Saving Ones Citizens From The Tyranny Of.....BOTTLED WATER!!! (NSFW)

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So what?

Would this new town you moved to allow you to compete with it for the provision of services, or not?

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of these two words: "coercive", and "monopoly".

[/ QUOTE ]

So what right back at you.

Because in ACland, if I move into CompanyTown, a privately run town, they won't let me compete for these services either.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how the two entities in this comparison acquired their land holdings is immaterial to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the thing, pvn. This thread wasn't about how gov't acquired its land, it was about a policy only affecting gov't employees spending gov't money.

So, let me ask: If the thread was "ZOMG! Walmart bans its employees from buying bottled water with Walmart funds!", would you be right in there debating whether Walmart has legitimately acquired all its wealth and property (because it hasn't)? Or would you be first in line to say "if you don't like the policy, don't work there"?

This is the essence of yours and Borodog's hypocrisy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your claim is that governments own all the land in their jurisdiction, yes?

If so, fine. Just say that. The difficulty is, of course, that governments do not claim to own all the land in their jurisdiction. They avoid claiming this at all costs, even if that is effectively what they want. Because if they ackbowledged this, nobody would stand for it, and the whole scheme would collapse in short order (at least in the West, where we have a strong tradition of private land ownership).

Governments only exist because the majority of people falsely believe that they should.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread and this particular issue have nothing to do with whether govts own all the land or not.

But nice hijack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This is the crux of the issue. It has everything to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be frothing about the existence of cities just as vehemently if the thread was about city policy dictating green pants for city fireman instead of blue pants? Because that's what this thread is ultimately about -- a city policy affecting only city employees in the use of city funds. If you can't see that, then you are so beyond the realm of reasonable open-minded debate that you have marginalized your own standing on this forum -- and frankly, I agree with you a lot more than I disagree. So that's why the "ZOMG! MONOPOLY! COERCION" inputs in threads like this are hijacks.

*IF* this thread was about a city banning bottled water for citizens, then you'd be right to scream monopoly/coercion and debate the legitimacy of the city's jurisdiction. BUT AGAIN, that wasn't what this thread/story was about, and by making it sound as such, you all have completely distorted the issue at hand. Nobody is being involuntarily coerced because every person affected by this policy has chosen to work for the city, and that doesn't give them the right to spend city funds however they wish. Just like I can't get a job at McDonald's and start using corporate money to stock the shelves with whatever buns I want, and then scream "MONOPOLY! COERCION!" because of that. Can you really not see the difference?

[Borodog]

Ah. I see it now. OP was deceptive: "Mayors around the country want to penalize bottled water because people prefer it over tap in some cases."

Conceded then; I wasn't even having the right argument.

Mea culpa.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% confident that everyone in this thread decrying this would be on the complete opposite side of the argument if it was Private Water Company X policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because Private Water Company X wouldn't have a coerced monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are thousands to choose from. And if ACland really unfolded, then you better believe that there will be private firms that operate amazingly just like a city, with similar services for a fee (or property "tax" if you will).

[/ QUOTE ]

But it wouldn't be a coerced monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just moved to a new town. Nobody coerced me to do so. I chose it. I could have bought my own land in some remote area. I chose not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

Would this new town you moved to allow you to compete with it for the provision of services, or not?

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of these two words: "coercive", and "monopoly".

[/ QUOTE ]

So what right back at you.

Because in ACland, if I move into CompanyTown, a privately run town, they won't let me compete for these services either.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly would they stop you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy. If in CompanyTown (like Pullman town for example), they'd use their company security force to prevent you from competing with the company over it's land. Simple. Do you really think that would not occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you said that you moved there, I assumed you meant that they sold you the land you moved to. Are you saying that you're only renting? (in the hypothetical, of course; we're in "ACland" here).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Just like Pullman employees didn't own the land in Pullman town. My point in this thread was that such CompanyTowsns are sure to pop up in ACland. And company employees will follow company rules. And if they don't like them, they can get another job in another town. Big freaking deal that SF put some policy on its employees regarding spending of public funds. The outcry here is ludicrous. If you guys are hijacking the thread to scream that the city of SF shouldn't even exist, well we already know your thoughts on that issue, and they are really irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You tried to analogize the situation to one in which a LAND-OWNER in AC would be subject to the same problems that we are subject to with governments in a statist society. This was exposed to be a fraudulent comparison, since if you actually owned the land, you wouldn't have that problem. So you amended it to a rental situation, which is entirely different.

That is, unless you assume we are all renting land from the government, something that Boro has pointed out to you is very problematic. Why all the backsliding?

Also, stop complaining about hijacks. You were most certainly the first in this thread to use the phrase "ACland" and "CompanyTown" so you should embrace the hijack or be quiet.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So what?

Would this new town you moved to allow you to compete with it for the provision of services, or not?

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of these two words: "coercive", and "monopoly".

[/ QUOTE ]

So what right back at you.

Because in ACland, if I move into CompanyTown, a privately run town, they won't let me compete for these services either.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how the two entities in this comparison acquired their land holdings is immaterial to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the thing, pvn. This thread wasn't about how gov't acquired its land, it was about a policy only affecting gov't employees spending gov't money.

