On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2021 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:51:10 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:27:48 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> >> > BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
> >> > on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
> >> > individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
> >> > they refused to do anything about it.
> >
> >> > Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
> >> > Inalienable Right or something.
> >
> >> Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.
> >
> >Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.
> >
> >It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
> >not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
> >applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
> >inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
> >a victim of force or fraud.
> Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
> an "inalienable right" actually /is/.
> --

People can have differing ideas on what inalienable rights are,
but a right can't be claimed against the physical environment.
I have the right not to be murdered by another person, but I
don't have a claim against a lightning bolt.

A "right to safe drinking water" could be a contractual claim
against the company or polity who promised to supply it to
you, or it could be restated as a limitation on some other agent:
You do not have the liberty to pollute someone else's property,
such as a stream, pond or well he depends on for drinking and/or
you don't have the right to pollute a commons that others depend
on for drinking, fishing, etc.

Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
criminal negligence.

Recommended reading for those interested:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Isaiah Berlin:

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/files/content/docs/BERLIN_TWO_CONCEPTS_OF_LIBERTY_(AS08).PDF

Garret Hardin

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

We have plenty of these folks in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_fire_department

The local VFD where I grew up raised funds by donation, rather
than subscription, plus whatever tax subsidy, grants etc it could
get from various levels of government. The annual "fireman's
picnic" with "firematic competitions" were always an annual social
highlight and fundraiser.

Firematics?

https://www.27east.com/arts/a-history-of-fire-departments-in-high-speed-competition-1374001/

ObScience: the complaints against the Chinese space program
for not picking up after itself in the orbital commons, and letting
equipment too large to completely burn up upon reentry be a
safety hazard when it did de-orbit. Aside from a piece of space junk
landing on someone or something of value, there's a question of
pollution from even a successful reentry.

https://spacenews.com/aerospace-agu-reentry-pollution/

ESA is going to experiment with collecting a piece of spacejunk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearSpace-1

There's an employment opportunity in space, who knows how
far in the future: operating a fleet of spacecraft that collect
obsolete and abandoned artifacts, and, if not recycling or repurposing
the junk yourself, delivering them to those who can. Heck, park the
stuff in a higher orbit and run a shop that sells the salvage onto
those who want to reuse it. Toss it into the sun if its worthless.

Any SF stories with this theme come to mind? There was the
TV movie "Salvage" back in 1979, where the character played
by Andy Griffith builds a recovery vehicle capable of landing on
the moon and bringing back what the astronauts left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079847/

--
Kevin R

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 10:22:00 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
> an "inalienable right" actually /is/.

It is a right that I am unable to surrender or sell to someone, because
it can't be alienated.

John Savard

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 1:17:03 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
> agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
> the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
> then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
> incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
> criminal negligence.

What happened in Flint had nothing to do with the
authorities in Flint.

It was in the Michigan statehouse that the decision was made.

Flint, Michigan ran out of money. That's because they tried to
supply essential amenities to their people, but with a tax base
made up of mostly poor people.

So it went into recievership. And the state government imposed
various measures.

And one of the cost-saving measures that the governor of
Michigan _specifically insisted on_ was that the city stop getting
its water from Detroit, but instead use its own water treatment
facilities. Despite the fact that this was known to be unsafe.

Now, while I am in agreement with the basic principle that the
people of Flint don't have an automatic right to help themselves
to the contents of the pockets of other Michigan taxpayers...

given that Michigan is _not_ located in the impoverished Third
World, there is a question of basic human decency here.

So I would find it entirely reasonable for the law to be such as
to find the governor of Michigan guilty of multiple counts of
aggravated assault, at least one count of murder - and, because
there is reasonable evidence to suggest his decision was
influenced by the fact that most of the residents of Flint are
black - crimes against humanity.

John Savard

On 5/12/2021 4:13 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
>> and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
>> to survive, plus his ride home?
>
> No, because he wasn't some reckless private citizen who flew to
> Mars on his own for thrills. He was a brave hero going to Mars on
> behalf of the U.S. government.
>
> John Savard
>

So we should only rescue people when their
plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?

Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
that, but still in the real world people are people.

