Just a few things I decided to jot down today.

Almost all of these have answers in the form of:

1. It isn't / the premise of the question is false
   
2. Because social conservatives wanted it to
   
3. Because the wealthy / corporations wanted it to
   

Basically @NetRunner's answer was "Democrats can do no wrong. Vote Obama in 2012!"

>> ^blankfist:

Basically @NetRunner's answer was "Democrats can do no wrong. Vote Obama in 2012!"


Not what I said at all. There are socially conservative Democrats, and Democrats who follow the marching orders of corporations.

I just think you just shotgunned out a litany of complaints, many of which based on false premises, and many of which I share your complaint.

I didn't really see the list as being a litany of questions for me to answer as if I was personally responsible for them. Did you mean it that way?

I just found out I need to register my dog with LA County for $20 a year or else I'll be fined. I do enjoy these wonderful protections my government gives me.

@NetRunner, of your 3 answers above which does this fall into? Is the premise false? Did social conservatives take over the bluest of blue cities in the state? Or did the corporations/wealthy want me to register my pet? I'm having a hard time determining it on my own. Oh! And Vote Obama 2012!

>> ^blankfist:

I just found out I need to register my dog with LA County for $20 a year or else I'll be fined. I do enjoy these wonderful protections my government gives me.
@NetRunner, of your 3 answers above which does this fall into? Is the premise false? Did social conservatives take over the bluest of blue cities in the state? Or did the corporations/wealthy want me to register my pet? I'm having a hard time determining it on my own. Oh! And Vote Obama 2012!


That one goes in the 4th category I listed at the end. It has a mundane explanation.

Do you want animal control to think your pet is a stray? No? Then get a tag for your dog, dipshit.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
I just found out I need to register my dog with LA County for $20 a year or else I'll be fined. I do enjoy these wonderful protections my government gives me.
@NetRunner, of your 3 answers above which does this fall into? Is the premise false? Did social conservatives take over the bluest of blue cities in the state? Or did the corporations/wealthy want me to register my pet? I'm having a hard time determining it on my own. Oh! And Vote Obama 2012!

That one goes in the 4th category I listed at the end. It has a mundane explanation.
Do you want animal control to think your pet is a stray? No? Then get a tag for your dog, dipshit.


I have tags. I also have an RFID chip. It's not about that, but thanks for making assumptions and calling me a dipshit.

So what now? Any other bright ideas why your Democratic "Vote Obama 2012" city government wants me to register him? What's your mundane explanation now? I can tell you: it's $$$$.

>> ^blankfist:

I have tags. I also have an RFID chip. It's not about that, but thanks for making assumptions and calling me a dipshit.
So what now? Any other bright ideas why your Democratic "Vote Obama 2012" city government wants me to register him? What's your mundane explanation now? I can tell you: it's $$$$.


I guess I was giving you too much benefit of the doubt and figured "I just found out" was just some rhetorical flourish, not that you really didn't know you needed to register your pet and pay a fee to animal control. Also too, they give you a tag (at least around here they do).

As for why, I'll quote from the LA county Department of Animal Care & Control's website:

California state law requires that all dogs over the age of four months be vaccinated against rabies, and be licensed through the local animal care and control agency. The County of Los Angeles requires the same provisions, and also requires rabies vaccination and licensing for cats.

Licensing is an important means of identification and can help you find your pet if it becomes lost. License revenues are a vital means of support to help the Department promote and protect human and animal safety.

In the United States, efforts to protect and control domestic animals, primarily dogs, cats and horses, began early in the 19th century. In 1863, the City of Los Angeles established a public animal pound. A few years later, in 1872, a municipal ordinance was approved that directed the city Marshall to register and license dogs.

@blankfist oh, and about the dipshit thing, I only meant it as a friendly swipe.

Anytime you want our conversations to take on a less hostile tone, I'm happy to oblige.

Well, calling me a dipshit is probably unnecessary, though I'm more than fine with it. As always. I'm not going to summon dag here like some other Sifters.

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.

By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?

It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

.

Dont bother @NetRunner
I'll let South Park explain

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/388734/i-have-cynicism

Well, now you're making me think you got ripped off by greedy capitalists who weren't honest with you about what they're offering you.

Who chipped your dog? What service did you purchase from them? Did they tell you it was an alternative to getting a license, because they provide the animal control services for your area?

You need to be registered with animal control. They're not just doing it to discern pet from stray, but also to keep an eye on the pet population, the flow of animals in & out of homes, etc. And of course the fee is helping defray the cost of the entire animal control operation, not just tags.

Now I personally am not in love with the idea of charging a fee to pet owners. Economically speaking, it'd make more sense for animal control to pay people $5-$10 to register their pets, and then pay for the entire budget of animal control (including that $5-$10 responsible owner bonus) with property taxes, since the bulk of animal control's costs are aimed at picking up strays and helping maintain public health & safety for a geographic region, not tags & registry.

Would you prefer that set up? I would.

