On Mar 25, 4:38 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 16:21, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> > >> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
> > >>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject 
> > >>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing  wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject 
> > >>>>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing 
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject
> > >>>>>>>>  wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm
> > >>>>>>>>> everyone. Let people self-police.
>
> > >>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>
> > >>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have
> > >>>>>>>> freedom and wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> > >>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>
> > >>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>
> > >>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as
> > >>>>> well as maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the
> > >>>>> following groups (just to name a few):
> > >>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
> > >>>>> 2) Police
> > >>>>> 3) Politicians
> > >>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
> > >>>>> 5) Parasites
> > >>>>> 6) Idiots
> > >>>>> 7) Criminals
> > >>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database
> > >>>>> admins.
>
> > >>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you
> > >>>>> have done nothing but undertake character assassinations without
> > >>>>> putting any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall
> > >>>>> into the territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical
> > >>>>> of this government's apparatchiks to do character assassination,
> > >>>>> chances are you're #4 too.
>
> > >>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
> > >>>> resort to insults.
>
> > >>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
> > >>> insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
> > >>> monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>
> > >>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>
> > >>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
> > >>> appropriate and in proportion.
>
> > >>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
> > >>> (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>
> > >> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
> > >> other peoples property.
>
> > >> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>
> > > A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
> > > Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
> > > of.
>
> > > I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
> > > disproportionate. :)
>
> > And which has been meted out by vigilantes of the sort that you propose> > Ret.
>
> Luckily you have to have two people to form a political party in this
> country!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Poor Kev and Peter, struggling with their limited intellect to grasp
the nuances of English. No wonder they're opposed to a system of
proportionate distribution of resources and Darwinism. Either of you
certainly fit the canonical attributes of a policeman and an
accountant.

I suggest you carefully look up the meaning of "disproportionate" and
read again what I posted.