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 1:17:03 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
>> agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
>> the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
>> then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
>> incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
>> criminal negligence.
>
>What happened in Flint had nothing to do with the
>authorities in Flint.
>
>It was in the Michigan statehouse that the decision was made.
>
>Flint, Michigan ran out of money. That's because they tried to
>supply essential amenities to their people, but with a tax base
>made up of mostly poor people.
>
>So it went into recievership. And the state government imposed
>various measures.
>
>And one of the cost-saving measures that the governor of
>Michigan _specifically insisted on_ was that the city stop getting
>its water from Detroit, but instead use its own water treatment
>facilities. Despite the fact that this was known to be unsafe.
>
>Now, while I am in agreement with the basic principle that the
>people of Flint don't have an automatic right to help themselves
>to the contents of the pockets of other Michigan taxpayers...

Don't see why not.

/Lots/ of States have less-wealthy counties being supported by the
better off counties.

And, yes, since this is usually a city/farming split, it is also often
a Democrat/Republican split as well. But not always.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 10:22:00 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
>> an "inalienable right" actually /is/.
>
>It is a right that I am unable to surrender or sell to someone, because
>it can't be alienated.

That is, at best, an explanation of "in" and, at worst, circular.

Kindly try again.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 14 May 2021 12:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2021 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:51:10 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:27:48 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >
>> >> > BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
>> >> > on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
>> >> > individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
>> >> > they refused to do anything about it.
>> >
>> >> > Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
>> >> > Inalienable Right or something.
>> >
>> >> Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.
>> >
>> >Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.
>> >
>> >It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
>> >not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
>> >applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
>> >inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
>> >a victim of force or fraud.
>> Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
>> an "inalienable right" actually /is/.
>> --
>
>People can have differing ideas on what inalienable rights are,
>but a right can't be claimed against the physical environment.
>I have the right not to be murdered by another person, but I
>don't have a claim against a lightning bolt.

I don't doubt that people have differing ideas on what inalienable
rights /are/, but I am asking what an inalienable right /is/.

This refers to something I said above, but it isn't quite on-point
here. Still, it /is/ connected.

>The local VFD where I grew up raised funds by donation, rather
>than subscription, plus whatever tax subsidy, grants etc it could
>get from various levels of government. The annual "fireman's
>picnic" with "firematic competitions" were always an annual social
>highlight and fundraiser.

The movie /The Firemen's Ball/ shows something similar.

Hopefully, the picnics were less ... disasterous.

And didn't almost get the director thrown into prison.

And then we wander /completely/ off the ranch ... space junk is indeed
a problem, but so are a lot of other things.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 12:27:05 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 1:17:03 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
> >
> >> Even by Quaddie's "no force nor fraud" standard - one I am usually in
> >> agreement with - the authorities in Flint can be accused of defrauding
> >> the taxpayers and any of their tenants by promising clean water,
> >> then delivering a tainted product. If that were the result of mere
> >> incompetence rather an intent to defraud, it still could have been
> >> criminal negligence.
> >
> >What happened in Flint had nothing to do with the
> >authorities in Flint.
> >
> >It was in the Michigan statehouse that the decision was made.
> >
> >Flint, Michigan ran out of money. That's because they tried to
> >supply essential amenities to their people, but with a tax base
> >made up of mostly poor people.
> >
> >So it went into recievership. And the state government imposed
> >various measures.
> >
> >And one of the cost-saving measures that the governor of
> >Michigan _specifically insisted on_ was that the city stop getting
> >its water from Detroit, but instead use its own water treatment
> >facilities. Despite the fact that this was known to be unsafe.
> >
> >Now, while I am in agreement with the basic principle that the
> >people of Flint don't have an automatic right to help themselves
> >to the contents of the pockets of other Michigan taxpayers...
> Don't see why not.
>
> /Lots/ of States have less-wealthy counties being supported by the
> better off counties.
>

See info about Detroit, below:

> And, yes, since this is usually a city/farming split, it is also often
> a Democrat/Republican split as well. But not always.
> --

MI would have had to mulct the suburbs, as the cities were broke.

