Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

Should infrastructure be publically owned? Hell yes. the only reason government exists is to build and maintain infrastructure, to provide necessary social services (fire protection, etc) and for defense.

This is as offensive to me as asking whether we should replace our army with mercenaries.



Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Wow, you missed the question big time.

I answered my own question, if you notice.

I'll bite though. If your article's solution isn't privately owned infrastructure, then what is it?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

(you could've read the article)

you're right, I could have.

Quote:

The solution outlined by Peron is basically a private entity owned by the public. A non-profit corporately owned infrastructure where all of the locals are considered shareholders, giving everybody a controlling interest. Tasks are determined by a board appointed by the shareholders and their decisions are voted upon by the shareholders.

Any surpluses acquired through tolls are payed back to the public by virtue of their individual ownership, and amount of use.

I guess surpluses could also be used to appropriate new infrastructure in cooperation with local government, but the shareholders would be voting on that, too.

It basically takes politics out of the equation, and since all money is acquired directly through tolls, there's no way road money can be diverted to other projects.

Oh, well then. I guess I'm not clear how I was mistaken when I said that infrastructure should be publically owned. Some sort of magic second government* is not public perse, no matter how many people are considered shareholders.

I don't know, Brady. I know that bad decisions were made at times, but I don't see how it would be helpful to make an entirely new concept of corporation / government that will handle a job that the government already does passibly well.

* that isn't elected or answerable to the sorts of things that government officials are answerable to! HOW COULD THIS FAIL.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It's not just bridge collapses either, general maintenance and potholes are a significant problem in many areas. If people own the roads, then they have an interest in insuring that they are being well maintained.

They're already publically owned. If you don't have an interest in your roads now, you never will.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Taxes aren't the problem, it's the appropriation of tax funds. If tax levels were a problem, Minnesota wouldn't have dropped 750,000,000 on a sports stadium for a private franchise.

Do you think that a tax levied last spring would have saved a bridge that, to all eyes who watch this sort of thing, had little indication that collapse was imminent?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No, I am saying precisely the opposite.

Then why do you / the article writer keep holding it up as an example of excessive pork-barrel spending in the context of this bridge? If you don't think it has anything to do with the bridge, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. You are being intellectually dishonest.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If a bridge collapses, then the corporation can't extract tolls from it, obviously. Replacing the bridge would be far more expensive than simply repairing it. So, in order to avoid the greatest negative, there's an incentive to keep the bridges in good condition.

Governments don't have this incentive, because if funds are required for a project, they are simply taken. There's no incentive for a government to avoid the greatest negative, since they're always making revenue through taxation. The result places road maintenance at a low priority, because it isn't in the government's interest to keep them well maintained.

You mean it doesn't cost the government any greater amount of money to build a new bridge vs. repair existing bridges? I.. what?

you're fucking trolling

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Let's say I accrue a tab at a local bar. It's been increasing for quite a while and it's been called in. I can't pay the tab, so I mug somebody and use the money I stole to pay it off. In this case, my tab is paid, but I lose nothing. The bar is paid, I take care of the debt, and the only person at a loss is the guy I mugged.

Governments do not lose money because they don't produce wealth. If budgets dip into deficits, then the deficit is financed by either an increase in taxes, buying debt, or printing money. In all three cases the government loses nothing, because it doesn't finance the deficit. Taxpayers do.

It costs taxpayers more to rebuild a bridge, and it costs the government nothing.

Oh, brady. You think taxes are like mugging people and that the government accrues defecit without any thought about the future. Sure, it might seem like that at times, but things are more complicated than that!

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

OF COURSE! It's more complicated than that! Thank you, Lurker, for reminding me that paying taxes under the threat of imprisonment isn't like a mugging,

It isn't.

Quote:

and that the government doesn't defecit spend without thinking about the consequences.

In general, they don't.

your libertarianism is the political equivalent of vore fetish. You sound like you're been out there and tried all the other things, but luckily it's imaginary so you don't actually have to do anything.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Taxation is theft,

Taxes are the price you pay for the three amenities the government affords you - infrastructure, social services, and defense.

you learn this in seventh grade

Quote:

Even then, you should understand why these projects cost the government nothing.

You're serious. You're bona-fide serious in that you think the government has unlimited resources.

