Effort or Luck?

dear mr big-government;

It would appear that the customers complained, which caused Verizon to investigate and determine that they had indeed overcharged a large number of subscribers. The government then found a cause to investigate further on grounds that it might be able to profit from Verizons mistake, and perhaps even come up with some new rules, or regulations as well.

If only government would put the same effort in catching illegal aliens, but then there is not much profit in doing that.

Sincerely,

Mr. Small Limited and Efficient Government

 

^ verizon's the bigger problem . . .

illegal aliens? bienvenido!

an even bigger problem - scapegoating of the poor, of minorities

 

You sound just like a N.Y. mob lawyer. "you honor, just because my client pointed the gun and pulled the trigger doesn't mean he fired the fatal shot, which came from a shadowy figure on the grassy knoll."
"And here to testify to that is our eye witness, Fast Eddie, the defendant's brother."

.

 

You're just writing nonsense, but you can always avoid Verizon, it's your choice, and use a competitor.

If they're rich and conservative, yes, welcome.

It's difficult to place blame on anyone for availing themselves of advantages, so any blame is directed at politicians who continually tax and spend making us less competitive in the world market, bankrupting the country, and buying votes to stay in power.

 

Has Verizon murdered someone? Some of us prefer to learn the facts before making a determination of guilt or innocence. Have you ever seen the movie "The Ox-Bow Incident"? It seems the Left tends to acquire more education from TV and movies than from real life experiences, so rent it it you haven't seen it.

 

what i want is a government-run utility, without the profit motive, responsible to the citizenry, fair to all

i can't get that though, can i?

 

And you wonder why jobs are moving abroad?

Wouldn't it be much more to the point to say you want something for nothing, or at least no cost to you? Why should you have to pay when you see others earn enough money to support you also, right?

By the way, did you attend the union sponsored so called "One Nation" rally this past weekend with all the Socialists, Communists, and Marxists? I guess it also included democrats, progressives, and liberals. Sort of like "A rose by any name is still a rose." but the political terms as envisioned are quite malodorous.

 

You complain that the left gets more education from TV and movies, then suggest a movie; now that's funny........

My experience comes from life itself. I am at odds with AT&T for over 3 years about bogus charges, I've had a pre-paid cell phone with Verizon for 3 years that has built up a substantial amount of reserve funds. About every 6 months they try some hair brained scheme to cancel my account and take the money from it, about $80.00. I'm one of those people who actually reads bills and complains when over charged.

For those of you who know what the "Peter Principal of Government Bureaucracy" is, I have my own "Dick Principal of Corporate Bureaucracy" which states: Each person in business is promoted to his/her own level of conscience. Dishonesty increases as one climbs the corporate ladder until one realizes he/she has become a dick, which often results in the whistle blower effect. This is how we know about the schemes and scams within corporations, my favorite being Wendell Potter, who blew the whistle on the health care corporations.

Corporations control the money, and your own sig line states: "Give me control of a Nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

.

 

as far as i know, there has never been a government-run public utility that has not charged money for its services

and even if they were fully tax-supported, what is wrong with tax money going towards services that benefit everyone?

they did not have this rally near where i live, and as there is very little in america in the way of public transportation, i am unable to travel much

 

actually, the peter principle does not apply merely to governments, but to any hierarchies, even corporate . . .

 

I thought it to be the most appropriate suggestion.

And so you should. I worked for AT&T and BTL and we had to deal with quite a bit of government regulation and profit limits. The Labs was a great place to work if you wanted to develop ideas, and the pay was adequate.

The Peter Principle appears to work in both Corporate bureaucracy as well as Government bureaucracy. Dishonesty appears to increase most when the possibility of punishment if/when caught is NIL. How easy is it to skim millions when you deal with trillions? And the methods of accomplishing undetected corrupt transfers of money abound in government where it is impossible to account for everything to the penny. Corrupt practices in corporations are often exposed, while in government even when exposed they are most always ignored.

Rothschild was a banker, and corporations have no control of the money supply, that's handled by the Fed and last I heard Ben Bernanke.

 

what happens when taxes no longer cover basic services

 

Sometimes you get exactly what you pay for. I notice that they did have insurance which paid off their mortgage, and offers of assistance from individual citizens. I wonder if the firefighters were unionized, or democrats? There may be a reason for the event we are unaware of.