The people wielding authority, legitimately or not, for Flint had
the new water source arranged, and were only going to use the
Flint River supply as an interim source. They could have stayed
with the safer Detroit water, but the contract for interim service
would have been more costly then when they were a "regular
customer." Detroit, which had its own financial problems...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy

....was also under a state emergency manager for the last
10 months of 2013 and all of 2014.

[quote]

In April 2013, state, Flint and Detroit officials held an unsuccessful last-
chance meeting to try to avert Flint's disconnection from Michigan's
largest water system. Detroit's Water and Sewerage Department already
had sent Flint a notice of termination indicating the flow of water would
stop in one year after Flint officials agreed to join a new regional authority
based in Genesee County.

Both cities were run by (Gov) Snyder-appointed emergency managers.

[/quote] - Craig Mauger | The Detroit News | 12 May, 2021

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/12/snyders-lawyers-want-ags-office-sanctioned-over-bankruptcy-records/5060288001/

If state environmental regulars had demanded Flint's treatment
plant be used, it would have required expensive upgrades. All
local pockets were bare. The state had cut its revenue sharing
with municipalities.

I don't think that the skin color of Flint's residents factored in
the decisions of Snyder and his appointees, except for the fact
that they overwhelmingly voted for his Democratic opponents.

Across the river from where I live the water company is owned by a private,
regulated utility company. In our county, H20 was originally provided
by a private water company, but that was purchased by a Regional
Water Authority set up by the state that runs everything as a "quasi-
governmental" company. Our suburban area still has some folks who
use wells exclusively, or in conjunction with "city water." There doesn't
seem to be much difference between a for-profit, regulated private
utility and a state-run one in this case. I did live through Milwaukee's
Cryptosporidiosis outbreak. in 1993. Drinking tea helps, since
you are going to boil the water anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Milwaukee_Cryptosporidiosis_outbreak

The city ran its own water works.

--
Kevin R

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 5:19:00 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:

[snip]

> If state environmental regulars .....

Make that "regulators," please.

--
Kevin R

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:

> So we should only rescue people when their
> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>
> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
> that, but still in the real world people are people.

Oh, no. We should always rescue people.

But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
for permits or insurance or whatever.

John Savard

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 10:27:05 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >Now, while I am in agreement with the basic principle that the
> >people of Flint don't have an automatic right to help themselves
> >to the contents of the pockets of other Michigan taxpayers...

> Don't see why not.
>
> /Lots/ of States have less-wealthy counties being supported by the
> better off counties.
>
> And, yes, since this is usually a city/farming split, it is also often
> a Democrat/Republican split as well. But not always.

Basically, transfers of money legitimately should be made by free
will. Someone wants to buy something and pays for it.

Nothing else. Like no taxes ever.

That _seems_ in accordance with the basic rules of morality. Only what is
yours is yours.

In practice, that doesn't fly. Libertarian countries would get gobbled up by
the immense well-funded war machines of non-Libertarian countries. Better
imperfect freedom than none at all.

Rich cities support less rich farmers, because it's always been done that
way, and farmers make something useful, food. But poor black people are
not producing something essential, and worse, they don't vote Republican.

But just because there is no "right" to handouts doesn't mean the lack of them
can't be considered an extreme lack of human decency.

John Savard

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 10:28:01 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 10:22:00 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> >> Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
> >> an "inalienable right" actually /is/.

> >It is a right that I am unable to surrender or sell to someone, because
> >it can't be alienated.

> That is, at best, an explanation of "in" and, at worst, circular.
>
> Kindly try again.

"Alienate" is sometimes used as a legal term for the transfer of title.

Perhaps that will help.

Of course, that depends on what you meant by your question. I am attempting
to define the term "inalienable right", because the definition is the answer to the
question "what an 'inalienable right' actually is".

But perhaps you were expecting the answer to a _different_ question. Perhaps
you wanted the answer to this question: "What inalienable rights to people
have".

There is no agreed-upon answer to _that_ question. There is no universal
agreement on what is right, and what is wrong. There are those who believe
that there is no such thing as a natural right, only legal rights granted by
governments.

John Savard

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> I don't think that the skin color of Flint's residents factored in
> the decisions of Snyder and his appointees, except for the fact
> that they overwhelmingly voted for his Democratic opponents.

Should one really have to prove intent for the crime of genocide?

