Q: What should we do about it?

A: We should make it 2 billion, then 3 billion, then 4 billion.

Why? Because we have learnt that supposed debts need not be paid. Global debts keep on keeping on. They don't need to be paid because they are really just a figment of the imagination.

There is no requirement at all to pay debts. Why? Because why do dogs lick their balls? Why do we not pay debts? Because we don't want to. Simple. Don't pay, unless you are an idiot.

There are plenty plenty of laws concerning our right of travel within Australia which contravene the current ridiculousness that some other citizen has the right to steal and crush one's car because they think that they may cause some damage. It's just BS. There are absolutely no rights for somebody within Australia to take somebody's property without contract agreement.

And here we get to the crux of the matter. If you pay the fine (or obligation as they put it), then you have unwittingly agreed to the contract.
If you do not pay the fine (obligation, as they put it), then there is really very little that they can "lawfully" do. But they do things anyway. They do very terrible things if you do not pay.

But where is the victim? Has a crime been committed?
They say that the crime is against society. Well sorry, for a crime to be committed, we really do need a tangible victim, not an imaginable source. Otherwise, no crime has actually ocurred.

Get with the strength and stop paying these ridiculous debts...they don't even exist.

I like your sentiment Amadd, but don't understand how we can put your recommendation into practice without doing ourselves a lot of damage.

As I understand it, if I do not pay a traffic fine the government will simply raise its threatened punishments, until ultimately I am in gaol or the government has confiscated a large chunk of my assets, or both. How do you suggest I avoid those unwanted consequences?

Perhaps a better approach would be for whimps like me to donate towards others who are better than we at evading the law, as payment for them to disable the government's revenue raising cameras along our roads, as fast as the government can fix and install them?

Slow down, don't run red lights, pay your parking fees. Cheat the government out of its traffic fines revenue - if that's your bag.


You make it out as if traffic rules were a government conspiracy to inconvenience and rob you.

It might not be a conspiracy, but some of the governments' traffic rules certainly inconvenience and rob us. Only whimpy government stooges would recommend obeying stupid laws when it's possible to ignore them.

Seems like there might be a pretty good market for radar detectors.

fawkes wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:

Only whimpy government stooges would recommend obeying stupid laws when it's possible to ignore them.

Couldn't expect much better from a self-absorbed bludger who, although claims he is comfortably off, feels he should be reimbursed 10 fold for the few taxes he paid in a lifetime for services he took for granted. Go live in a country that has no infrastructure... If nothing else you'll feel more justified in refusing to pay taxes.

fawkes wrote on Mar 8^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:

It might not be a conspiracy, but some of the governments' traffic rules certainly inconvenience and rob us. Only whimpy government stooges would recommend obeying stupid laws when it's possible to ignore them.

Which bit of the social contract covers YOUR responsibilities??

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 5:25pm:

Which bit of the social contract covers YOUR responsibilities??

There isn't one that I have ever agreed to.

fawkes wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 8:06pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 5:25pm: Which bit of the social contract covers YOUR responsibilities?? There isn't one that I have ever agreed to.

Not even the bit about paying you for being you?

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:

fawkes wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 8:06pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 5:25pm: Which bit of the social contract covers YOUR responsibilities?? There isn't one that I have ever agreed to. Not even the bit about paying you for being you?

;)

You may as well be speaking Greek to an Eskimo. Leeches don't feel the need even to thank their hosts for the blood, let alone give some back.

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 2:22pm:

Seems like there might be a pretty good market for radar detectors.

There might indeed, except that the government has made them illegal in cars, I believe. Illuminating, how one harassment leads to another!

Yes radar detectors are illegal to sell, purchase or possess in most states, which becomes sticky territory when people accept the right for governments to dictate terms such as these.
The police also use radar detector detectors. So there's another device that they allow themselves to use on us without consent.

There is evidence to suggest that these radar dector dectetors may possibly cause brain cancer. Is this a concern?
The next time that you have a radar gun pointed at you, you should realise that you might be sacrificing your own life for others without your explicit consent.
And like it or no, overhead speed cameras can pose the same possible risk.
As long as everybody is happy to be a martyr for the man, then everything will be smitten. Nevermind your kids who will get to watch you die slowly from the undiagnosed cause of your demise.


..that was just bs by the way. Inspired by religious discussion.

I'll take a wild guess that you're an Arab and possibly a Muslim. I feel sorry for you as every day you have to decide whether to stick with the Koran or follow Australia's Christian based laws.

