How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Apr 2010 13:47 In news:ba17dabb-f2f0-49ed-9011-3ba1a4d3c2d9(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 9:35 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> <sigh> > > http://crookedamerica.com Either you're stalking me, OR............... LOL!
From: knews4u2chew on 11 May 2010 14:54 On Mar 19, 9:00 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Here is what I did. > I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. > "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to privacy." > 2 Human souls @ this abode. > > Then I copied the Ten Questions here: > > http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... > > I typed at the top: > > "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at this abode when > you give me the answers to these questions." > > 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people but it does > not authorize the taking of private information or even the names of > individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive authority to > demand our private information? > > 2. Is there any limit to the amount and type of private information > that the Census bureau may demand and collect? > > 3. Under what Constitutional authority does the Census Bureau collect > information now from 250,000 people per month of every year? > > 4. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits government search > and seizure of private information without a court warrant based on > probable cause, Current Census policies violate that Amendment do they > not? > > 5. By what Constitutional authority does the Census Bureau threaten > penalties for failure to provide personal information? > > 6. The Census Bureau claims it maintains privacy of personal > information, Are there any circumstances under which law enforcement > or spy agencies can access Census information? > > 7. Since presumably Census data may be subpoenaed by law enforcement, > may individuals refuse to answer questions according to the fifth > Amendment? > > 8. Why has the Census Bureau decided to collect GPS coordinates for > every home? > > 9. Virtually every government database has been either lost, hacked or > compromised, would the Census Bureaus claim of data security not be > an outright lie or at best highly improbable? > > 10. How would the Census Bureau locate, protect and compensate those > individuals whose data becomes compromised? > > Then put the blank form and the other two pieces in the mail. > Cya............ They won't answer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsDhkPym01k&NR=1&feature=fvwp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFvS5m4_OtA&feature=related So do a Betty or Christopher... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/05/betty_whites_census_snl_sketch_1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtuPvwBa2U
From: Jackney Sneeb on 24 May 2010 06:21 On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >Right, because I'm not a socialist. > > > So you don't drive on the government run road system then? > > We pay for roads when we buy gasoline. > > Not nearly the full cost. Roads are heavily subsidized with general > tax revenues. There's no reason that the cost of roads cannot be completely funded by the customers who buy gasoline, automobiles, and insurance. The bad logic in operation here is the assumption that because general revenues partially fund roads, roads cannot exist without them. That's like saying "because the Mafia provides some labor and concrete for highway construction, roads cannot exist without the Mafia." > > That would happen with or without "government." > No it would not. Government is what has the roads built and > maintained. Again, bad logic. People build roads. Even the state hires private contractors to build and maintain roads. Roads existed before "government." Roads are to humans as beaver dams are to beavers. Who builds beaver dams - beaver "governments"? I have a suggestion for you: if you think socialism is so wonderful, quit using things provided by the free market. Give up your bad capitalist habit of going to the grocery store for food; stop patronizing privately owned gas stations; stop using free enterprise internet service providers; refuse to pay a private garbage collection service; don't patronize any business that hires private cops; don't drive a car (exception: "government"-built cars like the Yugo are okay) . . . What's the matter, not feeling all that socialist right now? --Jackney Sneeb
