 How the tax money is spent IS _your_ government!! If there was NO government
 to spend the money, there would be NO taxes!! If NO one paid their taxes,
 there would be NO government.
 CM> I say these are bad laws made by a bad goverment, not the
 CM> goverment as written about in Our US Constitution by the people
 CM> and for the people but by a few who control all the others.
 Those "few who control all the others" were _elected_ by the "others" for 
he
 express purpose of being "in control". That's the way a "representative
 republic" works. I am not real happy about the fact that a Republican
 controls the Congress, but one way I can voice my opinion is at the ballot
 box. (BTW, I'm not real happy about the Democrat that controls the White
 House, either. That's why I didn't vote for either the Demos or the
 Repubs.)
 
 BTW, you would love the class I'm in now. We are studying various cases as
 decided by the Supreme Court, which as you may know is in the business of
 deciding "Constitutionality". Perhaps you can persuade a lawyer to take your
 issues of taxes or your issue of seatbelt laws to the Supreme Court. Then we 
 would really know if they were "Constitutional" or not.
 
 CM> Now if
 CM> you are truely happy being a slave,
 "There you go again" - Ronald Reagan
 CM> I will say no more . This is
 CM> my final message in this matter there will be no need for a return
 CM> , I am sorry and  I do apoloigze but I see no farther need to beat
 CM> this horse. 
 
 O.K. by me. BUT... The best way to get to "no response" is to not post an
 opinion. But if you are going to post _extremely_ _radical_ ideas or
 unsubstantiated opinions, you had better be prepared for some "incoming
 flak". Even my professor doesn't allow someone in the class to simply say:
 "I disagree." They had better be prepared to say _why_ they disagree with
 some logical reasoning.
  
 How about we pass a law that prevents the "beating of dead horses"? Would
 that qualify as a "good" law, a "bad" law, or would it even be
 Constitutional?
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------