Quoted from CICERO

com·pul·so·ry
kəmˈpəlsərē/Submit
adjective
required by law or a rule; obligatory.
"compulsory military service"
synonyms:     obligatory, mandatory, required, requisite, necessary, essential; More
antonyms:     optional
involving or exercising compulsion; coercive.
"the abuse of compulsory powers"

Quoted from CICERO

Well...First the representative writes the law to take your money.  Then he/she makes promises on how they will spend it.  
The great unknown is what is Norway's method of distributing the money to candidates and to what candidates.  Does the non-parliamentary Red Communist Party in Norway get as much money as the parliamentary Labour and Conservative Party?  Who decides the parlamentary parties?

Quoted from Box A Rox

If you vote for a representative who promises to use your tax dollars for a specific purpose, and he does
just that... Cicero calls it STEALING.  
The rest of us call it good govt.  
For Cissy there is no such thing as Good govt.

Quoted from Box A Rox

So Cicero... Who pays for the roads that you drive on every day?
The "thief" who stole your money?
Who pays for the schools that educate your kids?
Again, the thief?
Who pays for almost everything that touches your life every single day... Your water, your sewer,
your police protection, your roads, bridges, infrastructure???  Who pays for all this that you take
yet pay nothing?  YOU TAKE BUT DON'T PAY!
HEY... SOMEONE WHO TAKES BUT NEVER PAYS IS A THIEF!

Quoted from CICERO

All those things can be done privately.  Who built the railroads during the 1800's?  All private.  I can give you an example here in Rotterdam.  A developer wanted to develop a piece of property and their potential customer wanted sewer and water.  The developer was willing to run the sewer and water as part of the development.  This wasn't something the taxpayers were going to pay for, it was on the DEVELOPERS dime.  Most of the major cities in the US were being built before a state or federal income tax(theft).  

Quoted from joebxr

Great analogy....
A "developer" does something with the expectation of recovering his expenses
and profiting from them. Great example DUH DUH!!!

Quoted from joebxr

Great analogy....
A "developer" does something with the expectation of recovering his expenses
and profiting from them. Great example DUH DUH!!!

Quoted from senders

do you profit for the work you do? as a soldier you profited from war? a garbage worker profits from garbage....

a surgeon profits from 'messing' with your body parts.....

the government steps in because why??????????

because the public looks around and says "I don't want to pay for that and I don't want the hassle. I'm going to pay
someone/thing else to deal with it and I'll pretend I'm rich"

Quoted from CICERO

In the statists mind.  The marketplace would never build roads, bridges, airports, sewers, or anything else to make sure the maximum amount of people have access to their goods and services.  Only the benevolent government is capable of doing that. The market could never figure out how to do it.

Quoted from joebxr

You tout how we don't need to have Government provide services,
that you take full advantage of, because private individuals could do it.
Then you show example of private doing and profiting. So where is the gain
in your world? Will you plow the road frontage to your house, and what if
your neighbors don't. You want to privatize it, go for it. Still your WIIFM mentality.

Quoted from CICERO

Do I rely on my neighbors to throw their own garbage out?  Yup.  Rotterdam doesn't provide garbage pickup, and the City of Schenectady does.  Everybody in my neighborhood has a private hauler. Schenectady operates at a loss. The City of Schenectady is not profitable...Allied Waste is.  If my garbage isn't picked up and I do not like my service, I can find another one.  In Schenectady, if your garbage isn't picked up, you may be able to get a private service(I don't know if the city has a monopoly on residential trash pickup), but even if you do get a private hauler, you STILL have to pay the City for the sucky service you no longer receive.

Quoted from CICERO

Do I rely on my neighbors to throw their own garbage out?  Yup.  Rotterdam doesn't provide garbage pickup, and the City of Schenectady does.  Everybody in my neighborhood has a private hauler. Schenectady operates at a loss. The City of Schenectady is not profitable...Allied Waste is.  If my garbage isn't picked up and I do not like my service, I can find another one.  In Schenectady, if your garbage isn't picked up, you may be able to get a private service(I don't know if the city has a monopoly on residential trash pickup), but even if you do get a private hauler, you STILL have to pay the City for the sucky service you no longer receive.

Quoted from joebxr

I don't believe my question was about garbage, so I guess you have no "REASONABLE" answer to my question.
Right turn Clyde!