The Koran doesn't believe in tax collectors (or taking money off someone) even though Iran Merchants were one of the first to incorporate taxes in the world.

I think this is why we see so many Arabs, in particular the lebanese, showing complete disregard for Australian Laws. In particularly on the road.

If you think about it our road laws turned to revenue raising around the same time we started to accept muslim lebanese into this country in the early 80's.

I remember the days when doing 180km's an hour in Australia was the norm.

Your lawless and suspicious race created this mess. Don't get me wrong I understand that either you or your teachers (parents) have come from a country where you have to be decietful to survive and where loose lips will definately sink ships.
;D

Quote:

Seems like there might be a pretty good market for radar detectors.

Seems like there may be a pretty good market for radar detector detector detectors.

Quote:

If you think about it our road laws turned to revenue raising around the same time we started to accept muslim lebanese into this country in the early 80's.

I know, right? AIDS was discovered too. And if I remember correctly, Azaria Chamberlain went missing in the 80s. I never bought that dingo story.


Arabs are evil, dude.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

fawkes wrote on Mar 8th, 2010 at 9:00pm: Only whimpy government stooges would recommend obeying stupid laws when it's possible to ignore them. Couldn't expect much better from a self-absorbed bludger who, although claims he is comfortably off, feels he should be reimbursed 10 fold for the few taxes he paid in a lifetime for services he took for granted. Go live in a country that has no infrastructure... If nothing else you'll feel more justified in refusing to pay taxes.

How can you call someone such names, when you have no idea who he/she maybe. It could be your neighbour.
A lot of insults flying around this subject.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 12:00am:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 9:00pm: fawkes wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 8:06pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 5:25pm: Which bit of the social contract covers YOUR responsibilities?? There isn't one that I have ever agreed to. Not even the bit about paying you for being you? ;) You may as well be speaking Greek to an Eskimo. Leeches don't feel the need even to thank their hosts for the blood, let alone give some back.

;D ;D ;D ;D

I got a $391 fine for running a yellow light two seconds after the light turned yellow. I took it up with the courts to just have the infringement notice removed out of a sense that the officer did not give enough time for me to react and stop over a distance of 20 metres. The magistrate acted like Helen Keller and claimed that there was enough evidence to say that I could have stopped within 1.5 seconds (and other things that meant that I was done on a technicality). My fine did not change and I had to pay court costs and some SPERS revenue-raising bs.

I can only hope that someone uses that $570 of that fine to put up a camera on that intersection so that other people do not get done for quota cops' need for relevancy during a quiet night on a public holiday.

I always plead guilty and a so far I've gotten off 3 out of 5 appearances with a cuff over the ear by the Magistrate for my 'attitude' though. 3 out of 5 also with Cops on the road as well. Not bad. Guilty as  ;) They also say I need to change my attitude.  :P

Jasin wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 4:52pm:

I always plead guilty and a so far I've gotten off 3 out of 5 appearances with a cuff over the ear by the Magistrate for my 'attitude' though. 3 out of 5 also with Cops on the road as well. Not bad. Guilty as  ;) They also say I need to change my attitude.  :P

Had I plead guilty for my infringement notice, I would have just had to pay $391 and 3 demerit points. But, I went all in and found that the magistrate was willing to overlook the fact that I caught her running a yellow light less difficult circumstance to stop for in her situation. The result was a $220 addition to my fine.

No magistrate would give a person a hard time over a guilty plea. You save the court time and money if you plead guilty. What irritates me is if the courts get presented a situation where an 18 y.o. driver gets involved in a traffic crash (which she causes), but gets away with a conviction as it was her first crash.

You just need to have that look in your eye that you know the Cop's sister Unsub.  ;)

Jasin wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 10:31pm:

You just need to have that look in your eye that you know the Cop's sister Unsub.  ;)

Uhuh. A narcissistic police officer who would not take any disagreement from a motorist. If he had a sister, she would probably be in therapy.

UnSubRocky wrote on Feb 25^th, 2021 at 2:56am:

Jasin wrote on Feb 24th, 2021 at 10:31pm: You just need to have that look in your eye that you know the Cop's sister Unsub.  ;) Uhuh. A narcissistic police officer who would not take any disagreement from a motorist. If he had a sister, she would probably be in therapy.

I would never cross the line working in the therapy industry.
His sister outside of the industry that needs therapy is a different matter.  ;)

I could not imagine that it would be a happy family.

Jasin wrote on Feb 26^th, 2021 at 2:01am:

I would never cross the line working in the therapy industry.

is that what patients call it these days? ;D ;D