Gordon, who pays for schools, hospitals, research, roads, ...?
Private individuals always pay. Taxes don't provide better schools. Quite the contrary. Taxes provide much worse schools. Everyone involved in public education who doesn't admit as much is lying, and can be proven a liar.
The Veterans Administration provides hopsitals with tax dollars. I know a great many veterans who are desperately afraid of ever having to be treated at such a hospital. In Houston, the amputee ward at the VA hospital is the source of a large number of complaints that veterans have been unwilling subjects of experimentation, and are multiple amputees for no good clinical reason. The county hospital is no better - my neighbor lost his foot to bad medical treatment at the county hospital.
Private money pays for research. What are you? Some kind of socialist-scientist who thinks that public funding is required for scientific research? Neptune and Uranus were discovered with private funding.
I've been involved in road building for quite a few years. Roads all over Texas are built with private funds. Most of the residential roads in Texas were built privately and turned over to city or county government after a year. There is no evidence that tax-funded roads are better, or even marginally workable.
But, of course, Sealand doesn't need all these.
To my knowledge, there is no rule against private schools, private hospitals, or private research undertaken in the territory of the Principality of Sealand. There isn't much need for a road thus far, but Sealand isn't as big as it could one day become.
But, if Havenco has higher fees than, say, Panama's data-centers, you pay their taxes anyway.
Huh? How does a customer of Havenco pay Panamanian taxes?
Why should it be assumed that I'm paying taxes if I buy a product or service from a taxpayer?
first country that gave women the right to vote... and that says something about freedom (of speech).
No, it doesn't. It says something about voting. I'm not convinced that voting is worthwhile.
It is a proven bad way to make choices. Scientists, for example, don't use voting to establish scientific theories. Mathematicians don't care if you vote for pi to be equal to three. It isn't, and if a majority says it is, too bad.
Voting is proven ineffective. The votes are rarely counted. Or, as Stalin noted, those who vote are not as important as those who count the votes. There are so many instances of vote fraud and abuse that you might as well do your own Google search.
Even if voting were effective at making choices and even if the votes were counted, voting is immoral. Voting is delegation of initiatory force. So, "giving" women the vote is no gift at all.
In contrast, money is a completely different system for taking choices. It has proven to be much more reliable, especially in a free market context.
The fact that I vote for Quaker oatmeal and win does not in any way prevent you from voting for Kellogg's Corn Flakes and winning at exactly the same time. Indeed, as long as enough people buy Quaker oatmeal, it will continue to be sold, whether those people are a majority or not. There is neither rhyme nor reason to vote Quaker out of business just because they are selling a product that only a minority wants.
Yet, politicians and bureau-rats by adopting legislation and regulations, and commanding tax dollars to enforce these made-up rules, make oatmeal much more expensive. It is a wonder that all these jerks aren't lined up against walls in various places and put out of our misery.
Regards,
Jim http://www.ezez.com/
--- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
