Supervisors raise property tax

[nebraska]

Supervisors raise property tax

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/news/supe...2b357.html

[Bob Butler 54]

If I am reading the article right, supervisor is an elected position.  The supervisors are acting under one theory of representative government.

The collision is between low taxes, lowering debts, and raising police manpower to counter a growing criminal element.   This is business as usual, not dependent on what you call your local elected officials.  If it proves anything, it is that you can cut taxes too far.

[nebraska]

Your taxes pay for illegal immigrants, debt, war, curfews, gun bans, NSA wiretapping, checkpoints, forfeiture, the end to the right to silence, free speech bans, torture, kill lists, no fly lists, searches without warrants, private prisons, mandatory minimums, 3 strikes laws, DNA databases, CISPA, SOPA, NDAA, IMBRA, FBAR, FATCA, TSA groping, secret FISA courts, and Jade Helm.

[David Horn]

(01-18-2018, 10:04 PM)nebraska Wrote: Your taxes pay for illegal immigrants, debt, war, curfews, gun bans, NSA wiretapping, checkpoints, forfeiture, the end to the right to silence, free speech bans, torture, kill lists, no fly lists, searches without warrants, private prisons, mandatory minimums, 3 strikes laws, DNA databases, CISPA, SOPA, NDAA, IMBRA, FBAR, FATCA, TSA groping, secret FISA courts, and Jade Helm.

A lot of that is good, some is not.  But I know for a fact that eliminating government, or neutering it to the point of ineffectiveness, merely grants private power unchecked domain.  I don't see the greedy giving a rat's ass about me, you or anyone else but themselves and their closest friends and family members.

[nebraska]

The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens - even if you don't own a gun yourself.

[David Horn]

(01-19-2018, 12:19 PM)nebraska Wrote: The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens - even if you don't own a gun yourself.

Yeah, sure ... except for the record of declining crime in major cities with few guns, like NYC.  As a control, consider highly armed Chicago, and its high and rising crime rate.

[pbrower2a]

What really deters an intruder? A dog. Think of all the usual traits that make a potential man-eater out of a bear or Big Cat -- power, speed, strength, agility, cunning, voracity, with keen senses, sharp claws and teeth, and great bite force -- and recognize that a dog differs from those only by size (although large dogs can be as big as leopards, jaguars, and cougars, and are not far from the size of lionesses). Four 80-pound dogs defending loved ones or their shared territory might as well be one 320-pound tiger, but with four times as many teeth and claws. An 80-pound dog can overpower a 240-pound man, so there is some question of whether humans or dogs are the real top of the food chain. Dogs are the most powerful mammals for their size; Man has never bred them for weakness.

Burglars are meat. So are muggers and rapists if they face a large dog. The same mouth that delivers a scary bark has some horrid teeth in a pair of nasty jaws.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-20-2018, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-19-2018, 12:19 PM)nebraska Wrote: The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens - even if you don't own a gun yourself.

Yeah, sure ... except for the record of declining crime in major cities with few guns, like NYC.  As a control, consider highly armed Chicago, and its high and rising crime rate.

There you have cultures.  The correct answer and common wisdom changes with urban and rural areas.  The two of you are both asserting what is sincerely believed in various parts of the country. That is why I say extreme partisans are bad at listening to and respecting one another.  This is why splitting California into one rural and one urban state makes some sense.  They might write more or fewer laws that apply better locally.

On this forum, contributers often state the common wisdom of their neck of the woods.  Few are willing to listen to or acknowledge the other side's wisdom.

We were created rural.  The Constitution was written by a rural elite.  They wrote into law the rural perspective, and made sure changing values is not easy.

[nebraska]

Chicago doesn't have any gun laws?

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2.../13747207/

[pbrower2a]

(01-20-2018, 06:24 PM)nebraska Wrote: Chicago doesn't have any gun laws?

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2.../13747207/

The crooks buy their guns in Indiana, which has lenient gun laws.

New York State has stringent gun laws on the books, and crooks evade those laws  by going to Virginia, which has soft gun laws. What happens? A crook in Staten Island has about a 220-mile drive to Arlington, Virginia and back Of course that is a difficult 220 miles due to traffic, but if one really wants a gun while living in New York City but can;t get a gun in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, or Maryland... Virginia gun dealers need not heed New York state laws that do not apply in Virginia.

A huge proportion of guns confiscated after crimes in New York is shown to have been purchased in Virginia.

I would be willing to have a federal law that prohibits the sale of firearms to non-residents of one's states. Thus if you are an Illinois resident you must buy your firearm in Illinois and not in Indiana. If Illinois laws prohibit one from buying a firearm, then tough luck.

The analogy to the repeal of Prohibition applies: one is not allowed to import alcoholic beverages into a state in violation of those states' laws.

[nebraska]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[pbrower2a]

Criminals, addicts, idiots, and lunatics can never form a well-regulated militia.

[nebraska]

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.

[David Horn]

(01-20-2018, 11:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: We were created rural.  The Constitution was written by a rural elite.  They wrote into law the rural perspective, and made sure changing values is not easy.

This is a growing problem, and one that will only go away when the balance shifts so dramatically urban that the remaining rural enclaves will be overwhelmed. Then, the Constitution will change, but not before.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-21-2018, 10:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Criminals, addicts, idiots, and lunatics can never form a well-regulated militia.

You kind of need a commonly perceived threat.  In the old days, there were natives and Europeans.  There were no rapidly moving regulars or National Guard.  You needed a local force, not transport.  Once a week, after church, they drilled.  Sorta.  The militia was more a social club than fighting force towards the Civil War. After church,  the party.