Your libertarianism is an affected youth reading Mein Kampf in the only non-Starbucks coffee shop in town.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Paying taxes does not involve consent, since the taxes are extracted regardless.

Laws are also non-consentual.

that is so unfair

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No, I'm saying that the government does not lose anything, because it does not create.

Do you feel that companies who sell services do not create?

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yup, but laws aren't theft.

[...]

That doesn't counter my point.

You said taxes are theft. They are as much theft as laws are.

Quote:

So long as taxation isn't excessive, people will tolerate them.

yeah but the problem with that is that if you think taxes are excessive, you can't just claim they're theft.

Your libertarianism is a six year old who can't understand why mommy won't buy a barbie doll with the grocery money.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

A government does not have to compete to acquire the wealth it uses.

Brady, you keep saying this. Do you feel that there is one government only? If that is so, can you provide a quick definition of what that government is?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Don't give me that. It is impossible to opt out of any form of taxation because there is no frontier. All areas with the exception of the Antarctic (uninhabitable) are under the control of a government.

Oh. So, since all governments impose taxes, no government competes?

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because they are by definition theft.

No they're not.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Governments compete for immigrants by virtue of their policies, but they do not have to compete for revenue.

Do you think that foreign nationals are the only people governments compete for?

Furthermore, getting back to an earlier point, how are governments not producers of services?

Quote:

From my perspective, any initiation of force is wrong, and since taxation is the forceful seizure of wealth, then I consider it to be theft. It is no less wrong, no matter how one justifies it, for the same reason that killing a person is wrong even though it may be justified within context.

So are all obligations 'theft' to you?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

They are producers of services, the nature of the thing is that the government does not trade for its revenue, so the funds cannot be considered government property. In that sense, the wealth created by government services has actually been created by the taxpayers, since it is their money being invested.

It is at once both the property of the government and the property of the taxpayers, by virtue of their funds. It is Public. I'll ask again; why do you think the government has unlimited resources?

Quote:

Taxation is not an obligation. An obligation is something that you are compelled to do based on any criteria, but which you have a choice to fulfill. Being taxed is not a choice. Fulfilling an obligation is.

It is absolutely an obligation. It is not an obligation that holds no consequence for breaking, but very few obligations are.

Do you think that 'immigrants' are the only people for whom governments compete with each other over, and furthermore, how do you define an immigrant who has not yet left his current country?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I've already answered this question.

Quote:

So... it's an obligation in the same sense that I'm obliged to pay back my loan shark if I don't want my legs broken.

In that the government doesn't inflict physical damage on you not paying taxes in return for the services you receive, yes.

Quote:

Well no. Governments also have to try and keep people from emigrating and reducing the tax pool.

So the government is one homogenous entity that only concerns itself with retention?

Quote:

Edit: Also consider this: The bridge was payed for with Federal money, yet it's the state's responsibility to maintain it. States have to pay to maintain highways, while the Fed fronts the cash for new construction. Now that the bridge has collapsed, it hasn't cost the state anything to rebuild it, since the Federal Government has given them 250,000,000 to build a new one. Doesn't that reflect a conflict of interest?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were accusing the state of Minnesota of conspiracy and murder.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I'd probably rather have my legs broken than face a prison sentance, though.

And I'd rather you didn't drive on roads, educated by the school system, and have the protection of police, military and fire department that my hard-earned and gladly given tax dollars all paid for. But we can't all get what we want!

Quote:

No, each individual government is concerned with intention. Governments have tendencies in the same way that people do, and they're only interested in serving the people insofar as the people demand service. Since we've got a horrid incumbency rating, I think you can see why this is a problem.

is the government of the United States an individual government? That there are not internal agencies and governments on the state and local scale that all compete with each other for the small pool of tax dollars that are there?

god yo

Quote:

You're quite astute. I'm not accusing them of conspiracy and murder, I'm accusing them of negligence.

I ain't seeing the conflict of interest then.

Quote:

Putting carcinogens in the air is an unavoidable risk. An unsound bridge is not.

I would probably put the minnesota bridge at its known deficient state and your carcinogens at about the same level of risk.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

By driving a car, I am presenting a risk to other motorists and pedestrians. I can alleviate that risk by driving responsibility. The risk presented by a defective bridge is not alleviated by not repairing it.