John Savard

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 10:28:01 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2021 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 10:22:00 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> >> Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
>> >> an "inalienable right" actually /is/.
>
>> >It is a right that I am unable to surrender or sell to someone, because
>> >it can't be alienated.
>
>> That is, at best, an explanation of "in" and, at worst, circular.
>>
>> Kindly try again.
>
>"Alienate" is sometimes used as a legal term for the transfer of title.

That is, I suspect, more relevant than you know.

But it goes back into feudalism.

>Perhaps that will help.

So, then, an /inalienable/ right would be a right which ...

>Of course, that depends on what you meant by your question. I am attempting
>to define the term "inalienable right", because the definition is the answer to the
>question "what an 'inalienable right' actually is".

And yet ... not succeeding.

<snip speculation on alternate goals>
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> So we should only rescue people when their
>> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>
>> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>
>Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>
>But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>for permits or insurance or whatever.

That's what taxes are for.

To pay for those items considered essential to society.

The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt to
define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying that it
/is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.

This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
special-purpose districts), which is financed by property taxes paid
by the owners of the property being protected. This is distinguishable
for "permits or insurance or whatever" only in that payment is
required.

So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact, user fees
paid by everyone for the services rendered.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
> >
> >> So we should only rescue people when their
> >> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
> >> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
> >>
> >> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
> >> that, but still in the real world people are people.
> >
> >Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
> >
> >But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
> >for permits or insurance or whatever.
> That's what taxes are for.
>
> To pay for those items considered essential to society.
>
> The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt to
> define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying that it
> /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
>
> This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
> special-purpose districts), which is financed by property taxes paid
> by the owners of the property being protected. This is distinguishable
> for "permits or insurance or whatever" only in that payment is
> required.
>
> So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact, user fees
> paid by everyone for the services rendered.
> --

Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a service, or
how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as the name implies,
who use or are likely to use a service.

Factory A takes professional advice about how to make their plant
less of a fire hazard than its neighbor, Factory B. B winds up paying
higher fire insurance rates. If the businesses are of similar value in
the metric used for setting fire district taxes (income or property
valuation, or whatever) ought they pay the same fire protection tax,
or should the safer business be rewarded for making an effort by
paying less tax?

I'd go further, and ask why fire protection wasn't funded by
your insurer, and the user fee included in your premium.
Then we could discuss whether an owner of a residence or
of a firm should be able to "self-insure" or be required to
carry insurance, as many states require insurance for vehicles.
One could go on and on, but I'll stop.

--
Kevin R

On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>> >
>> >> So we should only rescue people when their
>> >> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>> >> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>> >>
>> >> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>> >> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>> >
>> >Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>> >
>> >But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>> >for permits or insurance or whatever.
>> That's what taxes are for.
>>
>> To pay for those items considered essential to society.
>>
>> The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt to
>> define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying that it
>> /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
>>
>> This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
>> special-purpose districts), which is financed by property taxes paid
>> by the owners of the property being protected. This is distinguishable
>> for "permits or insurance or whatever" only in that payment is
>> required.
>>
>> So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact, user fees
>> paid by everyone for the services rendered.
>> --
>
>Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a service, or
>how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as the name implies,
>who use or are likely to use a service.

Nice attempt to evade reality.

And to maintain a distinction without a difference.

A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:d585ag1qhqu2ulbusrc3jf6ii442lvoij6@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> So we should only rescue people when their
>>> >> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>>> >> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>> >>
>>> >> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>>> >> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>>> >
>>> >Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>>> >
>>> >But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>>> >for permits or insurance or whatever.
>>> That's what taxes are for.
>>>
>>> To pay for those items considered essential to society.
>>>
>>> The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt
>>> to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying
>>> that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
>>>
>>> This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
>>> special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
>>> taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected. This
>>> is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or whatever" only
>>> in that payment is required.
>>>
>>> So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
>>> user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
>>> --
>>
>>Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
>>service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
>>the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.
>
> Nice attempt to evade reality.
>
> And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
>
> A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.

There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits from
even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee to
climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity, and
which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a mountain,
you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax whether your house
catches fire or not.