Quoted from joebxr

You tout how we don't need to have Government provide services,
that you take full advantage of, because private individuals could do it.
Then you show example of private doing and profiting

Quoted Text

Surprise! Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus Share via Email More Options

Resize Text Print Article Comments 32
By Radley Balko October 29 at 11:32 AM  
One of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act was to broaden the “sneak-and-peek” power for federal law enforcement officials. The provision allows investigators to conduct searches without informing the target of the search. We were assured at the time that this was an essential law enforcement tool that would be used only to protect the country from terrorism. Supporters argued that it was critical that investigators be allowed to look into the lives and finances of suspected terrorists without tipping off those terrorists to the fact that they were under investigation.

Civil libertarian critics warned that the federal government already had this power for national security investigations. The Patriot Act provision was far too broad and would almost certainly become a common tactic in cases that have nothing to do with national security.

But this was all immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and there was little patience for civil libertarians. The massive Patriot Act of course passed overwhelmingly, including the sneak-and-peek provision, despite the fact that only a handful of members of Congress had actually read it. (Not to mention the public.)

More than a decade later, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published an analysis on use of the sneak-and-peek power. Just as critics predicted, it’s now a ubiquitous part of federal law enforcement.

Law enforcement made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003. The 2010 report reveals 3,970 total requests were processed. Within three years that number jumped to 11,129. That’s an increase of over 7,000 requests. Exactly what privacy advocates argued in 2001 is happening: sneak and peak warrants are not just being used in exceptional circumstances—which was their original intent—but as an everyday investigative tool.

And as critics predicted, it is overwhelmingly used in cases that have nothing to do with terrorism. But even if you’re a cynic, it’s pretty shocking just how little the power is used in terrorism investigations.

Out of the 3,970 total requests from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010, 3,034 were for narcotics cases and only 37 for terrorism cases (about .9%). Since then, the numbers get worse. The 2011 report reveals a total of 6,775 requests. 5,093 were used for drugs, while only 31 (or .5%) were used for terrorism cases. The 2012 report follows a similar pattern: Only .6%, or 58 requests, dealt with terrorism cases. The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51, or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism. The majority of requests were overwhelmingly for narcotics cases, which tapped out at 9,401 requests.

So since the Patriot Act passed, the number of of sneak-and-peeks each year has grown from about 16 per year to over 11,000 in 2013. Meanwhile, not only have the number of sneak-and-peek investigations unrelated to terrorism increased on a massive scale, the percentage of sneak-and-peeks that have anything to do with terrorism continues to drop. In other words, sneak-and-peek is increasingly ubiquitous while the justification for granting the government this power in the first place — terrorism — is not only irrelevant to the tactic’s increasing pervasiveness, it gets more irrelevant every year.

Lots of lessons here. A few that immediately come to mind:

Washington establishment types are often dismissive and derisive of the idea that members of Congress should actually be required to read legislation before voting on it — or at the very least be given the time to read it. There’s also a lot of Beltway scorn for demands that bills be concise, limited in scope and open for public comment in their final form for days or weeks before they’re voted on. If you’re looking for evidence showing why the smug consensus is wrong, here is Exhibit A.
This is also an argument against rashly legislating in a time of crisis. On Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government failed in most important and basic responsibility — to protect us from an attack. We responded by quickly giving the federal government a host of new powers.
Assume that any power you grant to the federal government to fight terrorism will inevitably be used in other contexts.
Assume that the primary “other context” will be to fight the war on drugs. (Here’s another example just from this month.) I happen to believe that the drug war is illegitimate. I think fighting terrorism is an entirely legitimate function of government. I also think that, in theory, there are some powers the federal government should have for terrorism investigations that I’m not comfortable granting it in more traditional criminal investigations. But I have zero confidence that there’s any way to grant those powers in a way that will limit their use to terrorism.
Law-and-order politicians and many (but not all) law enforcement and national security officials see the Bill of Rights not as the foundation of a free society but as an obstacle that prevents them from doing their jobs. Keep this in mind when they use a national emergency to argue for exceptions to those rights.
When critics point out the ways a new law might be abused, supporters of the law often accuse those critics of being cynical — they say we should have more faith in the judgment and propriety of public officials. Always assume that when a law grants new powers to the government, that law will be interpreted in the vaguest, most expansive, most pro-government manner imaginable. If that doesn’t happen, good. But why take the risk? Why leave open the possibility? Better to write laws narrowly, restrictively and with explicit safeguards against abuse.

Radley Balko blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties for The Washington Post. He is the author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces."

Quoted from CICERO

So I take the time to give you an example of a service provided by a profitable private business versus the SAME service provided by government, LIKE YOU ASKED...And now you claim you never asked the question?  You think I would have learned by now not to waste my time replying to things that you will just deny saying in the very next post.