On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, "Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?

Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?

OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.

--

FF

The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

--

FF