 

The sole reason was the county offered fire coverage if you paid the $75 fee, this is why some things can't be voluntary because I guarantee probably 1/2 the damn county didn't sign up for it thinking it'd never be their house that burned down.

 

It's their choice, so why should you worry about it? Choices are what defines our freedoms. The only choices we should not be permitted by law are those that involve inflicting harm to others, physical, financial, reputation or in some cases mental and the same when self inflicted should not be made a burden on others in any way, with the exception of those who might be mentally handicapped.

 

Social services shouldn't be choices.

 

But they are. Most of life and our living experiences are a result of choices, and the more choices we allow another or others to make for us the less free we become. We must also recognize as fact that the choices we make have effect not only on our own lives but often that of others as well. For any service, social or otherwise to exist requires payment to provide it, and finding those willing to provide it, therefore choices exist, and it boils down to a final question of who is allowed to make that choice.
In a modern society we should be striving for a government which provides the necessary protection from harm by others, allows the existence of a laissez faire market system, and allows people within their communities to decide the course of the collective lives. In a nation, which encompasses a large territory, it is the resources available locally that have the greatest effect on the prosperity of the inhabitants. To lead by example is much more easy than to mandate how each must live. The creation of desirable products promote others to compete, and without government intervention most often it is the consumer who gets to make the decision of which competitor succeeds or fails. Being able to freely compete reduces the possibility of monopoly, although laws might be necessary to ensure against. Some may get richer than others, but in the end it is the consumer who makes the decisions that allow it to happen.
The less authority government has, the less control becomes available to big money across the nation. Essentially, democracy and socialism can co-exist on a community basis where it is a choice of the people most directly affected by by they as individuals chose to do. When power is concentrated in a centralized government it's much easier for those with money to exert their influence as they have but one source they need to interact with.
In addition, by concentrating debt accumulation locally the people who are responsible for its repayment become much more aware of it and take greater interest in controlling it and those they elect that create it.

 

Individual
Sorry but you have already admitted that you think the system is unfair, what I’m saying is you don’t seem to have any argument against it being made fairer.

Please read what been said – you admit it is unfair but your only argument that it shouldn’t be changed that you have given is that ‘life is unfair’.
*

But it would always seem to vastly increase the wealth (and therefore power and influence) of the rich and would most likely end up squeezing the rest especially the middle classes. It is not about distributing advantage but about the further concentration of advantage.
*
And the wealth qualification you’ve suggested on voting rights so that wealth would have more political power than others seems aimed at the same thing

So you give wealth hundreds or thousands of votes over others or you give it a vast increase in wealth that will have the result of increasing it’s influence.
Truly a heads they win tails you loose kind of system.
*
So although you deny it all your ideas do seem aimed at increasing the power and influence of wealth, can you explain why you think it wouldn’t?

And you will achieve this by giving wealth hundreds or thousands of more votes than other groups and/or giving them a vast increase in wealth through tax cuts that would result in an increase in its power and influence.

 

Individual

A baby cannot make informed choices for example it cannot choose who it is going to be born to.
And the thing is that occurrence can have the greatest influence on the range and depth of the choices a person can take later on.
*

As pointed out before protection is a vague term that is open to interpretation.
Protection from harm, what about protection from the harm of exploitation, protection from the harm of hardship, protection from the harm of sickness

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

Are you saying that this also is just a matter of life being unfair that some deserve protection and others do not?

*

You still haven’t addressed the problems highlighted at

Free Market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

*

But you have argued against democracy and would like a system where the few would have more votes to counter those of the many.

*

…..It was at this point in the post that I realised that virtually all the things you are saying have outstanding criticisms levelled against them that you haven’t addressed - and that if you don’t address them then the ideas remain flawed and it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the views they will always remain flawed.

But then it occurred to me that you have had plenty of opportunity to address the criticisms and that leads me to believe you don’t have answers otherwise you would have given them by now.

The thing is at this point any rational mind (opposed to a biased and prejudicial one) would be asking itself why it didn’t have any rational answers and begin to wonder if these ideas were a solid as once believed to be.

What a rational mind wouldn’t do was just repeat the same ideas over and over like some unquestioning automaton.

 

roflmao

have ya read anything about the 19th century - since it ended?