[neutrino]

...and you WILL comply with what WE feel is a worthwhile end... we will tax you to pay for your neighbors kids to go to college, and prevent you from making your own life better in the way YOU feel it should be better by limiting the amount and selection of goods you may purchase with the money we leave you. WE say it is right and proper to do this, and WE are your government.

Hey, take it up with 1rudeboy - he's the one who defended the principle when it applied to a lawyer that forced his neighbors to pay for the lawyer's fence.

(Evil grin!)

[1rudeboy]

You have not demonstrated that one principle, long-settled and still good law, that rural landowners split the cost of a fence between two adjoining properties (the underlying argument being that both benefit from the fence, and that public policy should promote the construction of fences between properties in rural areas), is similar to the other principle of imposing a cost on one party for the benefit of an otherwise unrelated party, by simple reason that both parties hypothetically benefit from an amorphous "protection" of general economic activity.

One interesting similarity between your argument and that of some of the folks with whom I disagreed on that thread is that you all are ultimately relying-upon the argument that "lawyers bad," or "free traders bad," and to heck with the circumstances. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?

If you wish, please return to that thread and convince me why your cattle are entitled to graze on my land. That after all, is the legal issue that goes back centuries and the one you appear to favor.