But just because the drilling and (perhaps) the threats went away, the Constitution and Rights did not.  The old laws governing the militia are generally still on the books.  The states can still appoint officers.  Congress can still specify training.  Adult males still must follow orders.  There are still specific conditions (invasions, insurrections, and to enforce the law) where the militia could be called up to follow the federal commander in chief, if not sent abroad.  Etc...

The founding fathers knew what it took to run a militia, but there would be quite a political storm if anyone tried any of the above today.  The old militia laws could trivially get a Commander in Chief unelected if abused.  Trying to organize the militia without a real threat would be viewed as an abuse.   

They got away with it as the good citizens under threat outnumbered the criminals, addicts, idiots and lunatics.  The militia consists of all adult males.  Todays groups of politically motivated individuals operating without orders from state appointed officers are not The Militia, but a joke.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-22-2018, 12:41 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2018, 11:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: We were created rural.  The Constitution was written by a rural elite.  They wrote into law the rural perspective, and made sure changing values is not easy.

This is a growing problem, and one that will only go away when the balance shifts so dramatically urban that the remaining rural enclaves will be overwhelmed.  Then, the Constitution will change, but not before.

Perhaps we will get a constitutional convention at the 4T - 1T cusp, long after the regeneracy, after a crisis period has provided lots of trial and error solutions for today's problems.  The US Constitutional changes and the UN came at such times.  We will see...

[pbrower2a]

(01-22-2018, 03:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-21-2018, 10:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Criminals, addicts, idiots, and lunatics can never form a well-regulated militia.

You kind of need a commonly perceived threat.  In the old days, there were natives and Europeans.  There were no rapidly moving regulars or National Guard.  You needed a local force, not transport.  Once a week, after church, they drilled.  Sorta.  The militia was more a social club than fighting force towards the Civil War. After church,  the party.

But just because the drilling and (perhaps) the threats went away, the Constitution and Rights did not.  The old laws governing the militia are generally still on the books.  The states can still appoint officers.  Congress can still specify training.  Adult males still must follow orders.  There are still specific conditions (invasions, insurrections, and to enforce the law) where the militia could be called up to follow the federal commander in chief, if not sent abroad.  Etc...

The founding fathers knew what it took to run a militia, but there would be quite a political storm if anyone tried any of the above today.  The old militia laws could trivially get a Commander in Chief unelected if abused.  Trying to organize the militia without a real threat would be viewed as an abuse.   

They got away with it as the good citizens under threat outnumbered the criminals, addicts, idiots and lunatics.  The militia consists of all adult males.  Todays groups of politically motivated individuals operating without orders from state appointed officers are not The Militia, but a joke.

You have the point. The militias of the American Revolution were well-disciplined soldiers, men (gender may be irrelevant today but it wasn't then) recognizing that militia service was public service requiring some sacrifices. Part of the sacrifice was to put up with the regimentation inherent in the 'well-regulated militia'. Nobody saw militia service as a lark. People knew that facing even a skirmish, let alone some 'small' raid was dangerous and unpleasant.  So people in the Colonies joined militias to make clear that some unruly tribe of First Peoples would know that it was a bad idea to take goods and family members away from 'our' side of the frontier. People served in militias not to enjoy the drilling, but instead to protect their communities.

The drilling was not fun. It was a clear hardship. It meant that one could not then go to the local pub and raise a ruckus. It meant that one could not then go hunting, bowling, or whatever. But the militias had to be competent if the members were to avoid having too many losses and communities were to be protected. Defense was often local; by the time a skirmish was over, a militia from a dozen miles away would find that it was all over, as bad as the roads were and as slow as getting infantry over. If you wanted to protect your community as late as the American Revolution  when the frontier was within a few miles of cities like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia,  then you needed a well-regulated militia.

Most significantly the colonial (and later Revolutionary) militias were responsible to elected officials. Indeed the American Revolution was a contest between the authority of the British King and elected colonial legislatures. The American Revolution was not so much a struggle for freedom but instead a question of whether a distant King or people in the independence-seeking Colonies through elected legislatures would have the formal authority from Maine to Georgia. There was no anarchist element in the American Revolution.

The militias of the American Revolution were responsible to elected governments and vice-versa. Today's private, politicized militias would chafe at the idea. Private, politicized militias not responsible to elected officials are a bane of democracy. This is as true of fascist Blackshirts or Commie militias often essential  to the overthrow of elected democracy and the imposition of tyranny.

Maybe those private, politicized militias aren't quite as much a joke as you think, should they ever become competent enough to challenge elected government. After they aid in seizing power on behalf of their cause they become the enforcement of the undemocratic regime -- and enforcers of the new  Establishment.

[nebraska]

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-22-2018, 03:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The militias of the American Revolution were responsible to elected governments and vice-versa. Today's private, politicized militias would chafe at the idea. Private, politicized militias not responsible to elected officials are a bane of democracy. This is as true of fascist Blackshirts or Commie militias often essential  to the overthrow of elected democracy and the imposition of tyranny.

Maybe those private, politicized militias aren't quite as much a joke as you think, should they ever become competent enough to challenge elected government. After they aid in seizing power on behalf of their cause they become the enforcement of the undemocratic regime -- and enforcers of the new  Establishment.

Today's partisan so-called militias are mostly a joke simply because they are so partisan.  They are not a threat to the government, and will not be so if the government shows the illusion of loyalty to the People.

Bets are off if the militias are racist.  If some group perceives another as inherently inferior and rights / equality are ignored, things can get bad.  In the Jim Crow era, for example, blacks were not allowed to join the militia, and the right to bear arms was taken from the People, given to the militia.  Some cling to the Jim Crow interpretation even to this day.

[nebraska]

Faced with the pain of freedom, man begs for his shackles.