You don't like the word tax, but the fact is that if you want to watch TV, you have to pay them their "fee". It's an establishment-imposed monopoly.
You say they don't own the airwaves, yet they are the only TV available over the air. Am I mistaken?
How in the world would it be different to a citizen if it were called the "Ministry of Television and Radio" and the fee was paid directly to the that ministry or whatever you blokes call such institutions? Besides calling it the MTR instead of the BBC I mean.
So then... to rephrase my statement that go all of the Brits wound up:
Isn't that kind of semantic? They have the power to tax. They "own" all of the airwaves. It may not be the establishment by some technicality in law, but to a citizen the effect is the same.
If a citizen in the US isn't "part of the government" then what the heck is he/she?
People still exist with or without a government. So they are "not the government".
The queen cannot exist without the government. She is part of the government.
Basically, as soon as you start using force to impose your will on others, you are a rudimentary government. Early kings were nothing more than what we call "warlords" today.
"The Government", full name "Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", is just part of your small "g" government. I'd be happy to use a more UK-friendly term for the whole kit n' kaboodle if you'd like to provide one.
Thanks for that. There must not be many people in this camp - most people I speak with who claim to be Libertarian talk about deregulation and corporations in the same breath. I find the same inconsistency when discussing intellectual property.
I read the wiki article, and it says you don't have a constitution - or rather, your "constitution" is a framework of law based on some written and some common. The US (except for Louisiana) uses common law as well (we inherited it from you), so no offense meant. Thus the smiley.
I know that I should know better than to start arguing about the monarchy with people from the UK, but no matter how much you protest, she has some power to exert her will over others, and thus is part of your government. Small "g", like in a political science course. If they use a different word in the UK, I'll be happy to use it.
I understand that people in the UK use the term "Government" to refer to a narrow portion of their larger... what? What do you call the collection of people who run things? Surely you can see how the monarchy and parliament are different pieces of the same machine? Does the monarch not participate in governing? If not, what do you call it when she approves a parliamentary decision?
Anyway, I'll be happy to use a different, more UK-friendly word for the people in charge. Just offer one up.
Me, too. Metro still sneaks up on me from time to time. Like, the built-in PDF app. One day I'll install Adobe or something, but currently it still tricks me.
You are correct, I am not using the UK definition of government, which is quite narrow. I'm talking, in overly-simplistic terms, about the folks who are "in charge"... whatever you would call the hodge-podge of royalty, elected officials, and other folks who get to impose their will on the population.
BBC cannot sell itself.
Why not? Who has the authority to sell it? Who gets the money when it is sold? Surely it will not still exist when the planet is consumed by the sun...
No, private is no longer anarchy once there is a form of government, even if that "government" is a warlord. And once you have a government, it starts to affect the private side and vice versa.
In other words, I don't think there has ever been true anarchy for any meaningful length of time. It's mostly a theoretical state. People start to organize and exert their will on others almost immediately.
You are right that this is subjective, and it is also straying from my point: if I own a TV in the UK, what difference does it make to me whether the BBC is a government organization or not? They have a monopoly on service and they pay for it with the ability to collect a tax (fee if you'd rather). They are granted this authority not by being a natural monopoly, but by royal charter. The fact that they aren't the "government" matters not one whit, whether you are a TV viewer or a potential competitor.
I'll grant you that Satan is a negatively charged word (especially among Christians), but his church did actually center around Satanism. To him, Satan was not a dark figure. He didn't call his religion the Church of Darkness or the Church of Death. I'm also pretty sure he wasn't trying to rule anything.
Just because it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It doesn't need to be a famine of the sort that Africa experiences - even just a large spike in food costs could prove ruinous to the working poor, and even the lower middle class.
You are the one making things more elaborate to support your world view. My dichotomy is not false, it is real. In the absence of government, there is anarchy. Anything requiring a collection of people to organize and enforce their will upon others is a form of government.
If you want to cast things in terms of "ownership", then who would get the money if the BBC decided to put itself up for sale?
So what? It's still the government. My local sewage authority is set up to have almost no direct government oversight except for revenue approval (it spans jurisdictions), but I still don't pretend that my sewer service is privately provided.
Isn't that kind of semantic? They have the power to tax. They "own" all of the airwaves. It may not be government by some technicality in law, but to a citizen the effect is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame the Coward like 4 posts up...
I'm sorry that you equate sticking things up one's ass with homosexuality.
Could you... elaborate?
You don't like the word tax, but the fact is that if you want to watch TV, you have to pay them their "fee". It's an establishment-imposed monopoly.
You say they don't own the airwaves, yet they are the only TV available over the air. Am I mistaken?
