Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >> The Army and the Navy wanted equal treatment, so calling the >> merged dept. War (understood as Army's) would've been a slight to the Navy.
>So rather than think up another name like military or just slight the >navy a little they use a misleading name? I think more likely it had >nothing to do with slighting the navy, I'm not making this up. Some wanted to call it the War Dept., but the Navy really took that idea as a slight. >Rent and control are two words with meaning before the government >started using them. Then why do you complain when I give you a MORE SPECIFIC answer than you're expecting? You use the term "rent control", I took it you were using it the standard way New Yorkers do, but just to be on the safe side I also mentioned rent stabilization. And it bothers you that I reference those 2 statutes separately? >And >social security is an income tax as well. Again you are using >governemnt classifications to mask the true nature of things. I'm using the words the standard ways they're discussed, putting in greater specificity, and you're complaining again?! You mentioned federal income tax, I gave an answer about what's usually referred to as the income tax, and then to be safe mentioned Social Security also, and you're once again complaining that I reference separate gov't enactments separately?! >> There IS a free rental market in NYC, existing alongside the regulated one. >> The free market keeps getting bigger and the regulated one smaller. >> That's not future, that's recent past, thru now. >There is not multpile markets for one commodity. The housing market >in NYC is controlled by the government. Not all rents are controlled >but many are and that makes the market NOT FREE. Then as long as there's any commerce anywhere that's regulated in any way, there's no free market, because all markets are connected, at least potentially; so what's the use of discussing something that will never exist? Trying to discuss things with you is awfully difficult, because you keep wanting words to have LESS useful meaning. Analysts commonly refer to the rent paid for a unit not under regulations as a free market rent. How else would you refer to the rental fee for a unit not under regulation? >I propose we strive >to elect people that will support things libertarians support. And I propose that people stop striving for the unattainable. >Well a majority of voters wish there was no income tax >yet nearly all politicians elected vote against that wish. This disconnect between politicians and voters is a figment of your imagination. Just within recent years, some states have adopted constitutional amendments by vote of the people to authorize income taxes. Conn. is an example. >The problem is that the jumps that you and Republicans seek and >occasionally win result in less progress being made at a later date. >A good analogy is a person sick in the hospital. They can wait and >gain strength and eventually walk out of the hospital healthy or they >can take a few steps torwards the door now and fall down dead. That's a good analogy, but not in the way you think! Obviously the patient stepping toward the door was ATTEMPTING TO LEAVE, but doing so TOO SOON! Too much, too soon. Somehow you came up with an analogy whose lesson is the OPPOSITE of the one you wanted. Doesn't that tell you something? Truly I So Briney, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