But you are, of course, too stupid to grasp such a subtle,
complicated concept.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:d585ag1qhqu2ulbusrc3jf6ii442lvoij6@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> So we should only rescue people when their
>>>> >> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>>>> >> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>>>> >> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>>>> >
>>>> >Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>>>> >
>>>> >But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>>>> >for permits or insurance or whatever.
>>>> That's what taxes are for.
>>>>
>>>> To pay for those items considered essential to society.
>>>>
>>>> The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an attempt
>>>> to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base -- while denying
>>>> that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is the mantra.
>>>>
>>>> This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
>>>> special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
>>>> taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected. This
>>>> is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or whatever" only
>>>> in that payment is required.
>>>>
>>>> So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
>>>> user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
>>>> --
>>>
>>>Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
>>>service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
>>>the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.
>>
>> Nice attempt to evade reality.
>>
>> And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
>>
>> A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.
>
>There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
>department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits from
>even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee to
>climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity, and
>which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a mountain,
>you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax whether your house
>catches fire or not.

If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
right to charge for the right to climb it.

But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
means that we /all/ own it.

Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will inevitably
result in the most radical "greens" taking it over and running to
their satisfaction, since "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
There have already been efforts along that line regarding
historically-significant cabins established, IIRC, for firespotters.

National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
/everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by /everyone/.

This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana Republic.
Or the Unified States of Bernie.

<snippo bot-like nonsense>
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:l7r7ag1olhpva5ihtrvme4eeun829mtgvd@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:d585ag1qhqu2ulbusrc3jf6ii442lvoij6@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> So we should only rescue people when their
>>>>> >> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>>>>> >> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>>>>> >> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>>>>> >for permits or insurance or whatever.
>>>>> That's what taxes are for.
>>>>>
>>>>> To pay for those items considered essential to society.
>>>>>
>>>>> The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an
>>>>> attempt to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base --
>>>>> while denying that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is
>>>>> the mantra.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
>>>>> special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
>>>>> taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected.
>>>>> This is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or
>>>>> whatever" only in that payment is required.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
>>>>> user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
>>>>service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
>>>>the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.
>>>
>>> Nice attempt to evade reality.
>>>
>>> And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
>>>
>>> A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.
>>
>>There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
>>department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits
>>from even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee
>>to climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity,
>>and which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a
>>mountain, you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax
>>whether your house catches fire or not.
>
> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
> has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
>
> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
> owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National
> Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.
>
> Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will
> inevitably result in the most radical "greens" taking it over
> and running to their satisfaction, since "he who pays the piper
> calls the tune". There have already been efforts along that line
> regarding historically-significant cabins established, IIRC, for
> firespotters.
>
> National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
> /everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by
> /everyone/.
>
> This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana
> Republic. Or the Unified States of Bernie.
>
> <snippo bot-like nonsense>

Not a single word of that drivel is in any way relevant to the
difference between a usage fee and a tax.

As expected.

Idiot.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
> right to charge for the right to climb it.

> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
> such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
> means that we /all/ own it.

You're changing the topic.

We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
to pay rent for the mountain.

It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
thing.

John Savard

On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
> > right to charge for the right to climb it.
>
> > But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
> > such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
> > means that we /all/ own it.
> You're changing the topic.
>
> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
> to pay rent for the mountain.
>
> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
> thing.