How in the world would it be different to a citizen if it were called the "Ministry of Television and Radio" and the fee was paid directly to the that ministry or whatever you blokes call such institutions? Besides calling it the MTR instead of the BBC I mean.
Excellent, thank you!
So then... to rephrase my statement that go all of the Brits wound up:
Isn't that kind of semantic? They have the power to tax. They "own" all of the airwaves. It may not be the establishment by some technicality in law, but to a citizen the effect is the same.
If a citizen in the US isn't "part of the government" then what the heck is he/she?
People still exist with or without a government. So they are "not the government".
The queen cannot exist without the government. She is part of the government.
Basically, as soon as you start using force to impose your will on others, you are a rudimentary government. Early kings were nothing more than what we call "warlords" today.
"The Government", full name "Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", is just part of your small "g" government. I'd be happy to use a more UK-friendly term for the whole kit n' kaboodle if you'd like to provide one.
Thanks for that. There must not be many people in this camp - most people I speak with who claim to be Libertarian talk about deregulation and corporations in the same breath. I find the same inconsistency when discussing intellectual property.
Did you skip past the whole part about recreational use?
People stuffing drugs up their butt for fun have a problem. You may not like that assessment, but such is the fate of opinions.
Seriously?
I read the wiki article, and it says you don't have a constitution - or rather, your "constitution" is a framework of law based on some written and some common. The US (except for Louisiana) uses common law as well (we inherited it from you), so no offense meant. Thus the smiley.
I know that I should know better than to start arguing about the monarchy with people from the UK, but no matter how much you protest, she has some power to exert her will over others, and thus is part of your government. Small "g", like in a political science course. If they use a different word in the UK, I'll be happy to use it.
I understand that people in the UK use the term "Government" to refer to a narrow portion of their larger... what? What do you call the collection of people who run things? Surely you can see how the monarchy and parliament are different pieces of the same machine? Does the monarch not participate in governing? If not, what do you call it when she approves a parliamentary decision?
Anyway, I'll be happy to use a different, more UK-friendly word for the people in charge. Just offer one up.
Me, too. Metro still sneaks up on me from time to time. Like, the built-in PDF app. One day I'll install Adobe or something, but currently it still tricks me.
You are correct, I am not using the UK definition of government, which is quite narrow. I'm talking, in overly-simplistic terms, about the folks who are "in charge"... whatever you would call the hodge-podge of royalty, elected officials, and other folks who get to impose their will on the population.
BBC cannot sell itself.
Why not? Who has the authority to sell it? Who gets the money when it is sold? Surely it will not still exist when the planet is consumed by the sun...
No, private is no longer anarchy once there is a form of government, even if that "government" is a warlord. And once you have a government, it starts to affect the private side and vice versa.
In other words, I don't think there has ever been true anarchy for any meaningful length of time. It's mostly a theoretical state. People start to organize and exert their will on others almost immediately.
You are right that this is subjective, and it is also straying from my point: if I own a TV in the UK, what difference does it make to me whether the BBC is a government organization or not? They have a monopoly on service and they pay for it with the ability to collect a tax (fee if you'd rather). They are granted this authority not by being a natural monopoly, but by royal charter. The fact that they aren't the "government" matters not one whit, whether you are a TV viewer or a potential competitor.
I'll grant you that Satan is a negatively charged word (especially among Christians), but his church did actually center around Satanism. To him, Satan was not a dark figure. He didn't call his religion the Church of Darkness or the Church of Death. I'm also pretty sure he wasn't trying to rule anything.
Just because it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It doesn't need to be a famine of the sort that Africa experiences - even just a large spike in food costs could prove ruinous to the working poor, and even the lower middle class.
You are the one making things more elaborate to support your world view. My dichotomy is not false, it is real. In the absence of government, there is anarchy. Anything requiring a collection of people to organize and enforce their will upon others is a form of government.
If you want to cast things in terms of "ownership", then who would get the money if the BBC decided to put itself up for sale?
We just don't have a constitutional document that you can point at and say "That's the constitution" like the US does.
Then you don't have a constitution :)
If the monarch is not part of the government, what the heck is he/she?
It would be more like Christians calling themselves Blasphemers or Cultists.
My understanding is that the Google Drive stuff all works offline on the Chromebooks now.
But the judiciary is still "the government".
So what? It's still the government. My local sewage authority is set up to have almost no direct government oversight except for revenue approval (it spans jurisdictions), but I still don't pretend that my sewer service is privately provided.
How does that work in practice? If you have a TV sitting there, they won't nail you to the wall for not paying your fee?
My turn to be semantic. I don't think the UK has a constitution.
Also, I'm not sure how the monarch is not "the government".
Isn't that kind of semantic? They have the power to tax. They "own" all of the airwaves. It may not be government by some technicality in law, but to a citizen the effect is the same.