Do you believe drunk driving presents an elevated risk?

Quote:

It's pretty obvious you have no interest in what I have actually said.

You are telling me that governments don't compete because they have unlimited wealth (but doesn't eliminate all taxes with all this unlimited wealth and defecit spending that they do). AND, that we should build one Corporation that is unelected and without oversight in order to take over our infrastructure - which, of course, they are suited for because corporations are competitive, even if it's the only game in town. No, all this is facinating, but my ethics preclude me from taking the words of a traitor seriously.

Quote:

Your liberalism is the slop cook in Oliver Twist's orphanage.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

You've never payed

I let it go the first time since everyone's entitled to a typo, but packrat asked me to tell you it's spelt 'paid'. Just passing the word along brah.

Quote:

Governments do not have unlimited wealth,

[...]

there is no incentive for them to maintain assets, because the loss is made up by levying a tax.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Do you believe drunk driving presents an elevated risk?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Simply being drunk does not make one a danger to others, despite the impact on their motor skills.

One would say that you are not a good judge of predictable liabilities!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Stop trolling this thread or I will ban you from it.

you really want me to hold your hand here?

You brought up the stadium and the tax increase several times in connection to misspending by the homogenized government (I will get to this in a moment). Given that no one who controls this sort of thing knew that the bridge was in danger of imminent collapse, it is doubtful that this tax increase would instead have paid for a repair of the bridge even if that was within the realm of possibility; even still, it would not have saved the bridge. You were being intellectually dishonest by bringing it up.

It is often cheaper and more economical to replace infractructure (bridges, roads etc) than to repair them. In fact, with the viaduct that fell during the earthquake, they had to rethink the entire design of viaducts after that disaster. Repairing it and retrofitting it would have been an expensive bandaid. You are wrong in this account.

Also, you feel that repair of the entire road system should come before new projects. I'm sure that you practice this philosophy in your personal life, making sure your credit card bills are paid before you go to to see The Bourne Ultimatum, but personal finance doesn't scale up to match the finances of an entire country. Frequently new road works are more necessary than filling potholes in your neighbourhood. You show a distressing lack of scale in thought.

You suggest a corporation will take the politics out of infrastructure. This is ridiculous but I will get to it in a moment. You tell me that we have "already gotten over" the one company business, but a quick scan of the thread shows you haven't really addressed it. So you are lying again.

Even still, due to the nature of the business, infrastructure companies really couldn't compete with each other, since everyone needs efficient roads that get them where they want to go. You have several times said that the very nature of corporations is that they compete, and that they produce the most effective use of funds due to this competition, but this competition within the infrastructure business couldn't exist. You are wrong on this account.

you suggest that anonymous 'shareholders' who have done nothing to earn their place in a corporation would have more interest in the goings-on of that corporation than the voters who have done nothing except gain citizenship to earn that right to vote. This shows a willfull ignorance of the behavior of people.

You say that 'politics' would be taken out of the equasion when we move to a corporate-based system, but then admit that the 'shareholders' would elect board members. that sounds like politics to any thinking man, and shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

You say that the corporation would compete with itself because no one would use shitty roads. This is obviously false. The corporation would still exact tolls, of the same price as would be for the road when it was new and perfect, for roads that were in serious disrepair. There is no incentive for the corporation to improve the road until it is undriveable. You are wrong.

You accuse sports teams of 'extortion' for threatning to leave if they don't get a new ballpark. But yet, this is free market bargaining. If a sports team is too prima-donna, no city will want them. let the market sort it out. You are betraying your free market ideals because it's crazy moon-man logic. You believe in crazy moon-man logic.

You hold the government responsible for not forseeing the bridge collapse. "17years known deficient, how dare they!" you say. RR already explained how human engineers can only predict 5% of cracks in bridges, but nevermind that. How dare you claim 20/20 hindsight on something that happened a week ago; not only is this a liberal trait, but most people have the decency to put a few months between themselves and the event before claiming they "knew it all along." The fact is, it was declared deficient 17 years ago, but there was a survey of the bridge not a few years ago and they saw nothing outstanding. Your company would not do a better job, since your company would be using the same people and techniques to judge bridges as the government does, and would not throw money on bridges unless it had to. You hold a naive, idealized view of corporations and it has made you wrong yet again.