So, let me ask: If the thread was "ZOMG! Walmart bans its employees from buying bottled water with Walmart funds!", would you be right in there debating whether Walmart has legitimately acquired all its wealth and property (because it hasn't)? Or would you be first in line to say "if you don't like the policy, don't work there"?

This is the essence of yours and Borodog's hypocrisy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your claim is that governments own all the land in their jurisdiction, yes?

If so, fine. Just say that. The difficulty is, of course, that governments do not claim to own all the land in their jurisdiction. They avoid claiming this at all costs, even if that is effectively what they want. Because if they ackbowledged this, nobody would stand for it, and the whole scheme would collapse in short order (at least in the West, where we have a strong tradition of private land ownership).

Governments only exist because the majority of people falsely believe that they should.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread and this particular issue have nothing to do with whether govts own all the land or not.

But nice hijack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This is the crux of the issue. It has everything to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be frothing about the existence of cities just as vehemently if the thread was about city policy dictating green pants for city fireman instead of blue pants? Because that's what this thread is ultimately about -- a city policy affecting only city employees in the use of city funds. If you can't see that, then you are so beyond the realm of reasonable open-minded debate that you have marginalized your own standing on this forum -- and frankly, I agree with you a lot more than I disagree. So that's why the "ZOMG! MONOPOLY! COERCION" inputs in threads like this are hijacks.

*IF* this thread was about a city banning bottled water for citizens, then you'd be right to scream monopoly/coercion and debate the legitimacy of the city's jurisdiction. BUT AGAIN, that wasn't what this thread/story was about, and by making it sound as such, you all have completely distorted the issue at hand. Nobody is being involuntarily coerced because every person affected by this policy has chosen to work for the city, and that doesn't give them the right to spend city funds however they wish. Just like I can't get a job at McDonald's and start using corporate money to stock the shelves with whatever buns I want, and then scream "MONOPOLY! COERCION!" because of that. Can you really not see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand someone started going on about publicly funded re-education campaigns and Stupidity Taxes, right? Presumably some non-ACer. And that is what a lot of these replies are to, not the actual OP, so you are being a bit dishonest.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% confident that everyone in this thread decrying this would be on the complete opposite side of the argument if it was Private Water Company X policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because Private Water Company X wouldn't have a coerced monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are thousands to choose from. And if ACland really unfolded, then you better believe that there will be private firms that operate amazingly just like a city, with similar services for a fee (or property "tax" if you will).

[/ QUOTE ]

But it wouldn't be a coerced monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just moved to a new town. Nobody coerced me to do so. I chose it. I could have bought my own land in some remote area. I chose not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

Would this new town you moved to allow you to compete with it for the provision of services, or not?

Perhaps you should look up the definitions of these two words: "coercive", and "monopoly".

[/ QUOTE ]

So what right back at you.

Because in ACland, if I move into CompanyTown, a privately run town, they won't let me compete for these services either.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly would they stop you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy. If in CompanyTown (like Pullman town for example), they'd use their company security force to prevent you from competing with the company over it's land. Simple. Do you really think that would not occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you said that you moved there, I assumed you meant that they sold you the land you moved to. Are you saying that you're only renting? (in the hypothetical, of course; we're in "ACland" here).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Just like Pullman employees didn't own the land in Pullman town. My point in this thread was that such CompanyTowsns are sure to pop up in ACland. And company employees will follow company rules. And if they don't like them, they can get another job in another town. Big freaking deal that SF put some policy on its employees regarding spending of public funds. The outcry here is ludicrous. If you guys are hijacking the thread to scream that the city of SF shouldn't even exist, well we already know your thoughts on that issue, and they are really irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You tried to analogize the situation to one in which a LAND-OWNER in AC would be subject to the same problems that we are subject to with governments in a statist society. This was exposed to be a fraudulent comparison, since if you actually owned the land, you wouldn't have that problem. So you amended it to a rental situation, which is entirely different.

That is, unless you assume we are all renting land from the government, something that Boro has pointed out to you is very problematic. Why all the backsliding?

Also, stop complaining about hijacks. You were most certainly the first in this thread to use the phrase "ACland" and "CompanyTown" so you should embrace the hijack or be quiet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this issue is irrelevant to govt land ownership since it only affect govt employees using govt funds. It has ZERO impact to those citizens who own/rent/whatever in the city. THAT'S THE HIJACK (not the AC part). Pretending that this issue is about city govts imposing their will on property owners is the hijack -- get it? That's not the issue here.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
You understand someone started going on about publicly funded re-education campaigns and Stupidity Taxes, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be me, but it's the OP who started a debate about non-existant issues. (I mean, isn't it just awful that the government blew up that bridge in Minnesota with all those cars on it? Let's all get upset over that -- GRRRGGHH!)

Also, "re-education campaigns"? When I apply unflattering nicknames to my opinions (e.g. "Stupidity Tax"), it's good-natured self deprecation, which is charming. When you do it, OTOH, it's sophistic slight-of-hand, which is ugly. Get that straight. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]