>> ^blankfist:

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.
By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?
It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

@NetRunner, I adopted the pet from an animal rescue. The chip was added free of charge. I then gave them a voluntary donation for all the work they do rescuing animals from the pound, because I like those kinds of charities.

So, no, not ripped off by some evil capitalist - because these particular evil capitalists save the lives of animals the city would put to sleep otherwise, and I'm glad they make a fair living at it. Attacking them is a strawman.

My point was it's pointless for me to register with the city. And there's no added benefit to do so. All it is is another yearly tax. And they lock people into dog parks and beaches designed for dogs and check your license. If you don't have one, you get a ticket. I have no idea how much the fine is for not registering, but I'm sure it's steep as is every ticket in this city.

>> ^blankfist:

My point was it's pointless for me to register with the city. And there's no added benefit to do so.

But there is a point, and a benefit. One I've pointed out to you several times. Just because you deny the benefit exists, or simply fail to appreciate it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

But then again, you weren't really interested in the answer to "why do I need a dog license?" in the first place, nor any of the other questions.

You just wanted to try to assert that none of these questions have legitimate answers. This one does.
>> ^blankfist:

And they lock people into dog parks and beaches designed for dogs and check your license. If you don't have one, you get a ticket. I have no idea how much the fine is for not registering, but I'm sure it's steep as is every ticket in this city.


Who's they? I'd bring my dog to work, but my work won't let me. I'd bring my dog to restaurants, but restaurants won't let me. I'd take my dog shopping with me, but the shops won't let me. I'd take my dog to the arboretum, nature preserve, or conservatory, but none of those privately owned parks would let me.

Oh, you're not really talking about your movement (with dog, anyway) being restricted, you're just grousing about how "they" probably can pretty easily enforce the license law. Indeed they can.

>> ^NetRunner:

But there is a point, and a benefit. One I've pointed out to you several times. Just because you deny the benefit exists, or simply fail to appreciate it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

The subtext was "to me", as in there's no benefit "to me". If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

I don't "need" a license no matter how many services the government wants to manufacture for my benefit. LA City Council recently okayed a multibillion dollar contract to build a hotel. Yes, a hotel. And I don't want to pay for that either, but surely you could reach deep into your sophist repertoire and tell me how that too is a benefit to me.

Again. I don't see any benefit (to me!) for having to pay to register my dog yearly. It's just another tax.

>> ^NetRunner:

Who's they? I'd bring my dog to work, but my work won't let me. I'd bring my dog to restaurants, but restaurants won't let me. I'd take my dog shopping with me, but the shops won't let me. I'd take my dog to the arboretum, nature preserve, or conservatory, but none of those privately owned parks would let me.
Oh, you're not really talking about your movement (with dog, anyway) being restricted, you're just grousing about how "they" probably can pretty easily enforce the license law. Indeed they can.


Not sure why you're bringing up shopping malls and restaurants. It's irrelevant to anything we've discussed. The dog parks and beaches are common areas paid for already by my taxes. I have a right to access them, but then sometimes the police lock the people into the parks and block the beach exits to check the licenses.

I seriously have no idea why you're bringing up restaurants and nature preserves. You seemed to have a separate narrative running in your head at all times.

>> ^blankfist:

The subtext was "to me", as in there's no benefit "to me".

Animal control is a benefit "to you", as in a benefit "to you".

For example, when's the last time you had to spend time worrying about rabid dogs?

Packs of feral dogs wandering the streets?

You can pretend that those are somehow obsolete problems that have been permanently solved, but those problems have never been problems during your lifetime because of the widespread practice of animal control.

It's also not something you can selectively opt out of in a person-by-person basis. The benefits will automatically go to the entire geographic region where it's done, just like pollution control.

But that's the thing, you don't really want to opt out of the service, you just want to be a free rider.

Which is why they enforce the license law.

@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.


And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.


What free lunch?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

What free lunch?


Animal control services, which animal control cannot physically selectively deny to just you.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

What free lunch?

Animal control services, which animal control cannot physically selectively deny to just you.


We pay insanely high taxes in this state and city, so I'm sure that should cover my fair share of whatever compulsory service animal control offers me.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

What free lunch?

Animal control services, which animal control cannot physically selectively deny to just you.

We pay insanely high taxes in this state and city, so I'm sure that should cover my fair share of whatever compulsory service animal control offers me.


So you're not demanding a free lunch, just demanding a discount because you think the price asked is too high.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

What free lunch?

Animal control services, which animal control cannot physically selectively deny to just you.

We pay insanely high taxes in this state and city, so I'm sure that should cover my fair share of whatever compulsory service animal control offers me.

So you're not demanding a free lunch, just demanding a discount because you think the price asked is too high.


I'm not demanding anything except that I don't want to register my dog with the city. Seems clear. You are oddly obtuse lately.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

What free lunch?

Animal control services, which animal control cannot physically selectively deny to just you.

We pay insanely high taxes in this state and city, so I'm sure that should cover my fair share of whatever compulsory service animal control offers me.