You tell Styphon that people don't have to drive on roads, that they can use alternate forms of transportation. Most of those forms of transportation require the use of roads. Once again you are proven mistaken, and you dropped the point so rapidly I dare say you knew it.

You say being drunk doesn't present an elevated risk in and of itself (which is wrong: aside from the health risks of over drinking, you lose motor skills and impair your judgement which can lead to picking fights with bad dudes which is risky) while driving in and of itself is a risk; therefore, drunk driving is no additional risk. You play word games on the level of Gumby, who in the journals has been insisting that driving is a right and not a privilege. You should look in on that, that might be more up your alley.

You claim taxes are theft. This is incorrect.

You support the gold standard. This has nothing to do with the thread but jesus.

You support anarchy. This has everything to do with your thread. Jesus.

You give Mikey shit for rationalizing deaths when you do the very same. You care nothing for your fellow man but we already knew that, Oklahoma Sexy Patrol

You mock the concept of 'theft of liberty' in regards to breaking the law as theft (something that came out of your mouth and not mine), but then you say you would much rather suffer serious, debilitating bodily harm rather than suffer theft of freedom. you're the worst coward there is; you shit bricks when it's your turn to suffer, but you mock the fear of others who suffer the same.

You think that roads that are not bridges don't matter because they're not under the threat of falling down. You show a disturbing lack of imagination in that crumbling roads are still unsafe to drive. Will your corporation demonstrate the same lack of imagination?

You accuse my liberalism as being akin to the cook in Oliver Twist. Does this mean I don't feed starving poor children? That is nothing like bleeding heart liberalism. You don't know what a metaphor is.

You feel that paying tolls is consentual, but that driving on roads paid by your tax dollars (you already paid the tolls due to the virtue of being a tax payer) is non-consentual because you're not aware that accidents can happen. This is crazy moon-man logic again.

You suggest coyly that Minnesota was negligent (perhaps conspiring to do so?) and say that that is a conflict of interest. I asked you to elaborate but you never did. I can only assume you brought it up to, like I said before, accuse a state of conspiracy to murder in order to get sweet fundzzz.

You constantly whine about people not addressing the things you're discussing, but you dropped questions I have asked at least three times. You're a prima-donna with a short memory span.

You admit that the government produces services, but don't create. You also admit that companies that produce services create. You admit that both recieve revenue for their products. You have a difficult time with applying concepts in different contexts.

You have said many times that governments are non-competitive in any real meaningful sense of the word. I assume you're talking about federal governments, but the thing you haven't admitted at all is that the 'government' is not a homogenous entity. There are many different agencies within the federal government! There are state and local governments that jockey with each other for funds! There are many lobbyists all trying to get their cut!

Even though you say that the government has a steady income due to tax (laughable since taxes change all the time and affect different groups of varying wealth; additionally the government has different outgoing expenses that change from year to year, such as the Iraq war) this income is not infinite; even though the US government spends outside of its means frequently, it doesn't mean it hands blank checks to everyone with their hands out.

This is all stuff children know. The end result is that the government within the realm of itself is competing for funds for the road system as a whole, and that state and local governments within this sytem compete with each other for funds.

I asked you several times to no avail about this. I thought that you were trolling, at first, since this is your MO, but now I think you genuinely believe this shit, and you're just exaggerating for funs.

YOU ARE EDUCATED RETARDED.



you are a traitor




you have a fetish for the Man



damn LIEburls



go anarchy




you think governments have unlimited funds

damn LIEburls

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?

Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.
Ritalinal: u should!
Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?

Ritalinal: HUH?
Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D



you have a fetish for the Man






non political non political non political non political non-profit corporation owned by the people

damn LIEburls

tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)




damn LIEburls free rush

[b]Now this is the story all about how
My life got flipped, turned upside down
And I’d like to take a minute just sit right there
I’ll tell you how I became the prince of a town called bel-air

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

go anarchy :love:

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?
Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.


Ritalinal: u should!

Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?
Ritalinal: HUH?
Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D


GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE



In west philadelfia born and raised
On the playground where I spent most of my days
Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school
When a couple of guys said "we’re up in no good"
Started making trouble in my neighbourhood
I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
And said "you’re moving with your aunte and uncle in bel-air"

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE




(only the first three episodes of season one)

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE




GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


I begged and pleaded with her the other day
But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way
She gave me a kissin’ and she gave me my ticket
I put my walkman on and said I might aswell kick it

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE






First class, yo this is bad,
Drinking orange juice out of a champagne glass
Is this what the people of bel-air livin’ like,
Hmm this might be alright!



I whistled for a cab and when it came near the
Licensplate said "fresh" and had a dice in the mirror
If anything I could say that this cab was rare
But I thought now forget it, yo home to bel-air




I pulled up to a house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the cabby "yo, home smell you later"
Looked at my kingdom I was finally there
To settle my throne as the prince of bel-air




damn LIEburls

Alright fagts. Listen up, I'm not doing this for my health, I have other things do to than to put up with anonymous, but as a back up, I decided I'd make use of myself. Wuori and I became 'Friends.' And I've learned he is far sicker than you can imagine. This kid is obessed with /b/, I have my own personal vendetta, and problems with Anon. This kid makes that look like issues on a playground, what the fuck did you do to this fucking psycho. I have never met someone to hateful towards /b/, I broke off with him, and pity the poor bastard a lot. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how much you guys hate Shiahgo, or Humane Weapons. That's not my biggest issue, my issue is this fuck harassing me. Now. NEW INFORMATION REGARDING WUORI.

1. Wuori is a Runescaper. Account name Ritalina.

2. Wuori is a Gaiauser, Account name is unknown.


3. Wuori is so obessed with /b/, he is texting me at least 100 times a day with plans on revenage.

4. Wuori created an operation called 'Chanfire' planning on causing an inner chan war.













tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)

you have a fetish for the Man



non political non political non political non political non-profit corporation owned by the people

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?
Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.
Ritalinal: u should!
Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?
Ritalinal: HUH?


Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D









Alright fagts. Listen up, I'm not doing this for my health, I have other things do to than to put up with anonymous, but as a back up, I decided I'd make use of myself. Wuori and I became 'Friends.' And I've learned he is far sicker than you can imagine. This kid is obessed with /b/, I have my own personal vendetta, and problems with Anon. This kid makes that look like issues on a playground, what the fuck did you do to this fucking psycho. I have never met someone to hateful towards /b/, I broke off with him, and pity the poor bastard a lot. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how much you guys hate Shiahgo, or Humane Weapons. That's not my biggest issue, my issue is this fuck harassing me. Now. NEW INFORMATION REGARDING WUORI.



1. Wuori is a Runescaper. Account name Ritalina.





[img]
http://www.charitableirishsociety.org/images/AMERICAN%20FLAG.gif[/img]

2. Wuori is a Gaiauser, Account name is unknown.

3. Wuori is so obessed with /b/, he is texting me at least 100 times a day with plans on revenage.

4. Wuori created an operation called 'Chanfire' planning on causing an inner chan war.

how DARE the gub'mint take my money

shit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got real hackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroids



[b]Now this is the story all about how
My life got flipped, turned upside down
And I’d like to take a minute just sit right there
I’ll tell you how I became the prince of a town called bel-air

tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)

In west philadelfia born and raised
On the playground where I spent most of my days
Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school
When a couple of guys said "we’re up in no good"
Started making trouble in my neighbourhood
I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
And said "you’re moving with your aunte and uncle in bel-air"

(only the first three episodes of season one)

how DARE the gub'mint take my money

I begged and pleaded with her the other day
But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way
She gave me a kissin’ and she gave me my ticket
I put my walkman on and said I might aswell kick it



First class, yo this is bad,
Drinking orange juice out of a champagne glass
Is this what the people of bel-air livin’ like,
Hmm this might be alright!

I whistled for a cab and when it came near the
Licensplate said "fresh" and had a dice in the mirror
If anything I could say that this cab was rare
But I thought now forget it, yo home to bel-air

tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)

I pulled up to a house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the cabby "yo, home smell you later"
Looked at my kingdom I was finally there
To settle my throne as the prince of bel-air


GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


how DARE the gub'mint take my money



cocks

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Nicely played, Brady.

Most amazing jew boots