I think the government owning a National Park is
different from it being owned by "all the people",
and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.
Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:51:15 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:l7r7ag1olhpva5ihtrvme4eeun829mtgvd@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 17 May 2021 10:09:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:d585ag1qhqu2ulbusrc3jf6ii442lvoij6@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>>> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-6, Jonathan
>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> So we should only rescue people when their
>>>>>> >> plane crash-landed, but not when some thrill-seeker
>>>>>> >> ends up hanging from a cliff by a thread?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Deep-down I could get some dark satisfaction from
>>>>>> >> that, but still in the real world people are people.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Oh, no. We should always rescue people.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >But it is legitimate to require thrill-seekers to pay
>>>>>> >for permits or insurance or whatever.
>>>>>> That's what taxes are for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To pay for those items considered essential to society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The attempt to use permits ("user fees") is simply an
>>>>>> attempt to define a tax with a /very/ narrow tax base --
>>>>>> while denying that it /is/ a tax because "no new taxes" is
>>>>>> the mantra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should be /very/ clear with a Fire District (and other
>>>>>> special-purpose districts), which is financed by property
>>>>>> taxes paid by the owners of the property being protected.
>>>>>> This is distinguishable for "permits or insurance or
>>>>>> whatever" only in that payment is required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, another way to look at taxes is that they are, in fact,
>>>>>> user fees paid by everyone for the services rendered.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxes tend to be set by standards unrelated to who uses a
>>>>>service, or how much. "User fees" can collect from those, as
>>>>>the name implies, who use or are likely to use a service.
>>>>
>>>> Nice attempt to evade reality.
>>>>
>>>> And to maintain a distinction without a difference.
>>>>
>>>> A tax is a tax no matter what it is called.
>>>
>>>There is a qualitative difference between the services of a fire
>>>department, which everybody needs and which everybody benefits
>>>from even when someone else's house burns down, and a permit fee
>>>to climb a mountain, which is purely a recreational activity,
>>>and which is paid only by participants. If you don't climb a
>>>mountain, you don't pay the fee, but you pay property tax
>>>whether your house catches fire or not.
>>
>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly
>> has the right to charge for the right to climb it.
>>
>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly
>> owned/, such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National
>> Park"? It means that we /all/ own it.
>>
>> Restricting those who pay for it to those who use will
>> inevitably result in the most radical "greens" taking it over
>> and running to their satisfaction, since "he who pays the piper
>> calls the tune". There have already been efforts along that line
>> regarding historically-significant cabins established, IIRC, for
>> firespotters.
>>
>> National Parks, Monuments, and Forests, being the property of
>> /everyone/, need to be run by /everyone/ and paid for by
>> /everyone/.
>>
>> This is what it means to be a Nation. As opposed to a Banana
>> Republic. Or the Unified States of Bernie.
>>
>> <snippo bot-like nonsense>
>
>Not a single word of that drivel is in any way relevant to the
>difference between a usage fee and a tax.

That is because there is /no/ difference between a "usage fee"
(whatever that is; the term I am familiar with is "user fee") and a
tax.

Can't be relevant to something that doesn't exist.

>As expected.

Well, of course: it is not possible to be relevant to a difference
that does not exist.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 06:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
>> right to charge for the right to climb it.
>
>> But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
>> such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
>> means that we /all/ own it.
>
>You're changing the topic.
>
>We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
>to pay rent for the mountain.
>
>It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
>of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
>thing.

Actually, the gummint /licenses/ doctors (and nurses and pilots an
EMTs and ...), which means that it /does/ own them -- in the sense
that "if you can destroy a thing, you control a thing". In this case,
the right to practice medicine.

And the rescue service is simply part-and-parcel of property
management. As any company whose owners ended up in prison because
they didn't keep the fire doors clear has learned to its cost.

I suspect amusement parks also have a fairly well-developed
organization for rescuing people from malfunctioning rides. And
including the cost in the price of admission, which they can charge
because it is privately owned.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 14:15:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:41:34 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> > If the mountain is /privately owned/, then the owner certainly has the
>> > right to charge for the right to climb it.
>>
>> > But "user fees" are collected for mountains that are /publicly owned/,
>> > such as Mt Rainier National Park. Notice that "National Park"? It
>> > means that we /all/ own it.
>> You're changing the topic.
>>
>> We're not talking about charging a permit fee for mountain climbing
>> to pay rent for the mountain.
>>
>> It instead involves something else that one does *not* own. The services
>> of search and rescue personnel, and of doctors and nurses. That sort of
>> thing.
>
>I think the government owning a National Park is
>different from it being owned by "all the people",
>and I'm hazy on whether either statement is true.

You are hazy on who owns Mt Rainier? or Mt Rushmore? or any National
Forest? You think, perhaps, that they are owned by Space Aliens and
merely leased to the US Gummint?

>Regardless, a simplistic description of a National
>Park is that it is /not/ used, but is kept to be admired
>from a decent distance. Charging a fee means that
>use is allowed, but not willy-nilly.

You mean, of course, only by those with enough money to pay the fee.

Hoi polloi need not apply.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."