From: Jackney Sneeb on 24 May 2010 06:45 On Apr 19, 5:38 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:f4d86c5d-33d9-48bc-b571-c07d6802e182(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, > > Jackney Sneeb <jackneysn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > We pay for roads when we buy gasoline. That would happen with or > > without "government." And there are people who use roads who > > don't buy gasoline, yet they are not prohibited from doing so. > > Yes, the government collects taxes when you buy gasoline, and then > contracts to build roads. Your point? Review the post I was responding to, by "hal" - Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:38:10 GMT Local: Sat, Mar 20 2010 7:38 am Subject: Re: How to Answer the Census. > > a) the fire departments are both tax-funded, and volunteer. > > There's no reason they couldn't all be volunteer, > > Of course there is. That's why growing communities shift from all > volunteer to paid. Larger communities simply cannot get enough > volunteers. Fine - there are other ways to pay for fire departments besides taxes. The fact that you identified a demand for a paid fire department implies that people are willing to pay for one without being extorted. > >or even be > > finance by insurance companies. This brings us to b) if your > > house is burning down, you're going to want to call the > > insurance company anyway. If the fire department doesn't put > > the fire out in time you will need a whole new house. I would > > rather have a new house than a half burnt/ half new one. > > Ridiculousness noted. That's the equivalent of name-calling. I only re-post it to show the bad logic state-worshippers resort to when their arguments have no weight. Are you implying that if your house burns down you WON'T call the insurance company?? > > The police have no obligation to protect you from burglars (or > > anyone else); the courts have ruled that way so you can't sue > > them for non- protection. Also, 911 is not the "Bad Guy > > Disable" code; if you're being burglarized, a gun is a far more > > effective deterrent than a telephone. The police are more likely > > to rob you than any other random burglar (at least, in America). > > They get paid every month with tax money. > > More ridiculousness noted. Again - the state-worshipper is at a loss how to respond, so he uses name-calling. > > I buy my electricity from the power company. > > Which they would not sell to you if there were no way to compel you > to pay if you took there electricity, and then refused to pay for > it. They don't compel me to pay - no one does. If I don't pay them they CUT OFF THE ELECTRICITY. > > Where they get it > > is none of my business. > > Head in the sand noted. Another irrelevant response. > > Without an overbearing socialist > > bureaucracy, the power company would continue to find ways to > > provide electricity - ways that would likewise be none of my > > business. > > Head in deeper sand noted. The one with his head in the sand is more likely to be he who believes in magical higher authority, without which he would starve to death, or freeze because it wasn't there to invent electricity, and therefore cannot imagine a world without it - even though such "authority" is completely mythological. --Jackney Sneeb
From: Remy McSwain on 24 May 2010 10:52
In news:ef9f7d09-970f-4ed8-b7ed-a57c3dbce10e(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com, Jackney Sneeb <jackneysneeb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> Right, because I'm not a socialist. >>>> So you don't drive on the government run road system then? >>> We pay for roads when we buy gasoline. >> >> Not nearly the full cost. Roads are heavily subsidized with >> general tax revenues. > > There's no reason that the cost of roads cannot be completely > funded by the customers who buy gasoline, automobiles, and > insurance. The bad logic in operation here is the assumption > that because general revenues partially fund roads, roads cannot > exist without them. That's like saying "because the Mafia > provides some labor and concrete for highway construction, roads > cannot exist without the Mafia." Yes, I agree that the tax system would be more fair if the people who use the roads, either directly, or indirectly, had to pay for it. However, it'd still be a tax, and so if you believe that taxes are extortion, I'm not sure that you've gained anything much. But in principle, I'd much rather have a tax/fee system that more accurately appropriated the cost of rods to the people who use it. Of course, there's also the very valid argument that it's not only the actual use of the roads that should be taxed, but the availability as well. >>> That would happen with or without "government." >> No it would not. Government is what has the roads built and >> maintained. > > Again, bad logic. People build roads. Even the state hires > private contractors to build and maintain roads. Roads existed > before "government." Roads are to humans as beaver dams are to > beavers. Who builds beaver dams - beaver "governments"? Actually, even in nature, the collective works on behalf of all, and all are "charged" for, the cost. > I have a suggestion for you: if you think socialism is so > wonderful, quit using things provided by the free market. Give > up your bad capitalist habit of going to the grocery store for > food; stop patronizing privately owned gas stations; stop using > free enterprise internet service providers; refuse to pay a > private garbage collection service; don't patronize any business > that hires private cops; don't drive a car (exception: > "government"-built cars like the Yugo are okay) . . . > > What's the matter, not feeling all that socialist right now? The imposition of taxes for the common good is not socialism. |