GuestZero posted at 08:48:18 PM on Nov 27, 2012:
And the cost per year is less than a specialty coffee.
But that's not your money, Jackie. How many times do you have to be told this?
Maybe you won't put up a fight when one of Toledo's "monkeys" relieves you of your purse outside your residence. They have every right to vote their way into your purse, right? Same thing, really.
Actually, it's not really the same thing:
1. Purse snatching ignores the democratic principles of Majority Rule and Consent of the Governed. Tax collection, at least in this case, abides by these concepts.
2. Collecting a tax which was approved by voters is legal, whereas taking someone's purse without their consent is not.
3. Although you may object equally to the collection of certain taxes as you would to the forceful seizure of your purse; the outcomes may differ. The taxes equal the simple removal of money; whereas the theft of your purse might also include the loss of tangible personal property; ie hairbrush, makeup, chewing gum/mints, photos, communication devices, credentials, sanitary napkins, and the purse itself.
4. If Jackie is wise, she won't put up a fight; the conventional wisdom among law enforcement is that you run the risk of making the situation worse if you resist muggers. It is perfectly safe, however, to "put up a fight" against taxes by speaking your mind in various ways and voting accordingly.
5. A purse-snatcher is not "voting" their way into your purse. If an election were held in this microcosm, the only eligible voters would be the purse owner and the potential thief; and it is likely this would result in a 50/50 vote split and would require a runoff vote that would likely have the same results in perpetuity. Therefore it is quicker and easier for the thief to stage the equivalent of a coup, that is, to just take it, without your consent and outside of the limits of their own rights.
So they are not really the same thing. Food for thought.