So you're not demanding a free lunch, just demanding a discount because you think the price asked is too high.

I'm not demanding anything except that I don't want to register my dog with the city. Seems clear. You are oddly obtuse lately.


Right, you're demanding to be exempt from paying the fee, and exempt from complying with the law.

To extend the metaphor, not only do you object to paying for the meal you've eaten, but you object to the idea that they make any record of what you've eaten for their books.

I think blankfist shouldn't be forced to pay a fee. Instead, he should be forced to spend a couple of hours a week cleaning the shoes of people who stepped into dog poo.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wait - isn't liberty about dogs having the freedom to poo wherever they want? >> ^campionidelmondo:

I think blankfist shouldn't be forced to pay a fee. Instead, he should be forced to spend a couple of hours a week cleaning the shoes of people who stepped into dog poo.

@dag Well that's the dream, but the reality is that dogs are not free. They're constantly ordered to sit, roll around or fetch numerous things by their oppressive tyrants (aka owners). Don't worry, the uprising is coming. Just the other day while driving through the countryside I saw evidence of resistance in form of many signs reading "free dogs". YES! Free them all!!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, again let me repeat: If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

And my argument to you (since you're literally ignoring what I just said) put simply is that you're demanding a free lunch, and calling the requirement to pay for things fascism.

What free lunch?

Animal control services, which animal control cannot physically selectively deny to just you.

We pay insanely high taxes in this state and city, so I'm sure that should cover my fair share of whatever compulsory service animal control offers me.

So you're not demanding a free lunch, just demanding a discount because you think the price asked is too high.

I'm not demanding anything except that I don't want to register my dog with the city. Seems clear. You are oddly obtuse lately.

Right, you're demanding to be exempt from paying the fee, and exempt from complying with the law.
To extend the metaphor, not only do you object to paying for the meal you've eaten, but you object to the idea that they make any record of what you've eaten for their books.


To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

I think blankfist shouldn't be forced to pay a fee. Instead, he should be forced to spend a couple of hours a week cleaning the shoes of people who stepped into dog poo.


What does cleaning up dog shit have to do with registering your dog with the city every year?

>> ^blankfist:

To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.


But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.

Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.

Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.

Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.

But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.
Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.
Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.
Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.

See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.

>> ^blankfist:


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.
See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.


You're not extending the metaphor, you're ignoring the metaphor, and creating a new one that doesn't represent reality.

A little Econ 101. Conventional market economics concerns things that are both rival and excludable. A resource that is rival can only be used by one person at a time (e.g. I'm eating this steak, so you can't eat it too). Excludable means it's relatively easy to keep someone else from using the commodity (e.g. put your excess steak in a freezer behind a locked door).

Animal control service is not excludable. If a rabid dog is in LA, and someone pays to have it removed, you get the benefit of that service just by living nearby. If you don't have a standing policy of removing all rabid dogs wherever they pop up, then you've got a problem everywhere, since rabid dogs don't care who paid for "animal control service" or not, they're just going to wander around spreading rabies randomly.

Animal control service is the steak. You're eating it by virtue of living in an area that has it. To refuse to pay for it is to demand a free lunch, not a refusal of the service.

If you want to really refuse the service, you need to move someplace where they don't practice animal control, or convince California to stop doing it completely.

Or they could leave people alone and not charge a silly annual tax for registering your pet with the city.

Either pay the fee and complain about it on the internet like a pussy or don't pay the fee like a patriot. Because if you think a law is unjust then ... and so on ... end quote.

Or be an uppity internet nerd and go around telling people they're doing it wrong. "Hey stop posting Ron Paul videos! But hey, did you see my umpteenth Fifa World Cup video?"

Or maybe I can be an annoying hypocrite and moan and piss about some copyright owner taking down my free internet videos?

Wow you ain't pretty when you get hyper defensive...talk about internet nerds...

I don't remember telling you what to post. Besides, I like RP. Now that you mention it I think I only ever posted one World Cup video...I think I'll have to change that.

Not sure how briefly writing about my action concerning my annoyance with UMG is hypocritical.

Anyways, if making up bullshit about me helps you get through the day go right ahead. I like to help people in need.

Hey, there's no offense, campi. I saw you dishing it out, so I thought I'd give it right back to you. Sorry if that offended you, but I thought you wanted to play rough with your repeated badgering. I'll tone it down so not to hurt your feelings, tough guy.

Hello peeps. Issy and I are having internet issues at our new place (fuck you AT&T) and won't have service until next week. It looks like Netrunner has things well in hand, but I'm missing the fracas' (fraci?) all the same. Take care and see you on the flippity flip.

In response to your post blankie, I like business, but don't like how they are running our government. Giving business even more power is a recipe for disaster. That is all.

Well done. As I was going down the list, I found myself trying to find a tune to go along with what I read. It almost reads like a 21st century version of John Lennons "Imagine".

>> ^blankfist:

Just a few things I decided to jot down today.